[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 171 (Tuesday, November 6, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13991-S13999]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 2309. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify
the service treatable as service engaged in combat with the enemy for
utilization of non-official evidence for proof of service-connection in
a combat-related disease or injury; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce the proposed Compensation
for Combat Veterans Act. This legislation would remove a barrier to the
fair adjudication of claims for VA benefits filed by veterans who have
disabilities incurred or aggravated by their military service in combat
areas. Under existing law, veterans who can establish that they served
in combat do not have to produce official military records to support
their claim for disabilities related to that service.
At present, some veterans, disabled by their service in Iraq and
Afghanistan as well as those who served earlier in Korea and Vietnam,
are unable to benefit from this liberalizing evidentiary requirement
because they have difficulty proving personal participation in combat
by official military documents.
Under an opinion of the Department of Veterans Affairs General
Counsel, VA GC Opinion 12-99, veterans must establish by official
military records or decorations that they ``personally participated in
events constituting an actual fight or encounter with a military foe or
hostile unit or instrumentality.'' Oversight visits by Committee staff
to VA regional offices have found claims denied as a result of this
policy because those who served in combat zones were not able to
produce official military documentation of their personal participation
in an actual fight.
Some of these cases include a Marine Combat Engineer serving in Iraq
who encountered IEDs, an Army veteran accidently shot in Iraq by a
fellow servicemember, and an Army Infantryman whose records showed
participation in the Tet offensive of 1968, but not ``personal
participation in an actual fight.'' In other cases, extensive delays in
claims processing occur while VA adjudicators attempt to obtain
official military documents showing that a Marine who served in Bagdad
or Fallujah was personally exposed to IEDs.
The legislation I am introducing would overturn the General Counsel
precedent opinion. I believe that the requirement in that opinion is
inconsistent with the original intent of Congress in liberalizing the
requirements for proof of service-connection in cases involving
veterans who served in combat areas. As the Senate noted in 1941, in
the report on the original bill providing special consideration for
combat veterans:
The absence of an official record of care or treatment in
many of such cases is readily explained by the conditions
surrounding the service of combat veterans. It was emphasized
in the hearings that the establishment of records of care or
treatment of veterans in other than combat areas, and
particularly in the States, was a comparatively simple matter
as compared with the veteran who served in combat. Either the
veteran attempted to carry on despite his disability to avoid
having a record made lest he might be separated from his
organization or, as in many cases, the records themselves
were lost.
S. Rep. 77-902 to H.R. 4905 at 2.
While some improvements have been made since 1941 in obtaining and
maintaining records in combat areas, record keeping and transmittal of
records in combat areas remains problematic.
This bill would require that, in cases in which the veteran can
demonstrate service in a recognized combat area and alleges
disabilities related to that service the relaxed evidentiary principles
intended by the Congress would apply, with no requirement for further
evidence from the veteran regarding his or her specific activity.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure, so that combat
veterans of the current conflicts, as well as those who served in
earlier conflicts, can receive the benefits they deserve in a timely
manner.
______
By Mr. ALEXANDER:
S. 2312. A bill to amend title VI of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to provide for State student achievement
contracts; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, Senators Kennedy and Enzi have recently
said that early in 2008 the Senate will consider whether to authorize
No Child Left Behind.
That law, which was enacted in 2001 as a part of the regular 5-year
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, required
every State to set standards for math and reading and to test each
child once a year in grades 3 through 8, and once in high school, in
order to measure their progress toward meeting these State standards.
In addition, the law requires States to report the results in a
disaggregated way, meaning according to racial, ethnic, socioeconomic
status, disability, and limited English proficiency, report the status
of the children so it would be clearer whether groups of children are
being left behind in their academic progress.
So my purpose today is, first, to announce my support for the
reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act but ask that we find a
better way to do the job of reporting results. We should be trying to
catch schools doing things right rather than seeming to penalize them
for doing things wrong.
Second, to introduce legislation providing for greater flexibility in
administering the law for up to a dozen States, if those States agree
to maintain a high level or increase the rigor of the program, their
standard-setting process, and reporting requirements.
Third, to express my concerns about early drafts and proposals of
reauthorizing legislation that seem to require more Federal control and
less State responsibility for results--the reverse of what we should be
seeking to achieve.
Finally, I wish to call attention to several parts of the legislation
that need to be strengthened and expanded: Support for teaching
American history; the Teacher Incentive Fund; charter schools, which I
know the Presiding Officer has been very interested in for a long time;
and State collection of data to aid States in measuring student
progress.
First, support for reauthorization. I have decided to cosponsor the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2007, which has been authored by Senators
Burr and Gregg, because I believe it represents a sound foundation for
eventual reauthorization of the legislation. This legislative draft
leaves in place the framework of the 2001 law: high goals, State
standards, and disaggregated reporting of results, and it addresses
some obvious deficiencies in the existing legislation, including more
flexibility in helping children learn English, in measuring the
progress of children with disabilities, and in how to report the
progress of children who make great progress but still fall behind
their goals. This bill--the Burr-Gregg bill--does not retreat from the
bold goal that all children will be proficient in reading and math
according to each State's standards by the 2013-2014 school year. Some
have argued that sets schools up for failure. I would argue it is the
American way to set high goals and then to
[[Page S13992]]
attempt to reach them. Our Declaration of Independence does not say
``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'' for 80 percent of us.
Our national character is not that some things are possible. Rightly or
wrongly, we Americans uniquely believe that anything is possible for
all of us, and much of our politics and debates in this body are about
dealing with the disappointment of not reaching high goals that we set
for ourselves, and then, of course, we set out and try again to achieve
them.
I do think we would be wise to find a different way to talk about the
progress of schools in reaching those high goals. Most schools, at
least today, are succeeding in reaching their State's No Child Left
Behind standards. There are more than 100,000 schools in the United
States. According to the U.S. Department of Education, over 20 percent
of those--21,000--did not make adequate yearly progress. Of those
21,000 schools, about one-fourth missed their goals by one subgroup of
students.
The same is true in Tennessee. According to our Department of
Education, there are 1,710 public schools. There were 245--or 15
percent--which did not make adequate yearly progress. Of those, 127
didn't do it because of one subgroup.
Therefore, I suggest we find a different way to talk about progress.
Schools that reach their goals might be called ``high-achieving
schools.'' Schools that do so for more than 1 year in a row might be
called the ``highest achieving schools.'' Schools that, on the other
hand, miss their goal by only one subgroup might be called ``achieving
schools,'' and those that do not do as well might be called priority
schools.
Second: A new State contract for flexibility. I am introducing today
the State Student Achievement Contract which I will work to make a part
of No Child Left Behind. The idea is simple: Now that we have 5 years
of experience with No Child Left Behind, we should toss the ball back
to at least some States and see whether those States can implement the
law with at least as much rigor in reporting, more flexibility, and
more innovation.
I know if the Presiding Officer and I were still Governors of our
respective States, we would want to try that over the next 5 years.
This proposal would allow up to 12 States to negotiate with the U.S.
Secretary of Education to enter into a State student achievement
contract, which would permit States to improve their own systems of
accountability, and in exchange, receive the necessary flexibility to
innovate on finding ways to close the achievement gap.
In other words, instead of saying: ``Do it exactly this way'' to the
States, the Federal Government would be saying: ``Give us results, and
we will give you more flexibility.''
In determining which States would be eligible for this new contract,
the Secretary would expect States to increase their standards,
assessments, and expectations of students.
Washington, DC, itself is not going to make schools better in
Wilmington, Maryville, Kansas City, and Sacramento. This can only
happen locally, when parents, teachers, communities, and State
officials take charge. In fact, No Child Left Behind is simply an
extension of the State standards movement that began in the 1980s in
most States. While it requires the setting of standards and requires
public reporting, the solution to the problem of low-achieving students
is left in the hands of communities, where it must be left. In fact,
only 8 percent of funding of public schools comes from the Federal
Government.
So this proposal seeks to recognize that solutions are local, to
encourage those States that are trying the boldest programs, and to
permit the flexibility needed to achieve those results.
Third, creeping Federal control. One reason I have introduced the
State contract proposal is I don't want the reauthorization of No Child
Left Behind to become a vehicle for increased Federal control of local
schools. In fact, now that the first 5 years of confusion and learning
the new law are completed, there ought to be fewer Federal
requirements, not more. After all, the law is essentially a requirement
for State standards and reporting disaggregated results.
But, unfortunately, Washington doesn't work that way. Our motto seems
to be: Once we have stuck our noses into something, we will meddle with
it forever. In some of the early drafts of No Child Left Behind, I have
seen examples of increased Federal regulation that in my view offer the
prospect of more Federal control and less local accountability. It
ought to be the other way around.
Finally, there are three special provisions of No Child Left Behind
that, based upon the first 5 years' experience, need to be expanded.
One, teaching American history. The late Albert Shanker, president of
the American Federation of Teachers, once said the rationale for a
public school is to teach immigrant children the three Rs and what it
means to be an American, with the hope they would go home and teach
their parents. Yet the lowest test scores for American high school
seniors is not math or reading or science, it is U.S. history. Senators
Kennedy, Enzi, and I have worked to create some new provisions for this
reauthorization which would encourage putting the teaching of American
history back in its rightful place in our schools so our children can
grow up learning what it means to be an American. These provisions
include: The teaching traditional American history provision. That was
put in 5 years ago. It is a program of grants to school districts to
encourage professional development and teaching of American history. It
has been very successful. Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd have had a
major part in this law.
Next, Presidential and congressional academies. The pilot programs
for these summer academies for outstanding teachers and students of
American history have been low cost and very successful. It is my hope
that in a partnership with States and the private sector, these can be
expanded to a total of 100 each summer. They are very much similar to
the Governors' schools many States have for students and for teachers.
David McCullough has suggested perhaps we can match up the 10-year
centennial program for national parks with these summer programs for
students and teachers of U.S. history. Imagine what it would be like
for a group of U.S. history teachers to spend a week with David
McCullough at the Adams House in Quincy, MA.
Finally, a 10-State pilot program in U.S. history NAEP. Currently,
the National Assessment of Education Progress--the Nation's report
card--only measures student achievement in history every 4 years. We
don't get State-level data; only a national sample of student
achievement. Senator Kennedy and I have offered legislation to create a
10-State pilot program so there can be State-level data for 10 States,
which will reflect the importance of this subject to our Nation and
call attention to student progress or lack thereof in American history.
A second area of special emphasis that ought to be considered when we
reauthorize No Child Left Behind is the Teacher Incentive Fund. After
parents, nothing is more important to a child's success than the
classroom teacher. In every hearing we have in the Senate, a witness
emphasizes the need to attract specially equipped teachers for math,
for science, for children with disabilities, for inner-city schools,
for gifted students, and other special needs. Yet we struggle in this
country with an across-the-board pay mentality that will not allow
schools to lift themselves up when it comes to attracting and keeping
outstanding classroom teachers.
Finding fair ways to pay teachers more for teaching well is not easy.
I have tried it. But during the last 5 years, the Teacher Incentive
Fund has helped at least three dozen cities, usually working with local
teachers' unions, to find new ways to train and reward outstanding
teachers and principals. We need to do as much of this as we possibly
can. I wish to thank and acknowledge Senator Durbin of Illinois, the
Democratic whip, for working with me to make certain that
appropriations for this program continue.
Then, charter schools. I mentioned earlier the Presiding Officer was
a national leader on charter schools when he was Governor of Delaware.
Last year, I visited a charter school in Memphis. It was the Easter
holiday, except those ninth graders weren't on vacation, they were in
class. To be specific, they were in a ninth grade advanced
[[Page S13993]]
placement biology class. What was special was these children had come
from so-called low-performing schools. To be blunt, they were labeled
the least likely to succeed, except they were succeeding. This was
because they were getting extra help during holidays, longer school
days, Saturdays, and from special teachers.
The idea of a public charter school is simply to give teachers the
freedom to use their common sense and their skills to help the children
who are presented to them--freedom from Federal, State, and union rules
so they can do it. It is nonsensical to me that we don't encourage,
rather than discourage, such public charter schools.
Most of our children are learning, but for the 15 percent or so who
are having genuinely special challenges in learning, it will take
different kinds of schools, even better teachers and different methods.
In this reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, we must do all of
these things to cause that to happen.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
a letter addressed to Senator Kennedy be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be placed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2312
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. STATE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT CONTRACTS.
(a) Amendment.--Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7301 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating part C (20 U.S.C. 7371 et seq.) as
part D;
(2) by redesignating sections 6301 and 6302 (20 U.S.C.
7371, 7372) as sections 6401 and 6402, respectively; and
(3) by inserting after part B (20 U.S.C. 7341 et seq.) the
following:
``PART C--STATE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT CONTRACTS
``SEC. 6301. SHORT TITLE.
``This part may be cited as the `State Student Achievement
Contracts Act'.
``SEC. 6302. PURPOSE.
``The purpose of this part is to allow not more than 12
State educational agencies, that establish and implement
challenging and rigorous academic standards, academic
assessments, and accountability systems, greater flexibility
to--
``(1) improve their academic achievement standards,
academic assessments, and State accountability systems;
``(2) increase the academic achievement of all students;
``(3) narrow achievement gaps between the lowest- and
highest-achieving groups of students; and
``(4) eliminate barriers to implementing effective
education reforms.
``SEC. 6303. STATE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT CONTRACTS.
``(a) Authority.--In accordance with this part, the
Secretary shall establish and implement procedures that
permit the Secretary to enter into a State student
achievement contract, on a competitive basis, with not more
than 12 State educational agencies, under which such a State
educational agency may--
``(1) waive any statutory or regulatory requirement of any
program under this Act (other than a requirement of this
part) under which the Secretary awards funds to States on the
basis of a formula, including such a requirement applicable
to any local educational agency or school within the State,
except those requirements relating to--
``(A) maintenance of effort;
``(B) comparability of services;
``(C) equitable participation of students and professional
staff in private schools;
``(D) allocation or distribution of funds to local
educational agencies, subject to paragraph (2);
``(E) serving eligible school attendance areas in rank
order under section 1113(a)(3);
``(F) the selection of a school attendance area or school
under subsections (a) and (b) of section 1113, except that
such a State educational agency may grant a waiver to allow a
school attendance area or school to participate in activities
under part A of title I if the percentage of children from
low-income families in the school attendance area or who
attend such school is not less than 10 percentage points
below the lowest percentage of such children for any school
attendance area or school in the State that meets the
requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of section 1113;
``(G) use of Federal funds to supplement, not supplant,
non-Federal funds;
``(H) applicable civil rights requirements; and
``(I) prohibitions regarding--
``(i) State aid described in section 9522;
``(ii) use of funds for religious worship or instruction
described in section 9505; and
``(iii) uses of funds for activities described in section
9526;
``(2) use funds made available to the State for State-level
activities under section 1004, paragraph (4) or (5) of
section 1202(d), section 2113(a)(3), section 2412(a)(1),
subsection (a)(1) (with the agreement of the chief executive
officer of the State), (b)(2), or (c)(1) of section 4112,
section 4202(c), or section 5112(b), to carry out the uses of
funds under 1 or more of such sections, paragraphs, or
subsections, or under part A of title I, except that any such
funds so used shall not be subject to allocation or
distribution requirements under such sections, paragraphs,
subsections, or part;
``(3) allow local educational agencies in the State to use
funds made available under section 2121, 2412(a)(2)(A),
4112(b)(1), or 5112(a) to carry out the uses of funds under 1
or more of such sections or under part A of title I, except
that any such funds so used shall not be subject to
allocation or distribution requirements under such sections
or part; and
``(4) require local educational agencies identified under
subsection (b)(5)(C) to use funds in accordance with
paragraph (3) in order to effectively implement the
intervention described in subsection (b)(5)(D).
``(b) State Applications.--To be eligible to enter into a
State student achievement contract under this part, a State
educational agency shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may reasonably require. The
application shall demonstrate that the State is in full
compliance with all requirements of part A of title I, as
such part was in effect on the day before the date of
enactment of the State Student Achievement Contracts Act,
relating to academic standards, assessments, and
accountability, and shall include the following:
``(1) Evidence.--Evidence that the proposed contract was
reviewed by independent experts with knowledge and expertise
in educational standards, assessments, and accountability.
``(2) Standards.--A demonstration, consistent with section
1111(b)(1)(A), through a documented and validated standards-
setting process, including an independent, external review,
that the State academic content standards, State student
academic achievement standards, and educational objectives
under paragraph (12), are--
``(A) fully articulated and aligned across kindergarten
through grade 12, and include college and career-ready
standards for secondary school graduation, including aligned
course-level outcomes, developed in consultation with the
State agency responsible for higher education, institutions
of higher education, and representatives of the business
community; or
``(B) at least as rigorous as national or international
education standards and objectives measuring long-term trends
and student academic achievement standards and objectives.
``(3) Assessments.--
``(A) Assurances.--An assurance that the State will--
``(i) assess students in the subjects and grades described
in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(v) and (vii), conduct such
assessment annually, and comply with section 1111(b)(7);
``(ii) demonstrate to the Secretary that any assessment
used by the State and conducted under subparagraph (A) meets
the requirements of clauses (i) through (iv) and (vi) through
(xv) of section 1111(b)(3)(C); and
``(iii) describe any other student academic assessments the
State educational agency will use, consistent with section
1111(b)(4), as part of the State's accountability system
described in paragraph (5).
``(B) Information.--Information demonstrating that the
State is administering assessments that are aligned with the
standards described in paragraph (2), or will administer such
aligned assessments in the next school year.
``(4) Disaggregation.--An assurance that--
``(A) the State will disaggregate data in the same manner
as data are disaggregated under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II);
and
``(B) student performance data will be disaggregated in the
same manner as data are disaggregated under section
1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii).
``(5) Accountability system.--An explanation of how the
State will use the State's authority described in subsection
(a) to develop and implement--
``(A) statewide annual measurable objectives which shall--
``(i) be set separately for all assessments used by the
State under paragraph (3);
``(ii) be the same for all schools and local educational
agencies in the States;
``(iii) identify a single minimum percentage of students
who are required to meet or exceed the proficient level on
the academic assessments that applies separately to each
group of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II);
and
``(iv) ensure that all students will meet or exceed the
State's proficient level of academic achievement on the State
assessments within the State's timeline described in
paragraph (6).
``(B) a single, statewide accountability system consistent
with the requirements of section 1111(b)(2);
``(C) a comprehensive, uniform system for identifying
schools and local educational agencies for intervention based
on achievement towards meeting proficiency targets
established under paragraph (6) for students and subgroups
that are disaggregated under paragraph (4); and
``(D) a comprehensive, uniform system for providing
intervention to schools and local educational agencies
identified under subparagraph (C), including a specific
description and explanation of--
[[Page S13994]]
``(i) specific interventions that will be provided to all
schools and local educational agencies so identified--
``(I) which shall include providing options to students in
schools so identified, including options regarding--
``(aa) supplemental educational services that will be
provided consistent with 1116(e); or
``(bb) public school choice that will be provided
consistent with section 1116(b)(1)(E); and
``(II) which may include--
``(aa) targeted intervention by the State or local
educational agency;
``(bb) replacement of school personnel; and
``(cc) conversion of a public school into a public charter
school;
``(ii) how the State or local educational agency will
monitor local educational agency or school performance over
time and impose more stringent measures on local educational
agencies or schools, respectively, the longer local
educational agencies or schools, respectively, do not make
adequate yearly progress; and
``(iii) how the State will ensure that local educational
agencies or schools that do not make adequate yearly progress
for 5 consecutive school years undertake alternate governance
arrangements.
``(6) Student proficiency targets.--A demonstration and
explanation of the State trajectory that is in place for all
students to meet proficiency targets--
``(A) by the timelines established in sections
1111(b)(2)(E) and 1111(b)(2)(F); or
``(B) in not more than 3 years and upon graduation from
secondary school.
``(7) Teacher quality.--An assurance that the State has
rigorous teacher quality standards, which may include State
determined teacher effectiveness standards, that reflect
clear and fair measures of teacher and principal performance
based on demonstrated improvements in student academic
achievement.
``(8) Data systems.--A demonstration that the State
educational agency has an effective data system capable of
reporting classroom and school level data.
``(9) Waivers.--A list of any statutory or regulatory
requirements that the State intends to waive for local
educational agencies and schools within the State as part of
the State student achievement contract and the process the
State educational agency will use to evaluate and grant such
waivers.
``(10) State approval.--An assurance that the proposed
State student achievement contract was developed by the State
educational agency in consultation with local educational
agencies, teachers, principals, pupil services personnel,
administrators (including administrators of programs
described in parts A through H of title I), and parents, and
was approved by not less than 1 of the following:
``(A) The Governor of the State.
``(B) The State legislature.
``(11) Duration.--A statement that the duration of the
State student achievement contract shall be for a period of
not more than 5 years.
``(12) Educational objectives plan.--A plan, for the
duration of the State student achievement contract, that
describes the educational objectives the State educational
agency plans to achieve, which objectives shall meet
requirements similar to the requirements of clauses (i)
through (v) of section 1111(b)(2)(G).
``(13) Consolidated funds.--A description of the funds the
State educational agency intends to use in accordance with
subsection (a)(2) and how the funds will be used.
``(14) State report card.--An assurance that the State will
disseminate the information, including school and school
district level information, required in section 6304 to all
parents in the State.
``(c) States That Plan To Adopt More Rigorous Standards and
Assessments.--
``(1) In general.--A State educational agency that does not
meet the requirements of subsection (b)(2) or (3) may apply
for and (subject to the limit on the number of States that
may be approved under this part pursuant to subsection (a))
be granted waiver authority under paragraph (2) if the State
educational agency--
``(A) meets the requirements of paragraph (1) and
paragraphs (4) through (14) of subsection (b); and
``(B) includes a plan, satisfactory to the Secretary, to
meet the requirements of subsection (b)(2) or (3).
``(2) Waiver.--A State educational agency described in
paragraph (1) whose application is approved under this part
is authorized to waive statutory and regulatory requirements
applicable to local educational agencies and schools (other
than any such requirement described in subparagraphs (A)
through (I) of subsection (a)(1)) under the following
programs:
``(A) Part A of title I, other than for sections 1111 and
1116.
``(B) Subpart 3 of part B, and parts C, D, and F, of title
I.
``(C) Subparts 2 and 3 of part A of title II.
``(D) Subpart 1 of part D of title II.
``(E) Part A of title III.
``(F) Subpart 1 of part A of title IV.
``(G) Part A of title V.
``(d) Approval of State Student Achievement Contracts.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the receipt
of a State student achievement contract application submitted
by the State educational agency, the Secretary shall--
``(A) receive recommendations from the peer review panel
established in paragraph (2); and
``(B) approve the State student achievement contract or
provide the State educational agency with a written
explanation of the reasons the State student achievement
contract fails to satisfy a purpose, goal, or a requirement
of this part.
``(2) Peer-review process.--In carrying out paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall--
``(A) establish an independent peer review panel to
evaluate, and make recommendations for approval or
disapproval of, State student achievement contract
applications; and
``(B) appoint individuals to the peer review panel who
are--
``(i) knowledgeable of, and have expertise in, educational
standards, assessments, and accountability; and
``(ii) representative of State educational agencies and
organizations representing State agencies or Governors.
``(3) Disapproval of contract.--If the Secretary
disapproves a State's student achievement contract
application, then the State educational agency shall have 60
days to resubmit a revised State student achievement
contract. Subject to the 12 State educational agency
limitation described in subsection (a), the Secretary shall
approve the revised State student achievement contract within
60 days of receipt of the revised contract or provide the
State with a written determination that the revised State
student achievement contract fails to satisfy a purpose,
goal, or requirement of this part.
``(e) Amendment to Achievement Contract.--
``(1) In general.--A State educational agency may submit to
the Secretary amendments to the State student achievement
contract, on an annual basis. The Secretary shall submit the
amendments to the peer review panel.
``(2) Review of amendment.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the receipt
of a proposed State student achievement contract amendment
submitted by a State educational agency, the Secretary shall
receive recommendations from the peer review panel and
approve the amendment or provide the State educational agency
with a written determination that the amendment fails to
satisfy a purpose, goal, or requirement of this part.
``(B) Treatment as approved.--Each amendment for which the
Secretary fails to take the action required in subparagraph
(A) in the time period described in such subparagraph shall
be considered approved.
``SEC. 6304. ANNUAL REPORTS.
``(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the
execution of a State student achievement contract under this
part, and annually thereafter, each State educational agency
executing such a contract shall disseminate widely to
parents, the general public, and the Secretary, a report that
includes a description, in an understandable manner, of how
the State educational agency has used Federal funds under the
contract to improve academic achievement, narrow the
achievement gap, and improve educational opportunities for
the disadvantaged. Each such report shall include--
``(1) information, in the aggregate, on student achievement
at each proficiency target described in section 6303(b)(6) on
the State academic assessments, disaggregated by race,
ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status, English
proficiency, and status as economically disadvantaged, except
that such disaggregation shall not be required in a case in
which the number of students in a category is insufficient to
yield statistically reliable information or the results would
reveal personally identifiable information about an
individual student;
``(2) information that provides a comparison between--
``(A) the actual achievement levels of each group of
students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v); and
``(B) the State's annual measurable objectives for each
such group of students on each of the academic assessments
described in the educational objectives plan described in
section 6303(b)(12);
``(3) the percentage of students not tested (disaggregated
by the same categories and subject to the same exception
described in paragraph (1));
``(4) the graduation rates for secondary school students
(disaggregated by the same categories and subject to the same
exception described in paragraph (1));
``(5) information on the performance of local educational
agencies in the State regarding student academic achievement,
including schools not meeting proficiency targets described
in section 6303(b)(6);
``(6) the professional qualifications of teachers in the
State, and the percentage of classes in the State not taught
by a teacher meeting State qualifications, in the aggregate
and disaggregated by high-poverty compared to low-poverty
schools which, for the purpose of this paragraph, means
schools in the top quartile of poverty and the bottom
quartile of poverty, respectively, in the State;
``(7) a description of improvement methods used to assist
local educational agencies and schools in meeting the
proficiency targets described in section 6303(b)(6); and
``(8) a description of the State's accountability system
described in section 6303(b)(5), including a description of
the criteria by
[[Page S13995]]
which the State evaluates school performance, and the
criteria that the State has established to determine the
progress of schools in meeting the goals established by the
State.
``(b) Submission to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit
the reports received under subsection (a) to Congress,
together with any other information the Secretary considers
appropriate.
``SEC. 6305. PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND EARLY TERMINATION.
``(a) Review.--For each State having in effect a State
student achievement contract under this part, the peer review
panel established in section 6303(d)(2) shall carry out a
review of the contract, after completion of the second school
year of the contract, in order to--
``(1) determine whether the State has met the terms of the
contract described in section 6303; and
``(2) make recommendations to the Secretary.
``(b) Early Termination.--After taking into consideration
the recommendations received under subsection (a)(2) from the
peer review panel and after providing a State educational
agency with notice and an opportunity for a hearing, the
Secretary shall--
``(1) terminate a State student achievement contract,
before the contract expires, if the State does not, for 3
consecutive school years, meet the terms of the contract
described in section 6303; or
``(2) withhold funds under this Act.
``SEC. 6306. EVALUATION.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall enter into a
contract, with an independent organization outside of the
Department, for a 5-year, rigorous, scientifically valid,
quantitative evaluation of this part.
``(b) Process.--The evaluation under subsection (a) shall
be conducted by an organization that is capable of designing
and carrying out an independent evaluation that identifies
the effects of activities carried out by State educational
agencies and local educational agencies under this part on
improving student academic achievement.
``(c) Analysis.--The evaluation under subsection (a) shall
include an analysis of the following:
``(1) The implementation of activities assisted under this
part and the impact of such implementation on increasing
student academic achievement (particularly in schools with
high concentrations of children living in poverty), relative
to the goal of all students reaching the proficient level of
academic achievement based on State academic assessments,
challenging State academic content standards, and challenging
State student academic achievement standards under section
6303.
``(2) Each participating State educational agency's method
of identifying schools under 6303(b)(5)(C), including--
``(A) the impact on schools, local educational agencies,
and the State;
``(B) the number of schools and local educational agencies
so identified; and
``(C) the changes in the identification of schools and
local educational agencies as a result of such
identification.
``(3) How schools, local educational agencies, and
participating States educational agencies have used the
flexibility under section 6303(a) and Federal, State, and
local educational agency funds and resources to support
schools and provide technical assistance to improve the
academic achievement of students in low-performing schools,
including the impact of the technical assistance on such
academic achievement.
``(4) The extent to which interventions described in
section 6303(b)(5)(D) are implemented by the participating
State educational agencies and local educational agencies to
improve the academic achievement of students in low-
performing schools, and the effectiveness of the
implementation of such interventions, including the
following:
``(A) The number of schools and local educational agencies
identified under section 6303(b)(5)(C) and how many years the
schools or local educational agencies remain so identified.
``(B) The types of support provided by the State
educational agency and local educational agency to schools
and local educational agencies respectively, so identified,
and the impact of such support on student academic
achievement.
``(C) The implementation and impact of actions that are
taken with regard to schools and local educational agencies
under section 6303(b)(5)(D)(iii).
``(d) Reports.--
``(1) Interim report.--Not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of the State Student Achievement Contracts
Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the
Committee on Education and Labor of the House of
Representatives, an interim report on the analysis conducted
under this subsection.
``(2) Final report.--Not later than 5 years after the date
of enactment of the State Student Achievement Contracts Act,
the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the
Committee on Education and Labor of the House of
Representatives, a final report on the analysis conducted
under this subsection.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 2
of such Act (20 U.S.C. 6301 note) is amended--
(1) by redesignating the item relating to part C of title
VI as the item relating to part D of title VI;
(2) by redesignating the items relating to sections 6301
and 6302 as the items relating to sections 6401 and 6402,
respectively; and
(3) by inserting after the item relating to section 6324
the following:
``PART C--State Student Achievement Contracts
``Sec. 6301. Short title.
``Sec. 6302. Purpose.
``Sec. 6303. State student achievement contracts.
``Sec. 6304. Annual reports.
``Sec. 6305. Performance review and early termination.
``Sec. 6306. Evaluation.''.
____
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.
Senator Edward Kennedy,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Kennedy: As the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions continues to consider
legislative changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, I am writing to express my concerns about efforts to
further federalize control of decisions regarding education
policy that are best made at the state and local level. Over
the past 5 years, state and school district leaders,
teachers, parents, and students have made great efforts to
increase accountability and improve student achievement as
they have worked to comply with the No Child Left Behind Act.
I worry about efforts to inappropriately increase federal
control of decisions regarding education policy that are best
made at the state and local level in the name of greater
accountability. Unfortunately, in many respects, more
mandates from Washington may also lead to less
accountability. The worst outcome for this Congress would be
to reauthorize the law with more federal control and less
actual accountability.
I believe we have a responsibility to provide the utmost
flexibility to states and local school districts, while still
ensuring accountability for all students. Despite the common
desire to use the power of Washington to override what we may
think are bad decisions by individual states, we must refrain
from acting as a national school board and imposing one-size-
fits-all decisions from here in Washington. States must
maintain the necessary flexibility to reach the broad goals
we ask them to achieve; they should not be treated as
experimental sites for our good ideas.
The past five years since enactment of NCLB have proven
effective in transforming the landscape of education across
the country, and we cannot afford to turn away from decades
of standards based reform and the use of rigorous state
assessments to measure school accountability. However, in
light of recent proposals made public by the House Committee
on Education and Labor, as well as those by many in the
advocacy community, I am concerned about the desire to exert
greater federal control over decisions best left at the state
and local level at the expense of accountability. I am
particularly concerned about the following concepts.
Federally Mandated `n' Size: I believe that we should
continue to allow states to set uniform `n' sizes for
accountability. An `n' size is the minimum number of students
that must be present in a group or subgroup before a school
has to be held accountable for that group's academic
progress. Proposals have been put forth to establish a
maximum `n' size for accountability purposes. States
currently have `n' sizes ranging from 5 to 200. I understand
the intent of such proposals given isolated abuses of the
provision by individual states. But the law gives states
flexibility to take into account various elements such as the
complexity of the state data system, the diversity of the
student population, school size, district size, the rigor of
state assessments, and other factors when making decisions
about their use of an `n' size. Mandating a maximum number
from Washington not only runs afoul of the intended state-
level decision making in the law, but may jeopardize
statistical reliability in some states. Moreover, by
legislating a number that may be significantly higher than
some states have already set, we may be sending a mixed
signal and encouraging those states to set higher `n' sizes
and thus reduce accountability in their states.
Federally Mandated Confidence Intervals: I believe that we
should continue to allow states to establish confidence
intervals on their data. A confidence interval, similar to a
margin of error on a poll, is another statistical methodology
to ensure the reliability of data. States currently have
confidence intervals that range between 95 percent and 99
percent, and some use other figures for measuring growth,
safe harbor, and other decisions. States are responsible for
setting these numbers and including them in their state plan
which was reviewed by the U.S. Department of Education.
Mandating a specific number from Washington would again
reduce flexibility for each state to take into account the
special circumstances within its borders and develop a
comprehensive data plan based on those circumstances. A
federal mandate could also lead to the unintended consequence
of reducing accountability in those states that would face
internal pressure to lower their standards to meet whatever
level is placed in the statute.
[[Page S13996]]
Adequate Yearly Progress: I believe that we should allow
states to use growth models based on reaching `proficient'
targets to measure progress. One of the driving forces behind
No Child Left Behind, and its primary success, is the focus
across the country toward getting all students to a
`proficient' level of achievement by the 2013-2014 school
year. This is a tough goal, and one that we know many schools
find difficult to achieve. As a nation we tend to set high
goals, almost unachievable goals, and then work hard to try
to reach them. Because of the rigor of the 2013-2014 goal,
proposals have been put forth to give schools credit for
students reaching `basic' levels of achievement as opposed to
`proficient' achievement. This should be considered a
wholesale retreat from the core principle of the law of
accountability for all students.
`Basic' performance on a test is usually not considered
sufficient to ensure high school graduation or attain college
enrollment without remediation. I support giving states and
school districts flexibility to meet the overriding goal of
getting all students to `proficient' levels of achievement.
To do that we should follow the lead of states like North
Carolina, Tennessee, Delaware, and Maryland and allow states
to use growth models to track individual progress over time
towards proficiency.
Early Childhood Program: I believe that we should not
create a duplicative early childhood program that would
compete with the existing federal programs Before asking what
a new federal early childhood program should look like, we
should be asking whether current programs are adequately
funded and whether they are effective. According to the
General Accountability Office there are 69 early childhood
education and care programs, administered by 10 different
federal agencies, receiving over $20 billion. We should be
looking at how we enhance the efficiency of these programs
before we layer another on.
High School Reform: I believe that Congress should
authorize a competitive program with a matching requirement
to states to help them reform our nation's high schools and
that it would be a mistake to mandate specific reforms from
Washington on all our nation's high schools. Tremendous
effort is underway at the state and local level to transform
our nation's high schools. Many of our nation's governors and
school district officials are working diligently with
philanthropic organizations like the Gates Foundation and
Broad Foundation to learn how to improve high schools and
build on successful research to develop promising models of
reform. While there is some valuable research that shows some
promising methods, it is inappropriate for Congress to assume
that there is a limited set of choices on how to transform
our nation's high schools. Instead of prescribing a limited
set of reforms and mandating those reforms upon the states,
we should find ways to encourage these continued efforts at
the state and local level. It would be preferable to offer a
competitive program where the states or local school
districts find matching resources from the business community
or philanthropic organizations, rather than develop a limited
formula program that tries to proscribe reform without
sufficient resources to actually provide it.
High School Graduation: I believe that Congress should not
put into law a complex definition or graduation outcome
requirements that interferes with current state leadership
efforts on improving high school graduation results. Our
nation faces significant problems with low high school
graduation rates and poor student performance in our nation's
postsecondary education institutions. State and local
educational leaders are working diligently to address those
problems. But proposals have been put forth to improve high
school graduation rates by imposing a complex definition and
goal setting process that do not reflect the efforts already
underway.
We should instead allow states to develop their own goals
for improving high school graduation rates as part of their
comprehensive state plan. We must be mindful of the
leadership already being offered by the states. The National
Governors Association has demonstrated strong commitment
towards developing a uniform definition of graduation rate,
and Congress should not interfere or override those efforts.
If Congress were to override the efforts already being taken
by the NGA, or override the efforts of individual governors
in working with such leaders as the Diploma Project, we would
lose valuable years of work and effort by leaders in the
states.
I understand that staff discussions have been ongoing for
several months regarding proposals for the reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and that many of
these areas are still open for improvement. I appreciate the
hard work and diligent effort of the staff, but I hope to
have at least ten business days to review any final draft
legislation so that I can consult with education leaders in
my state and across the country so that I can provide
suggested comments and revisions before this Committee is to
markup a bill. It would be helpful for me to have that
opportunity as I determine whether the bill meets my
priorities for ensuring state and local control of education
decisions.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lamar Alexander,
U.S. Senator.
______
By Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 2313. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance
efforts to address antimicrobial resistance; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Strategies to
Address Antimicrobial Resistance Act. This bill, also known as the
STAAR Act, is meant to reinvigorate efforts to combat antimicrobial
resistance--efforts that accelerated in the late 90s but then stalled.
I want to thank Senator Hatch for his leadership on this issue and
for introducing this bill with me. I look forward to working with him
to ensure it passage.
Antibiotics are the cornerstone of modern medicine, relied on to
treat countless diseases and responsible for some of the great advances
in public health in the 20th century. But over time, bacteria, viruses,
and other pathogens have mutated to develop resistance to antibiotic
drugs. This is a dangerous setback for modern medicine. Infections
caused by drug-resistant bacteria can cause serious, prolonged, and
debilitating illnesses, and even death.
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MRSA, is a drug
resistant infection that can be contracted not only in hospitals but in
community settings such as gyms and playgrounds. A study that was
published in the Journal of the American Medical Association last month
projected that the number of deaths from MRSA exceeded the number from
AIDS in 2005. That statistic alone should be a wake-up call for
America. We need to respond quickly to this problem, because it will
only grow worse with time.
We are creating these deadly infections. We create them by using
antibiotics when we do not need to and by not following through on the
full regimen of antibiotic therapies as prescribed. More consistent and
thorough hand washing in health care settings can also make a huge
difference.
Several of our Government agencies are involved in efforts to address
antimicrobial resistance. However, we need more coordination among all
the federal agencies involved. This bill seeks to facilitate that
coordination by establishing an Office of Antimicrobial Resistance at
the Department of Health and Human Services. The bill also reauthorizes
an interagency task force that has already done significant legwork on
this issue so that, spearheaded by the coordinating office, Federal
agencies can turn that legwork into action. The STAAR Act calls for a
comprehensive research plan that would identify knowledge gaps and
recommend strategies for filling those gaps. It would significantly
improve surveillance by establishing a multi-site surveillance network
and working to ensure uniformity in State collection of antimicrobial
resistance data.
Drug-resistant infections set back the clock on medical progress.
They cost money and more importantly, they take lives. We need to take
antimicrobial resistance seriously and fight it with as much passion as
we fight any potential killer.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as recent events in neighboring Virginia
have made all too clear, this country faces a number of troubling
questions about whether we are prepared to address the growing problem
of drug-resistant, bacterial infections. Indeed, while recent media
reports have raised the visibility of this issue, infectious disease
doctors have been sounding the alarm for years.
Now, Senator Brown and I are sounding the alarm as well.
Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that
resistant strains of infections have spread rapidly. This alarming
trend continues to grow and treatment options are sorely lacking.
Senator Brown and I have collaborated to develop legislation that
takes a science-based approach to this problem. This legislation, the
Strategies to Address Antimicrobial Resistance Act or STAAR Act S.
2313, should be seen as a measure to catalyze a greater Government
focus on a frightening, growing, public health problem which should be
of concern to each and every one of us in this Nation.
[[Page S13997]]
One of the things that Senator Brown and I have found in our
considerable study of this issue is that there is not adequate
infrastructure developed within the Government to collect the data, to
coordinate the research, and to conduct the surveillance necessary to
stop drug-resistant infections in their tracks.
We believe that jump-starting a greater, stronger, organizational
focus at the Department of Health and Human Services will help our
Government and our scientists develop an infrastructure that can grow
as science develops.
At the same time, we make perfectly clear that our bill is not the
sole answer to the complex, vexing problem of antibiotic resistance. At
a minimum we need better testing, better hospital controls, better
medications, and better funding to support these efforts, particularly
the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Institute of
Medicine, the Resources for the Future, the Centers for Disease
Control, and many others have been sounding the alarm about the growing
threat from resistant microorganisms.
Congress must listen.
In fact, it its seminal report, ``Bad Bugs, No Drugs'', the
Infectious Diseases Society, IDSA, said:
Drug-resistant bacterial infections kill tens of thousands
of Americans every year and a growing number of individuals
are succumbing to community-acquired infections. An epidemic
may harm millions. Unless Congress and the Administration
move with urgency to address these infections now, there is a
very good chance that U.S. patients will suffer greatly in
the future.
Indeed, the seminal IDSA report points out a number of compelling
facts.
As the report notes, infections caused by resistant bacteria can
strike anyone, young and old, rich or poor, healthy or ill. However,
the problem of antibiotic resistance is especially acute for patients
with compromised immune systems, such as persons living with HIV/AIDS.
The scope of the problem is equally of note. As IDSA has calculated,
about 2 million people acquire bacterial infections in U.S. hospitals
each year and as many as 90,000 die as a result. More and more, public
health experts are finding infections developed in the home or
community as well. Infections in both settings are increasing, and the
resultant drug resistance shows no sign of lessening.
This is a costly problem, costly for patients, for society, and
potentially threatening to our global security.
And, in fact, health care providers are running out of treatments as
the resistance problem grows.
Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederberg said it well: ``We are running out of
bullets for dealing with a number of bacterial, infections. Patients
are dying because we no longer in many cases have antibiotics that
work.''
Indeed, last week, noted Utah infectious disease expert Dr. Andy
Pavia told me about a 14-year-old boy he had treated who had bone,
muscle and lung infections from MRSA, an aggressive, difficult to
treat, form of staph that has spread rapidly within communities. Half
of the children he sees with severe MRSA infections acquired their
infection at home.
This young man, Dr. Pavia relates, was forced to undergo multiple
surgeries and 6 weeks of intravenous antibiotics. MRSA infections are
steadily increasing in Utah, as well as across all other States.
Fortunately, that young man is on the road to recovery. But the
statistics indicate it is just as likely that he would not be.
We are not only talking about MRSA. Dr. Pavia also cites the real
crisis growing with resistant gram-negative bacteria, which he calls
the ``Rodney Dangerfield of the infectious disease world''--in other
words, ``it don't get no respect.''
We are also seeing increases in extensively drug-resistant, XDR,
tuberculosis. There are numerous reports of soldiers returning home
from Iraq with Acinetobactor--a resistant infection that is especially
difficult to treat, and the only option is a very toxic antibiotic.
Senator Brown and I have worked on this issue for many months,
starting with our collaboration on provisions in the Food and Drug Act
Amendments recently signed into law by the President. We are also
working with our colleagues in the House, foremost among them Utah
Congressman Jim Matheson, author of the House STAAR Act.
Our conclusion is that the solutions to this problem are manifold,
but they must start with a stronger Government effort. That is the
genesis of the STAAR Act.
Let me review briefly what our legislation does.
The bill makes a series of congressional findings which layout the
problem and the need to address it.
In particular, we note that while the advent of the antibiotic era
has saved millions of lives and allowed for incredible medical
progress, the increased use and overuse of antimicrobial drugs have
correlated with an increase in the rates of antimicrobial resistance.
An important component to this problem is the fact that scientific
evidence suggests the source of antimicrobial resistance in people is
not only the overuse of human drugs, but also it may be from food-
producing animals, which are exposed to antimicrobial drugs.
As scientists have found, nearly 70 percent of hospital-acquired
bacterial infections in the U.S. are resistant to at least one drug; in
some cases, the rate is much higher. In fact, each year nearly 2
million people contract bacterial infections in the hospital, and it is
estimated that 90,000 of them die from the infections.
There seem to be no recent data on the costs associated with this
problem, but a 1995 report by the Office of Technology Assessment found
that six different antimicrobial-resistant strains of bacteria
accounted for $1.3 billion in nationwide hospital costs--almost $1.9
billion in 2006 dollars!
Here is how our bill attempts to address the problems I have just
laid out.
First, the bill establishes a new Office of Antimicrobial Resistance
in the Department of Health and Human Services. That Office will work
with the Task Force to issue biennial updates to the Public Health
Action Plan to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance, including enhanced
plans for addressing the problem here and abroad. As appropriate, the
Office's Director will establish benchmarks for achieving the plan's
goals, assess patterns of antimicrobial resistance emergence and their
impact on clinical outcomes, determine how antimicrobial products are
being used in humans, animals and plants, and recommend where
additional federally-supported studies may be beneficial.
Second, we renew the Antimicrobial Resistance Task Force authorized
in section 319E of the Public Health Service Act. The Task Force, whose
authorization lapsed last year, is comprised of representatives from
the following Federal agencies and offices, plus any others the
Secretary deems necessary: the new Office of Antimicrobial Resistance
established in the bill; the Assistant Secretary of Preparedness and
Response; the Centers for Disease Control; the Food and Drug
Administration; the National Institutes of Health; the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality; the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services; the Health Resources and Services Administration; the
Environmental Protection Agency; and the Departments of Agriculture,
Education, Defense, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and State.
It is important to note that Senator Brown and I gave careful
consideration to the location of this new Office.
We considered locating it at the CDC, the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Health (OASH), and in the Office of the Secretary, OS.
There are benefits and drawbacks to each. Indeed, had OASH its previous
organizational structure, that is, line authority over the Public
Health Service agencies, that decision would have been easy. But since
a change was made many years ago to devolve most of the OASH functions
to the separate PHS agencies, OASH was not the natural locus for the
new Office, we decided. Our final conclusion was that it was most
appropriate to locate the new office in OS, both for reasons of
prominence and flexibility.
Third, S. 2313 establishes a Public Health Antimicrobial Advisory
Board, a panel of outside experts who will advise the Secretary on ways
to encourage an adequate supply of antimicrobial products that are both
safe
[[Page S13998]]
and effective; help determine what research priorities should be, what
data and surveillance are necessary to be collected, and assess how the
action plan can be updated and strengthened.
It is very important to Senator Brown, if I may speak for him, and to
me that our measure be seen as a collaborative effort that draws on the
strengths of existing organizations and catalyzes their efforts for
greater good.
So, fourth, our bill requires the Secretary--working through the new
Office, the CDC and the NIH, in consultation with other appropriate
agencies--to develop a antimicrobial resistance strategic research plan
that strengthens existing epidemiological, interventional, clinical,
behavioral, translational and basic research efforts to advance our
understanding of the emergence of resistance and how best to address
it.
Fifth, the bill authorizes establishment of at least 10 Antimicrobial
Resistance Clinical Research and Public Health Network sites,
geographically dispersed across the U.S. The sites will monitor the
emergence of resistant pathogens in individuals, study the epidemiology
of such pathogens and evaluate the efficacy of interventions, and study
problems associated with antimicrobial use. In addition, we are asking
the network to assess the feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and
appropriateness of surveillance and screening programs in differing
health care and institutional settings, such as schools, and evaluate
current treatment protocols and make appropriate recommendations on
best practices for treating drug resistant infections. It is my hope
the network will be able to take into account successful models for
surveillance and screening such as inpatient programs of the Veterans
Health Administration, work done in States such as Illinois, New York
and the Utah Aware program, and experience overseas in countries such
as the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland. Our bill authorizes $45
million for these networks in fiscal year 2008, $65 million next year,
and $120 million in fiscal year 2010.
Finally, I would like to speak about data collection activities in S.
2313.
It has become obvious to me that there is a pressing need for better
surveillance of antibiotic resistance and better data collection that
is shared both within States and across States. From my long work on
public health issues, it is equally clear to me that there is a need
for the government to give guidance--guidance, not a mandate--on
uniform ways in which those data should be collected so that all of the
agencies are talking the same talk, so speak.
Our bill asks the Office of Antimicrobial Research to work with the
Task Force and member agencies to develop those uniform standards for
data collection. In drafting S. 2313, Senator Brown and I were very
sensitive to the jurisdictional needs of other Committees. At the same
time, it is clear that any serious effort to address antimicrobial
resistance must be spread across the many agencies of Government, each
of which has a role to play in our collaborative effort. It is for that
reason that our bill asks the Office and Task Force to work with the
other agencies, some of which do not fall within the jurisdiction of
the HELP Committee. If this language needs to be strengthened as
consideration of S. 2313 progresses, it is our hope to work with the
other committees which have an interest in the bill.
A second issue related to data collection is the fact that there is a
pressing need for epidemiologists and other public health experts to
begin to see data showing how many antibiotics are being distributed
and used by patients so that they can evaluate the amount of resistance
that is emerging. In writing our bill, we were sensitive to the need to
provide scientists with these data, while at the same time working to
make any new reporting provisions the least burdensome possible, while
protecting both the national security and propriety aspects of those
data. For that reason, our bill builds on current reporting to the FDA
of pharmaceutical distribution data. Those data are currently submitted
by manufacturers on the anniversary date of the product's approval. Our
bill would move that reporting date to 60 days after the beginning of
each calendar year, thus allowing epidemiologists to compare data from
year to year. Our second concern, that of potentially harmful release
of data, was addressed in the following way. Our bill precludes the
release of data which are proprietary in nature and whose release could
have the perverse result of providing a disincentive to antibiotic
development. This strong section, section 7 of the bill, also precludes
release of data which could be harmful to our national defense.
In closing, I wish to commend S. 2313 to my colleagues and ask for
their serious consideration of this measure. For those who doubt the
need for this legislation, if there are any doubters among us, I ask
the following questions:
Where do we begin to get serious to address this concern?
Where do we begin to recognize that it will take literally years to
develop an effective response?
What are we doing to develop the collaboration across agencies to
assure the American public we are developing an action plan to combat
the problem?
It is our hope that STAAR Act will begin to catalyze that response.
That is the motive behind our introduction of this legislation.
We look forward to working with our colleagues on the Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee as consideration of this
legislation begins and we remain available to our colleagues to answer
any questions or concerns they may have about this legislation.
______
By Mr. SALAZAR (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Tester):
S. 2314. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make
geothermal heat pump systems eligible for the energy credit and the
residential energy efficient property credit, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today I am joining my colleague Senator
Inhofe in introducing the bipartisan Geothermal Heat Pump Development
Act of 2007, which would provide American homes and businesses with tax
credits to promote greater use of geothermal heat pumps, GHPs.
Geothermal heat pumps are electrically-powered devices that use the
earth's natural heat storage ability to heat and cool homes and meet
energy demands.
Buildings account for 39 percent of the primary energy consumption in
the U.S. and 71 percent of U.S. electricity consumption. The lion's
share of this energy usage is for heating, cooling, and hot water.
Making our buildings more energy efficient will therefore pay large
energy dividends. According to the Environmental Protection Agency,
GHPs are the most energy-efficient and environmentally clean space-
conditioning systems currently in use. GHPs can reduce site energy
consumption for climate control and water heating by as much as 40
percent compared to air-source heat pumps and as much as 70 percent
compared to a fossil fuel heating system and air-conditioner.
However, in the absence of Federal tax credits to help mitigate the
comparatively high installation costs associated with geothermal heat
pump systems, American homeowners and businesses are reluctant to tap
into this reliable technology. The Salazar-Inhofe bill would help
overcome these cost barriers by amending current tax code to make
geothermal heat pump systems eligible for the energy tax credit and the
residential energy efficient property tax credit, for businesses and
consumers, respectively.
Specifically, businesses could claim an investment tax credit in the
amount of 10 percent of the installed cost of a new geothermal heat
pump system, and could claim an accelerated 3-year depreciation on such
equipment. For example, a business owner that spends $30,000 on a new
GHP system would get a $3,000 tax credit and the accelerated
depreciation provision would allow that business greater flexibility in
reporting this capital expense. Consumers could claim a credit in the
amount of 30 percent of the installed cost of a new geothermal heat
pump system up to a maximum credit of $2,000, so that, for example, a
home owner who purchases a $15,000 GHP system would receive a $2,000
tax credit. This consumer tax credit would be allowable against the
alternative minimum tax.
Geothermal heat pumps are proven renewable energy technologies with
significant energy efficiency gains and
[[Page S13999]]
long-term cost-savings potential compared to conventional climate
control systems. Geothermal heat pumps typically cost more than twice
as much as a conventional fossil fuel furnace, but GHPs' impressive
efficiency gains allow a home or business owner to recoup their up-
front costs within about ten years.
Since their introduction in the 1980s, over 1 million GHPs have been
installed in a wide variety of buildings, and in a diverse range of
climates, across the U.S. Senator Inhofe and I are optimistic that the
widespread adoption of geothermal heat pumps will not only save energy,
but also create good local jobs. Because GHP systems can be deployed
virtually anywhere, the demand for qualified engineers who can install
and maintain these systems would surely expand.
Geothermal heat pumps should be an important element of our efforts
to enhance our buildings' energy efficiency. By making it easier for
American homes and business to embrace these extremely effective energy
technologies, we will help develop a more secure, efficient and
sustainable domestic energy program founded on clean, renewable and
reliable energy alternatives.
____________________