Congressional Record, Volume 156 Issue 57 (Wednesday, April 21, 2010)

[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 57 (Wednesday, April 21, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2519-S2528]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 3239. A bill to repeal unwarranted provisions from the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act and to more efficiently use taxpayer
dollars in health care spending; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
repeal unwarranted and inappropriate ``sweeteners'' that were added to
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the days before final
passage of the bill.
These ``sweeteners'' are unjustifiable and only detract from our
collective goal of putting America's health care system on a better and
more sustainable path. They also undermine public confidence in the
legislative process and in elected representatives in Congress.
In some cases, there are valid policy or fairness reasons why certain
states or interests may receive seemingly different treatment. But
several provisions were included in the health reform bill that create,
rather than diminish, inequity.
This legislation would repeal four provisions in the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act. These provisions are not supported
by policy rationales and do not address any inequity in current policy.
Simply put, they are intended to provide an undeserved windfall to
specific states.
This legislation also amends one provision in the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act providing increased Medicaid assistance to
States recovering from natural disaster. Because there is some
justification for Louisiana receiving additional help to cope with the
continued aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, my legislation leaves this
provision intact, but it decreases the amount of assistance available.
I was pleased to support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act. That law will strengthen America's health care system and reduce
the national deficit and the five changes to the law that I am
proposing would help us better meet those goals.
______

By Mr. BROWN of Ohio (for himself, Mr. Kaufman, Mr. Casey, Mr.
Merkley, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Harkin):
S. 3241. A bill to provide for a safe, accountable, fair, and
efficient banking system, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, when you look at Wall Street and
you look at the relationship between far too many Senators and Wall
Street, that is what got us into this mess. For the last 10 years the
deregulation of the Bush administration, the people they appointed to
watch, such as the head of mine safety in the Bush years was a mining
executive, we paid the price for that, the people in my State, people
in West Virginia. Too often families pay the price for a government not
aggressive enough to regulate mine safety. We paid the price in this
country because we didn't have a government aggressive enough to make
the banks and Wall Street behave. That is why they were able to
overreach.
That is why the legislation Senator Kaufman and I are introducing,
with Senators Casey, Whitehouse, Merkley, and others, will address the
issue of too big to fail. Too big to fail is not what you do if these
banks are in trouble, how you pull them apart when they are about to
fail, and we want to make sure we don't spend taxpayer dollars to bail
them out. We make sure they don't hurt the whole financial system. Too
big to fail means don't let them get too big. Even Alan Greenspan,
hardly an ally in regulating the banking system, says too big to fail
means too big. That is what Senator Kaufman and I are addressing in our
legislation.
Let me give some numbers. Fifteen years ago, the six largest U.S.
banks had assets equal to 17 percent, one-seventh. Fifteen years ago,
the six largest U.S. banks had assets equal to 17 percent of overall
GDP. Today the six largest banks have assets equal to 63 percent of
overall GDP. Three of these megabanks have close to $2 trillion of
assets on their balance sheets.
When that happens, we are setting ourselves up for one more round of
serious problems. That is why homeowners in Youngstown lost their
homes. That is why retirees in Sidney, OH lost a lot of their wealth.
That is why workers in Newark, OH lost jobs--because we had a banking
system that was overreaching, excessive, that became too greedy, and we
didn't do enough about it.
Here is what has happened. The Ohio manufacturers I talked to this
morning want to grow. They want to hire people. They have orders. They
have capacity. They just can't get loans. Three of the largest banks
slashed their SBA lending by 86 percent over the last year. SBA loans
went from 4,200 in 2007 in Ohio alone to 2,100. At the same time banks
have increased their Wall Street trading by 23 percent. Something was
wrong in the last 10 years. We paid the price in the last 2 years. But
something is still wrong when these banks get bigger and bigger. They
trade more and more, and they lend to Main Street less and less.
That is why the legislation Senator Kaufman and I introduced with
several other Senators today speaks to this. We need banks to serve
this country. Ultimately, it is which side one is on. Are you going to
side with Wall Street or Main Street?
Today in the Agriculture Committee we had Republicans and Democrats
together passing legislation, strong legislation to regulate
derivatives. It is a first, good bipartisan step. Senator Grassley, a
Republican from Iowa, joined all of us on the committee to pass a
strong bill, not a bill that Wall Street helped to write but a bill
that works for American consumers, American small business, American
homeowners and workers.
I yield to Senator Kaufman.
Mr. KAUFMAN. I agree with what Senator Brown is saying. This is a
very complex bill. It is a very complex area. But what we are talking
about is a very simple proposition. We can either limit the size and
leverage of too big to fail financial institutions, such as the bill
which Senator Brown and I are offering now will do or we will suffer
the economic consequences of their potential failure later. I
personally believe breaking apart too big to fail banks is a necessary
first step in preventing another cycle of boom, bust, and bailout. Even
if they do that, this bill is required if, in fact, we are going to
limit too big to fail.
This debate is a test of whether the power of that idea can spread
and gain support. Although it is clearly the safest way to avoid
another financial crisis, this idea must overcome tremendous resistance
from Wall Street banks and their politically powerful campaigns against
any kind of structural financial reform. Moreover, the idea must
overcome the inertia and caution in a Congress drawn to easier ideas
that may work. But how much should we gamble that they will work?
Limiting size and leverage are fail-safe

[[Page S2520]]

provisions to prevent a dangerous outcome. Senator Brown and I are
proposing a complementary idea to limit the size and leverage, not a
substitute for breaking the banks apart.
The current banking bill has many important provisions we support.
But under its approach, we must hope the financial stability oversight
council can identify systemic risks before it is too late. We must hope
that regulators will be emboldened to act in a timely manner when
before, in the recent past, they failed to act. We must hope better
transparency in financial data will produce early warning signals of
systemic dangers so clear that a council and panel of judges will
unhesitatingly agree. We must hope that capital requirements will be
set properly in relation to risks that all too often remain
purposefully hidden from view. We must hope that resolution authority
will work, when we know it has no cross-border authority to resolve
global financial institutions.
Under the current bill, we must hope all future Presidents will
appoint regulators as determined to carry out the same strict measures
preached belatedly by today's regulators who have been converted by the
traumatic experience of their own failures.
All rules to restrict excessive risk taking in banking have a half
life. That is because the financial sector is full of very smart people
with an incentive to find their way around the rules, particularly to
load up on risk, as this is what provides them their excessive profits
and gigantic bonuses. I would rather not pin the future of the American
economy on so much hope. I would rather Congress act now, definitively
and responsibly, to end too big to fail.
The changes in regulations envisioned today in the bill we are
proposing would help initially, particularly until the next free market
candidate who wins appoints regulators who only believe in self-
regulation. This bill establishes hard lines. One of the greatest
sayings is: Good fences make good neighbors. This builds the fences.
Then we let the regulators do it, and we don't have to worry about the
President picking the right regulators. Our bill would provide a
legislative size and leverage restriction that would last far longer
than the half life of who is appointed to be regulator. We want this to
operate for a generation.
In 1933, our forebears, after the Great Depression, made hard rules.
They passed Glass-Steagall. They set up the FDIC. They set rules
against margins, and they set the uptick rule. We should do no less.
Remember, when they passed those bills in 1933, they helped us avoid a
financial crisis for almost 50 years.
Some argue we need massive banks, but recent studies show that with
over $100 billion in assets--and by the way, these banks, as Senator
Brown said, have over $2 trillion worth of assets--financial
institutions no longer achieve additional economies of scale. They
simply become dangerous concentrations of financial power that benefit
from an implicit government guarantee that they will be saved if they
fail. With this implicit guarantee, these firms will continue to have
every incentive to use massive amounts of short-term debt to finance
the purchase of risky assets. This bill would deal with their ability
to be able to do that and would stop it. They would go on and be able
to do this without us. They have done it in the past, and there is no
reason to think they won't do it in the future until they cause the
next crisis and taxpayers must bail them out again. While $100 billion
banks would be smaller, they are not small banks. Such banks would have
no trouble competing around the world.
Under this bill, we would still have banks far bigger than even that
size. People say: Look at other countries. Look what they are doing.
Just because other countries subsidize megabanks banks that could send
those countries spiraling into a financial crisis should not make us
want to do the same.

Everyone agrees--as the Senator from Arizona said--the most important
thing is too big to fail. How much can we risk that by doing what other
countries are doing, when they are creating banks that are clearly too
big to fail? Most people in the oil industry did well under the breakup
of Standard Oil, including its shareholders, and the breakup of AT&T
helped the telecom industry become more dynamic, competitive, and
profitable.
The current Senate bill contains many important provisions that
address the causes of the financial crisis, but why risk leaving
oversized institutions in place when they potentially are too big to
fail? Instead, we should meet the challenge of the moment and have the
courage to act, as in this bill, to limit the size and practices of
these literally colossal financial institutions, the stability of which
are a threat to our economy. This bill is the best hope to ensure
future decades of financial stability and the livelihoods of the
American people. This bill will put the days of too big to fail forever
behind us.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank Senator Kaufman.
Some people think about this as a pretty big step, to decide we want
to limit the size of banks. It is not something we like to do. We don't
want to do more regulation than we have to. We don't want to tell
successful companies not to grow. But when we look at what has happened
in the past, as Senator Kaufman said, we did this right in the 1930s,
and it protected our financial system, with a few hiccups but no
serious problems until the end of this last decade, when President Bush
and the Congress, starting with President Clinton--President Bush
accelerated it and weakened regulation--repealed regulation and
appointed, you might use the term ``lapdogs''--that might not be a
senatorial sounding word.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Lapdogs is another way of saying people who believe
self-regulation will work.
Alan Greenspan also was quoted as saying we should breakup the banks;
Standard Oil wasn't bad. At the time he said, after it was over, a year
later he gave a speech and said: I really thought self-regulation would
work. I am dismayed that it didn't.
The way I put it, it is as if there were a whole group of folks, not
just in the financial regulatory area but all over the government, who
basically believed the markets are great. I am a big believer in
markets, but I also like football. The idea that someone would say:
Football is great, but those referees keep blowing their damn whistles.
Let's get the referees off the field so football players can be
football players. We know what would happen if we pulled all the
referees off the field in a game. I wouldn't want to be in the second
pileup.
That is what we said with this. We said we are going to pull the
referees off the field and see what happens. These were good people.
They just didn't believe they had to regulate, and we are now seeing
the results.
People say to us, when we propose these things--I have had several
press people say to me--why don't we leave it up to the regulators?
They can set these numbers. We shouldn't set these numbers.
Let me read from a couple things. The 1970 Bank Holding Company Act
amendments gave the Fed the power to terminate a company's authority to
engage in nonbanking activities, basically doing what we are talking
about doing, if it finds such action is necessary to prevent undue
concentration of resources--I wonder if that went on recently--
decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, or unsound
banking practices. The Fed had the power to do this. They did not do
it.
The Financial Institutions Reform Recovery Enforcement Act also gave
regulators the power to restrict an institution's growth and limit its
size.
What we are talking about now is giving the regulators essentially
what they already have in the present bill. What Senator Brown and I
are saying--and the other cosponsors--is, the buck stops here. We
should tell the regulators what these percentages are going to be.
Because if we leave it up to the regulators, as Senator Brown said,
these are very powerful people and very powerful institutions.
They hire the very best people to come and make their arguments.
So if you are sitting there running a regulatory agency and you are
saying: Oh my God, I don't want to do this, I don't want to shrink
these things down--and remember one other thing too. As bad as things
were in this latest crisis, think about what has happened during this
crisis. They have all exploded. What did we have happen? JPMorgan Chase
now includes Washington Mutual, a $400 billion bank.

[[Page S2521]]

Bank of America now includes Merrill Lynch. We can go on from there.
Wells Fargo now has Wachovia. These things were big. We had this mess.
We deregulated. We put the regulators in. We changed laws. Now they are
bigger. As the Senator says, their assets are 63 percent of the gross
domestic product of this country. Fifteen years ago, they were 17
percent of gross domestic product.
What do we have to do before someone sends the message that these
things are too big and that this Congress not pass the buck to the
regulators, who did not do the job in the past? Let me just say this. I
think the world of our regulators now. I do not think there are people
in regulating now who basically believe they should not be regulated.
In 1933, we made a decision that helped us through three generations.
What are we doing as Senators on the floor passing legislation based on
the fact: I trust my regulators now. Why are we not passing legislation
that will work over the next two or three generations--something that
will work whether we get a President who believes in the fact that we
should have a market or not, whether we have a good regulator or a bad
regulator? Why shouldn't the Senate of the United States do its job and
basically lay out restrictions of the kind that are in this bill so the
regulators have them? Then they can enforce it. They can do the
enforcement, which is their job. We should send a clear message to
people that this is what we have to do.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Exactly. I say to Senator Kaufman, you made a
point maybe 5 minutes ago that some of the smartest people in the
country are working on Wall Street. There is a huge incentive for smart
people to go to Wall Street and be creative and invent new financial
instruments to stay, in many ways, a step ahead of the regulators, in
some sense, a step ahead of the ``sheriff,'' if you will. Those
regulators, who are paid probably one-tenth or one-hundredth--
regulators are paid decent middle-class salaries that most Americans
would be very happy with. But some of these very smart people on Wall
Street are paid 100 times, 1,000 times--millions, tens of millions of
dollars, and there is a huge incentive for them to figure out how to
stay ahead of the regulators.
That is why it is so important that we have strong regulators. We
always work to do that, and we have good regulators. It is important
that a President appoint people who have the public interest in mind,
which Presidents have not always done in the last decade. It is
important that we write different rules, and that is exactly what we
want to do to keep these banks from being so big.
We had problems with rating agencies that gamed the system. We had
problems with mortgage brokers. We had problems with Wall Street. We
had problems with people creating these new CDOs and other financial
instruments, particularly these so-called synthetic ones that had no
real basis in any wealth creation for society, only wealth creation for
each other. Ultimately, that does not work for Wall Street. It
certainly does not work for our country.
So in summary, as to this legislation that five or six of us are
introducing today, we will likely offer it as an amendment in the next
week or two. We ask our colleagues to support it. If we are going to
deal with too big to fail, we surely want to deal with it on the end if
there are banks that are about to fail. But we need to, sort of, ahead
of time, in anticipation, deal with it by not letting these banks--no
matter how good the regulators are--not letting these banks get too
big.
Mr. KAUFMAN. We just have to give the regulators the tools they need
to do their job, and the guidelines because we know what these
guidelines are. These are not really terribly strict guidelines; they
are just to have the ability to stop what is going on now, to get banks
back to the size where they can be managed.
As Senator Brown said, these banks have a competitive advantage
because when they are too big to fail, not only do we have to worry
about bailing them out, but all their interest rate charges are lower.
We know that. The interest rate charges on CDs with these major banks--
they get higher interest rates than the other banks, and it is unfair
competition for all the other small banks around this country.
As I said in the beginning, this is a very simple proposition: Is the
Senate going to do its job to make sure we have in place the ability to
keep these banks from being too big to fail and preparing so we never
have to get to the resolution authority?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. If we do what Senator Kaufman said, if we do this
right, it will take care of this problem so it does not happen in the
next two or three generations, the way people in the 1930s did, or if
we do not do it right, we are back at this in 5 or 10 or 15 years.
Mr. KAUFMAN. By the way, let me say one thing about that. I am not
for overregulation. But can you imagine, if we have another problem,
what the regulation would be like then? Do you know what the proposals
would be on this floor if, in fact, we have another problem? It would
be draconian. It is important for all of us. We all care about our
capital markets. One of the things that drive this country and make us
great is the capital markets. We want them to be credible and we want
them to be fair and we want them to work.
So we want to make sure we do not get faced with this. I think that
is exactly what Senator Brown and I are trying to do. We are trying to
do a little bit of prevention here so we never get to that end of the
road where we have to get involved in resolution authority.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. These capital markets which worked so well for
many years are not working for local manufacturers, for small
businesses today.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Right.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank Senator Kaufman.
______

Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. LeMieux, and Mr. Brown of Ohio):
S. 3242. A bill to improve teacher quality, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce with Senator LeMieux and
Senator Brown of Ohio, the Teacher and Principal Improvement Act, to
foster the development of highly skilled and effective educators.
We are slated to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act--ESEA--this Congress for the first time since 2001. My top priority
for reauthorization is to build the capacity of our Nation's schools to
enhance the effectiveness of teachers, principals, school librarians,
and school leaders.
Decades of research have demonstrated that improving teacher and
principal quality as well as greater family involvement are the keys to
raising student achievement and turning around struggling schools.
Studies have found that more than 50 percentile points of the
difference in student academic performance is attributed to teacher
quality. The world's top performing education systems invest heavily in
supporting and developing teachers. Teachers in top-ranking countries
such as Finland and Singapore get 100 hours of fully paid professional
development training each year. It is clear that the United States must
also increase its investments in our educators to stay academically
competitive in an ever-expanding global economy.
Unfortunately, every year across the country thousands of effective
teachers leave the profession--many within their first years of
teaching. A 2003 study by Richard Ingersoll found that one-third of all
new teachers quit after three years. That turnover rate increases to
nearly half--one out of every two new teachers hired--after 5 years. A
report by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future also
estimated that the nationwide cost of replacing public school teachers
who have dropped out of the profession is $7.3 billion annually.
However, research has shown that comprehensive mentoring and
induction reduces teacher attrition by as much as half. New teachers
need extra support and guidance. As such, our bill would help schools
implement the key elements of effective multi-year mentoring and
induction for beginning teachers, including rigorous mentor selection;
ongoing mentoring with paid release time; training for mentors; and the
use of research-based teaching

[[Page S2522]]

practices such as the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards.
The bill also significantly revises ESEA's current definition of
``professional development'' to foster an ongoing culture of teacher,
principal, school librarian, and staff collaboration throughout
schools. All too often current professional development still consists
of isolated, check-the-box activities instead of helping educators
engage in sustained professional learning that is regularly evaluated
for its impact on classroom practice and student achievement. Effective
professional development is collaborative, job-embedded, and data-
driven. Research has shown that this type of professional development
has a positive impact on student learning.
Research has also increasingly emphasized the important role that
effective evaluation systems can play in teacher and principal
development. Unfortunately, most evaluation systems nationwide have
significant flaws, including a lack of: clear standards of expected
performance; meaningful differentiation of teacher performance; ongoing
evaluations and classroom observations; and rigorous training of
evaluators. As such, our Teacher and Principal Improvement Act would
for the first time in federal law require school districts to establish
rigorous, fair, and transparent evaluation systems to assess whether
teachers and principals are having positive impacts on student
learning. If evaluation is done right, it provides teachers and
principals with individualized ongoing feedback and support on their
strengths, weaknesses, and areas in need of improvement.
Principals and school leaders also have a critical role to play in
leading school improvement efforts and managing a collaborative culture
of ongoing professional learning and development. Research has shown
that leadership is second only to classroom instruction among school-
related factors that influence student outcomes. As such, this bill
would provide ongoing high-quality professional development to
principals and school leaders, including multi-year induction and
mentoring for new administrators. In this way, we will ensure that
principals and school leaders possess the knowledge and skills to use
student data to inform decisionmaking, communicate with families and
local communities, and design and implement strategies for addressing
student needs, including for students with disabilities and English
Language Learners.
Additionally, our bill recognizes the importance of creating
compensated leadership opportunities for teachers to take on additional
roles and responsibilities outside the classroom, which will increase
collaboration and the sharing of expertise among teachers and staff and
improve instructional practices throughout the school. It also seeks to
include for the first time in law a requirement that districts conduct
surveys of the working and learning conditions educators face so this
data could be used to better target investments and support.
Another precedent set as part of this legislation is that it requires
an independent, formal review of professional development, mentoring,
and evaluation programs. This review would look at whether these
programs are effectively implemented and raise student achievement;
retain effective teachers; improve classroom and leadership practice;
and increase family and community involvement. We must ensure that our
teachers and school leaders not only have access to high-quality
professional development opportunities, but also know whether or not
those programs are actually working to improve classroom practice and
student learning.
Lastly, throughout the bill, school district collaboration with
teachers and staff is viewed as a key element, particularly in the
development and implementation of the teacher evaluation system.
Research has shown that true ``teacher buy-in'' is an important factor
in ensuring the sustained success of school reform efforts. In Rhode
Island, we have seen in recent months an example of this as the
Providence School District, educators, and the local teacher's union
partnered together to embark on critical school improvement efforts. I
am pleased that the Administration also has recently recognized the
importance of teacher buy-in when it awarded the first Race to the Top
grants to Delaware and Tennessee--both states that had applications
with nearly 100 percent local teacher union support.
I worked with a range of education organizations in developing this
bill, including the Alliance for Excellent Education; American
Federation of School Administrators; American Federation of Teachers;
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education; Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development; Center for American Progress;
Educational Testing Service; National Association of Elementary School
Principals; National Association of Secondary School Principals;
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards; National Commission
on Teaching and America's Future; National Middle School Association;
National Staff Development Council; National Writing Project; New
Teacher Center; New Teacher Project; Pi Lambda Theta; and Teacher
Advancement Program. I thank them for their input and support for the
bill.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bipartisan bill and work for
its inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3242

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Teacher and Principal
Improvement Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Teacher quality is the single most important in-school
factor influencing student learning and achievement.
(2) A report by William L. Sanders and June C. Rivers
showed that if 2 average 8-year-old students were given
different teachers, 1 of them a high performer, the other a
low performer, the students' performance diverged by more
than 50 percentile points within 3 years.
(3) A similar study by Heather Jordan, Robert Mendro, and
Dash Weerasinghe showed that the performance gap between
students assigned 3 effective teachers in a row, and those
assigned 3 ineffective teachers in a row, was 49 percentile
points.
(4) In Boston, research has shown that students placed with
high-performing mathematics teachers made substantial gains,
while students placed with the least effective teachers
regressed and their mathematics scores decreased.
(5) McKinsey & Company found that studies that take into
account all of the available evidence on teacher
effectiveness suggest that students placed with high-
performing teachers will progress 3 times as fast as those
placed with low-performing teachers.
(6) A 2003 study by Richard Ingersoll found that new
teachers, not just those in hard-to-staff schools, face such
challenging working conditions that nearly one-half leave the
profession within their first 5 years, one-third leave within
their first 3 years, and 14 percent leave by the end of their
first year.
(7) A report by the National Commission on Teaching and
America's Future estimated that the nationwide cost of
replacing public school teachers who have dropped out of the
profession is $7,300,000,000 annually.
(8) Research by Thomas Smith, Richard Ingersoll, and
Anthony Villar has shown that comprehensive mentoring and
induction reduces teacher attrition by as much as one-half
and strengthens new teacher effectiveness.
(9) A recent School Redesign Network at Stanford University
and National Staff Development Council report by Linda
Darling-Hammond, Ruth Chung Wei, Alethea Andree, Nikole
Richardson, and Stelios Orphanos found that--
(A) a set of programs that offered substantial contact
hours of professional development (ranging from 30 to 100
hours in total) spread over 6 to 12 months showed a positive
and significant effect on student achievement gains; and
(B) intensive professional development, especially when it
includes applications of knowledge to teachers' planning and
instruction, has a greater chance of influencing teacher
practices, and in turn, leading to gains in student learning.
Such intensive professional development has shown a positive
and significant effect on student achievement gains, in some
cases by approximately 21 percentile points.
(10) Recent reports from the Center for American Progress,
Education Sector, Hope Street Group, and the New Teacher
Project have collectively demonstrated the significant flaws
in current teacher evaluation and

[[Page S2523]]

implementation, and the necessity for redesigning these
systems and linking such evaluation to individualized
feedback and substantive targeted support in order to ensure
effective teaching.
(11) Research by Kenneth Liethwood, Karen Seashore Louis,
Stephen Anderson, and Kyla Wahlstrom found that--
(A) leadership is second only to classroom instruction
among school-related factors that influence student outcomes;
and
(B) direct and indirect leadership effects account for
about one-quarter of total school effects on student
learning.
(12) Research by Charles Clotfelter, Helen Ladd, Kenneth
Leithwood, and Anthony Milanowski has shown that the quality
of working conditions, particularly supportive school
leadership, impacts student academic achievement and teacher
recruitment, retention, and effectiveness.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to build
capacity for developing effective teachers and principals in
our Nation's schools through--
(1) the redesign of teacher and principal evaluation and
assessment systems;
(2) comprehensive, high-quality, rigorous multi-year
induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers,
principals, and other school leaders;
(3) systematic, sustained, and coherent professional
development for all teachers that is team-based and job-
embedded;
(4) systematic, sustained, and coherent professional
development for school principals, other school leaders,
school librarians, paraprofessionals, and other staff; and
(5) increased teacher leadership opportunities, including
compensation for teacher leaders who take on new roles in
providing school-based professional development, mentoring,
rigorous evaluation, and instructional coaching.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

Section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (34) and inserting the following:
``(34) Professional development.--The term `professional
development' means comprehensive, sustained, and intensive
support, provided for teachers, principals, school
librarians, other school leaders, and other instructional
staff, that--
``(A) fosters collective responsibility for improved
student learning;
``(B) is designed and implemented in a manner that
increases teacher, principal, school librarian, other school
leader, paraprofessional, and other instructional staff
effectiveness in improving student learning and strengthening
classroom practice;
``(C) analyzes and uses real-time data and information
collected from--
``(i) evidence of student learning;
``(ii) evidence of classroom practice; and
``(iii) the State's longitudinal data system;
``(D) is aligned with--
``(i) rigorous State student academic achievement standards
developed under section 1111(b)(1);
``(ii) related academic and school improvement goals of the
school, local educational agency, and statewide curriculum;
``(iii) statewide and local curricula; and
``(iv) rigorous standards of professional practice and
development;
``(E) primarily occurs multiple times per week during the
regular school day among established collaborative teams of
teachers, principals, school librarians, other school
leaders, and other instructional staff, by grade level and
content area (to the extent applicable and practicable),
which teams engage in a continuous cycle of professional
learning and improvement that--
``(i) identifies, reviews, and analyzes--

``(I) evidence of student learning; and
``(II) evidence of classroom practice;

``(ii) defines a clear set of educator learning goals to
improve student learning and strengthen classroom practice
based on the rigorous analysis of evidence of student
learning and evidence of classroom practice;
``(iii) develops and implements coherent, sustained, and
evidenced-based professional development strategies to meet
such goals (including through instructional coaching, lesson
study, and study groups organized at the school, team, or
individual levels);
``(iv) provides learning opportunities for teachers to
collectively develop and refine student learning goals and
the teachers' instructional practices and the use of
formative assessment;
``(v) provides an effective mechanism to support the
transfer of new knowledge and skills to the classroom
(including utilizing teacher leaders, instructional coaches,
and content experts to support such transfer); and
``(vi) provides opportunities for follow-up, observation,
and formative feedback and assessment of the teacher's
classroom practice, on a regular basis and in a manner that
allows each such teacher to identify areas of classroom
practice that need to be strengthened, refined, and improved;
``(F) regularly assesses the effectiveness of the
professional development, and uses such assessments to inform
ongoing improvements, in--
``(i) improving student learning; and
``(ii) strengthening classroom practice; and
``(G) supports the recruiting, hiring, and training of
highly qualified teachers, including teachers who become
highly qualified through State and local alternative routes
to certification or licensure.'';
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(44) Evidence of classroom practice.--The term `evidence
of classroom practice' means evidence of classroom practice
gathered through multiple formats and sources, including some
or all of the following:
``(A) Demonstration of effective teaching skills.
``(B) Classroom observations based on rigorous teacher
performance standards or rubrics.
``(C) Student work.
``(D) Teacher portfolios.
``(E) Videos of teacher practice.
``(F) Lesson plans.
``(G) Information on the extent to which the teacher
collaborates and shares best practices with other teachers
and instructional staff.
``(H) Information on the teacher's successful use of
research and data.
``(I) Parent, student, and peer feedback.
``(45) Evidence of student learning.--The term `evidence of
student learning' means--
``(A) data, which shall include value-added data based on
student learning gains and teacher impact where available, on
State student academic assessments under section 1111(c); and
``(B) other evidence of student learning, including some or
all of the following:
``(i) Data, which shall include value-added data based on
student learning gains and teacher impact where available, on
other student academic achievement assessments.
``(ii) Student work, including measures of performance
criteria and evidence of student growth.
``(iii) Teacher-generated information about student goals
and growth.
``(iv) Formative and summative assessments.
``(v) Objective performance-based assessments.
``(vi) Assessments of affective engagement and self-
efficacy.
``(46) Lowest achieving school.--The term `lowest achieving
school' means a school served by a local educational agency
that--
``(A) is failing to make adequate yearly progress as
described in section 1111(b)(2), for the greatest number of
subgroups described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) and by the
greatest margins, as compared to the other schools served by
the local educational agency; and
``(B) in the case of a secondary school, has a graduation
rate of less than 65 percent.
``(47) School leader.--The term `school leader' means an
individual who--
``(A) is an employee or officer of a school; and
``(B) is responsible for--
``(i) the school's performance; and
``(ii) the daily instructional and managerial operations of
the school.
``(48) Teaching skills.--The term `teaching skills' means
skills that are consistent with section 200 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 and that enable a teacher to--
``(A) increase student learning, achievement, and the
ability to apply knowledge;
``(B) effectively convey and explain academic subject
matter;
``(C) effectively teach higher-order analytical,
evaluation, problem-solving, and communication skills;
``(D) develop and effectively apply new knowledge, skills,
and practices;
``(E) employ strategies grounded in the disciplines of
teaching and learning that--
``(i) are based on empirically based practice and
scientifically valid research, where applicable, related to
teaching and learning;
``(ii) are specific to academic subject matter;
``(iii) focus on the identification of students' specific
learning needs, (including children with disabilities,
students who are limited English proficient, students who are
gifted and talented, and students with low literacy levels),
and the tailoring of academic instruction to such needs; and
``(iv) enable effective inclusion of children with
disabilities and English language learners, including the
utilization of--

``(I) response to intervention;
``(II) positive behavioral supports;
``(III) differentiated instruction;
``(IV) universal design of learning;
``(V) appropriate accommodations for instruction and
assessments;
``(VI) collaboration skills; and
``(VII) skill in effectively participating in
individualized education program meetings required under
section 614 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1414);

``(F) conduct an ongoing assessment of student learning,
which may include the use of formative assessments,
performance-based assessments, project-based assessments, or
portfolio assessments, that measures higher-order thinking
skills (including application, analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation);
``(G) effectively manage a classroom, including the ability
to implement positive behavioral support strategies;
``(H) communicate and work with parents, and involve
parents in their children's education; and
``(I) use age-appropriate and developmentally appropriate
strategies and practices.''; and
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (39), the
undesignated paragraph following paragraph (39), and
paragraphs (41) through (48) (as amended by this section) as
paragraphs (1) through (18), (21) through (28), (30) through
(40), (42) through (46), (48), (19), (20), (29), (41), and
(47), respectively.

[[Page S2524]]

SEC. 4. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT.

Section 1003(g)(5) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6303(g)(5)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) permitted to be used to supplement the activities
required under section 2502.''.

SEC. 5. TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND
SUPPORT.

Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:

``PART E--BUILDING SCHOOL CAPACITY FOR EFFECTIVE TEACHING AND
LEADERSHIP

``SEC. 2501. LOCAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES.

``(a) Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies.--
``(1) Grants.--From amounts made available under section
2504, the Secretary shall award grants, through allotments
under paragraph (3)(A), to States to enable the States to
award subgrants to local educational agencies under this
part.
``(2) Reservations.--A State that receives a grant under
this part for a fiscal year shall--
``(A) reserve 95 percent of the funds made available
through the grant to make subgrants, through allocations
under paragraph (3)(B), to local educational agencies; and
``(B) use the remainder of the funds for--
``(i) administrative activities and technical assistance in
helping local educational agencies carry out this part;
``(ii) statewide capacity building strategies to support
local educational agencies in the implementation of the
required activities under section 2502; and
``(iii) conducting the evaluation required under section
2503.
``(3) Formulas.--
``(A) Allotments.--The allotment provided to a State under
this section for a fiscal year shall bear the same relation
to the total amount available for such allotments for the
fiscal year, as the allotment provided to the State under
section 2111(b) for such year bears to the total amount
available for such allotments for such year.
``(B) Allocations.--The allocation provided to a local
educational agency under this section for a fiscal year shall
bear the same relation to the total amount available for such
allocations for the fiscal year, as the allocation provided
the State under section 2121(a) for such year bears to the
total amount available for such allocations for such year.
``(4) Schools first supported.--A local educational agency
receiving a subgrant under this part shall first use such
funds to carry out the activities described in section
2502(a) in each lowest achieving school served by the local
educational agency--
``(A) that demonstrates the greatest need for subgrant
funds based on the data analysis described in subsection
(b)(3); and
``(B) in which not less than 40 percent of the students
enrolled in the school are eligible for a free or reduced
price lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq).
``(b) Local Educational Agency Application.--
``(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a subgrant
under this part, a local educational agency shall submit to
the State educational agency an application described in
paragraph (2), and a summary of the data analysis conducted
under paragraph (3), at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the State educational agency
may reasonably require.
``(2) Contents of application.--Each application submitted
pursuant to paragraph (1) shall include--
``(A) a description of how the local educational agency
will assist the lowest achieving schools served by the local
educational agency in carrying out the requirements of
section 2502, including--
``(i) developing and implementing the teacher and principal
evaluation system pursuant to section 2502(a)(3);
``(ii) implementing teacher induction programs pursuant to
section 2502(a)(1);
``(iii) providing effective professional development in
accordance with section 2502(a)(2);
``(iv) implementing mentoring, coaching, and sustained
professional development for school principals and other
school leaders pursuant to section 2502(a)(4); and
``(v) providing significant and sustainable teacher
stipends, pursuant to section 2502(a)(6);
``(B) a description of how the local educational agency
will--
``(i) conduct and utilize valid and reliable surveys
pursuant to section 2502(b); and
``(ii) ensure that such programs are integrated and aligned
pursuant to section 2502(c);
``(C)(i) a description of how the local educational agency
will use subgrant funds to target and support the lowest
achieving schools described in section 2501(a)(4) before
using funds for other lowest achieving schools; and
``(ii) a list that identifies all of the lowest achieving
schools that will be assisted under the subgrant;
``(D) a description of how the local educational agency
will enable effective inclusion of children with disabilities
and English language learners, including through utilization
by the teachers, principals, and other school leaders of the
local educational agency of--
``(i) response to intervention;
``(ii) positive behavioral supports;
``(iii) differentiated instruction;
``(iv) universal design of learning;
``(v) appropriate accommodations for instruction and
assessments;
``(vi) collaboration skills; and
``(vii) skill in effectively participating in
individualized education program meetings required under
section 614 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1414);
``(E) a description of how the local educational agency
will assist the lowest achieving schools in utilizing real-
time student learning data, based on evidence of student
learning and evidence of classroom practice, to--
``(i) drive instruction; and
``(ii) inform professional development for teachers,
mentors, principals, and other school leaders; and
``(F) a description of how the programs and assistance
provided under section 2502 will be managed and designed,
including a description of the division of labor and
different roles and responsibilities of local educational
agency central office staff members, school leaders, teacher
leaders, coaches, mentors, and evaluators.
``(3) Data analysis.--A local educational agency desiring a
subgrant under this part shall, prior to applying for the
subgrant, conduct a data analysis of each school served by
the local educational agency, based on data and information
collected from evidence of student learning, evidence of
classroom practice, and the State's longitudinal data system,
in order to--
``(A) determine which schools have the most critical
teacher, principal, and other school leader quality,
effectiveness, and professional development needs; and
``(B) allow the local educational agency to identify the
specific needs regarding the quality, effectiveness, and
professional development needs of the school's teachers,
principals, and other school leaders, including with respect
to instruction provided for individual student subgroups
(including children with disabilities and English language
learners) and specific grade levels and content areas.
``(4) Joint development and submission.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
a local educational agency shall--
``(i) jointly develop the application and data analysis
framework under this subsection with local organizations
representing the teachers, principals, and other school
leaders in the local educational agency; and
``(ii) submit the application and data analysis in
partnership with such local teacher, principal, and school
leader organizations.
``(B) Exception.--A State may, after consultation with the
Secretary, consider an application from a local educational
agency that is not jointly developed and submitted in
accordance with subparagraph (A) if the application includes
documentation of the local educational agency's extensive
attempt to work jointly with local teacher, principal, and
school leader organizations.

``SEC. 2502. USE OF FUNDS.

``(a) Induction, Professional Development, and Evaluation
System.--A local educational agency that receives a subgrant
under this part shall use the subgrant funds to improve
teacher and principal quality through a system of teacher and
principal induction, professional development, and
evaluation. Such system shall be developed, implemented, and
evaluated in collaboration with local teacher, principal, and
school leader organizations and local teacher, principal, and
school leader preparation programs and shall provide
assistance to each school that the local educational agency
has identified under section 2501(b)(2)(C)(ii), to--
``(1) implement a comprehensive, coherent, high quality
formalized induction program for beginning teachers during
not less than the teachers' first 2 years of full-time
employment as teachers with the local educational agency,
that shall include--
``(A) rigorous mentor selection by school or local
educational agency leaders with mentoring and instructional
expertise, including requirements that the mentor
demonstrate--
``(i) a proven track record of improving student learning;
``(ii) strong interpersonal and oral and written
communication skills;
``(iii) exemplary teaching skills, particularly with
diverse learners, including children with disabilities and
English language learners;
``(iv) skill in enabling the effective inclusion of diverse
learners, including children with disabilities and English
language learners;
``(v) commitment to personal and professional growth and
learning, such as National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards certification;
``(vi) willingness and experience in using real-time data,
as well as school and classroom level practices that have
demonstrated the capacity to--

``(I) improve student learning and classroom practice; and
``(II) inform instruction and professional growth;

[[Page S2525]]

``(vii) skill in engaging in successful collaboration with
other teachers, other school leaders, and staff;
``(viii) extensive knowledge of planning effective
assessments and analysis of student data;
``(ix) ability to address needs of adult learners in
professional development;
``(x) a commitment to participate in professional
development throughout the year to develop the knowledge and
skills related to effective mentoring;
``(xi) skill in promoting teacher reflection through
formative assessment processes, including conversations with
beginning teachers using evidence of student learning and
evidence of classroom practice; and
``(xii) ability to improve the effectiveness of the
mentor's mentees, as assessed by the evaluation system
described in paragraph (3);
``(B) a program of high quality, intensive, and ongoing
mentoring and mentor-teacher interactions that--
``(i) matches mentors with beginning teachers by grade
level and content area, to the extent practicable;
``(ii) assists each beginning teacher in--

``(I) analyzing data based on the beginning teacher's
evidence of student learning and evidence of classroom
practice, and utilizing research-based instructional
strategies, including differentiated instruction, to inform
and strengthen such practice;
``(II) developing and enhancing effective teaching skills;
``(III) enabling effective inclusion of children with
disabilities and English language learners, including through
the utilization of--

``(aa) response to intervention;
``(bb) positive behavioral supports;
``(cc) differentiated instruction;
``(dd) universal design of learning;
``(ee) appropriate accommodations for instruction and
assessments;
``(ff) collaboration skills; and
``(gg) skill in effectively participating in individualized
education program meetings required under section 614 of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1414);

``(IV) using formative assessments to--

``(aa) collect and analyze classroom-level data;
``(bb) foster evidence-based discussions;
``(cc) provide opportunities for self assessment;
``(dd) examine classroom practice; and
``(ee) establish goals for professional growth; and

``(V) achieving the goals of the school, district, and
statewide curricula;

``(iii) provides regular and ongoing opportunities for
beginning teachers and mentors to observe each other's
teaching methods in classroom settings during the school day;
``(iv) models innovative teaching methodologies through
techniques such as team teaching, demonstrations,
simulations, and consultations;
``(v) aligns with the mission and goals of the local
educational agency and school;
``(vi)(I) acts as a vehicle for a beginning teacher to
establish short- and long-term planning and professional
goals and to improve student learning and classroom practice;
and
``(II) guides, monitors, and assesses the beginning
teacher's progress toward such goals;
``(vii) assigns not more than 12 beginning teacher mentees
to a mentor who works full-time, and reduces such maximum
number of mentees proportionately for a mentor who works on a
part-time basis;
``(viii) provides joint professional development
opportunities for mentors and beginning teachers;
``(ix) may include the use of master teachers to support
mentors or other teachers;
``(x) improves student learning and classroom practice, as
measured by the evaluation system described in paragraph (3);
and
``(xi) assists each beginning teacher in--

``(I) connecting students' prior knowledge, life
experience, and interests with learning goals; and
``(II) engaging students in problem-solving and critical
thinking;

``(C) paid school release time of not less than 90 minutes
per week for high quality mentoring and mentor-teacher
interactions;
``(D) foundational training and ongoing professional
development for mentors that support the high quality
mentoring and mentor-teacher interactions described in
subparagraph (B); and
``(E) use of research-based teaching standards, formative
assessments, teacher portfolio processes (such as the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
certification process), and teacher development protocols
that supports the high quality mentoring and mentor-teacher
interactions described in subparagraph (B);
``(2) implement high-quality effective professional
development for teachers, principals, school librarians, and
other school leaders serving the schools targeted for
assistance under the subgrant;
``(3) develop and implement a rigorous, transparent, and
equitable teacher and principal evaluation system for all
schools served by the local educational agency that--
``(A)(i) provides formative individualized feedback to
teachers and principals on areas for improvement;
``(ii) provides for substantive support and interventions
targeted specifically on such areas of improvement; and
``(iii) results in summative evaluations;
``(B) differentiates the effectiveness of teachers and
principals using multiple rating categories that take into
account evidence of student learning;
``(C) shall be developed, implemented, and evaluated in
partnership with local teacher and principal organizations;
and
``(D) includes--
``(i) valid, clearly defined, and reliable performance
standards and rubrics for teacher evaluation based on
multiple performance measures, which shall include a
combination of--

``(I) evidence of classroom practice; and
``(II) evidence of student learning as a significant
factor;

``(ii) valid, clearly defined, and reliable performance
standards and rubrics for principal evaluation based on
multiple performance measures of student learning and
leadership skills, which standards shall include--

``(I) planning and articulating a shared and coherent
schoolwide direction and policy for achieving high standards
of student performance;
``(II) identifying and implementing the activities and
rigorous curriculum necessary for achieving such standards of
student performance;
``(III) supporting a culture of learning and professional
behavior and ensuring quality measures of classroom practice;
``(IV) communicating and engaging parents, families, and
other external communities; and
``(V) collecting, analyzing, and utilizing data and other
tangible evidence of student learning and evidence of
classroom practice to guide decisions and actions for
continuous improvement and to ensure performance
accountability;

``(iii) multiple and distinct rating options that allow
evaluators to--

``(I) conduct multiple classroom observations throughout
the school year;
``(II) examine the impact of the teacher or principal on
evidence of student learning and evidence of classroom
practice;
``(III) specifically describe and compare differences in
performance, growth, and development; and
``(IV) provide teachers or principals with detailed
individualized feedback and evaluation in a manner that
allows each teacher or principal to identify the areas of
classroom practice that need to be strengthened, refined, and
improved;

``(iv) implementing a formative assessment and summative
evaluation process based on the performance standards
established under clauses (i) and (ii);
``(v) rigorous training for evaluators on the performance
standards established under clauses (i) and (ii) and the
process of conducting effective evaluations, including how to
provide specific feedback and improve teaching and principal
practice based on evaluation results;
``(vi) regular monitoring and assessment of the quality and
fairness of the evaluation system and the evaluators'
judgements, including with respect to--

``(I) inter-rater reliability, including independent or
third-party reviews;
``(II) student assessments used in the evaluation system;
``(III) the performance standards established under clauses
(i) and (ii);
``(IV) training and qualifications of evaluators; and
``(V) timeliness of teacher and principal evaluations and
feedback;

``(vii) a plan and substantive targeted support for
teachers and principals who fail to meet the performance
standards established under clauses (i) and (ii);
``(viii) a streamlined, transparent, fair, and objective
decisionmaking process for documentation and removal of
teacher and principals who fail to meet such performance
standards, as governed by any applicable collective
bargaining agreement or State law and after substantive
targeted and reasonable support has been provided to such
teachers and principals; and
``(ix) in the case of a local educational agency in a State
that has a State evaluation framework, the alignment of the
local educational agency's evaluation system with, at a
minimum, such framework and the requirements of this
paragraph;
``(4) implement ongoing high-quality support, coaching, and
professional development for principals and other school
leaders serving the schools targeted for assistance under
such subgrant, which shall--
``(A) include a comprehensive, coherent, high-quality
formalized induction program outside the supervisory
structure for beginning principals and other school leaders,
during not less than the principals' and other school
leaders' first 2 years of full-time employment as a principal
or other school leader in the local educational agency, to
develop and improve the knowledge and skills described in
subparagraph (B), including--
``(i) a rigorous mentor or coach selection process based on
exemplary administrative expertise and experience;
``(ii) a program of ongoing opportunities throughout the
school year for the mentoring or coaching of beginning
principals and other school leaders, including opportunities
for regular observation and feedback;
``(iii) foundational training and ongoing professional
development for mentors or coaches; and
``(iv) the use of research-based leadership standards,
formative and summative assessments, or principal and other
school leader protocols (such as the National Board for

[[Page S2526]]

Professional Teaching Standards Certification for Educational
Leaders program or the 2008 Interstate School Leaders
Licensure Consortium Standards); and
``(B) improve the knowledge and skills of school principals
and other school leaders in--
``(i) planning and articulating a shared and clear
schoolwide direction, vision, and strategy for achieving high
standards of student performance;
``(ii) identifying and implementing the activities and
rigorous student curriculum and assessments necessary for
achieving such standards of performance;
``(iii) managing and supporting a collaborative culture of
ongoing learning and professional development and ensuring
quality evidence of classroom practice (including shared or
distributive leadership and providing timely and constructive
feedback to teachers to improve student learning and
strengthen classroom practice);
``(iv) communicating and engaging parents, families, and
local communities and organizations (including engaging in
partnerships among elementary schools, secondary schools, and
institutions of higher education to ensure the vertical
alignment of student learning outcomes);
``(v) collecting, analyzing, and utilizing data and other
tangible evidence of student learning and classroom practice
(including the use of formative and summative assessments)
to--

``(I) guide decisions and actions for continuous
instructional improvement; and
``(II) ensure performance accountability;

``(vi) managing resources and school time to ensure a safe
and effective student learning environment; and
``(vii) designing and implementing strategies for
differentiated instruction and effectively identifying and
educating diverse learners, including children with
disabilities and English language learners;
``(5)(A) create or enhance opportunities for teachers to
assume new school leadership roles and responsibilities,
including--
``(i) serving as mentors, instructional coaches, or master
teachers; or
``(ii) assuming increased responsibility for professional
development activities, curriculum development, or school
improvement and leadership activities; and
``(B) provide training for teachers who assume such school
leadership roles and responsibilities; and
``(6) provide significant and sustainable stipends above a
teacher's base salary for teachers that serve as mentors,
instructional coaches, teacher leaders, or evaluators under
the programs described in this subsection.
``(b) Survey.--A local educational agency receiving a
subgrant under this part shall conduct a valid and reliable
full population survey of teaching and learning, at the
school and local educational agency level, and include, as
topics in the survey, not less than the following elements
essential to improving student learning and retaining
effective teachers:
``(1) Instructional planning time.
``(2) School leadership.
``(3) Decision-making processes.
``(4) Teacher professional development.
``(5) Facilities and resources, including the school
library.
``(6) Beginning teacher induction.
``(7) School safety and environment.
``(c) Integration and Alignment.--The system described in
subsection (a) shall--
``(1) integrate and align all of the activities described
in such subsection;
``(2) be informed by, and integrated with, the results of
the survey described in subsection (b);
``(3) be aligned with the State's school improvement
efforts under sections 1116 and 1117; and
``(4) be aligned with the programs funded under title II of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other professional
development programs authorized under this Act.
``(d) Eligible Entities.--The assistance required to be
provided under this section may be provided--
``(1) by the local educational agency; or
``(2) by the local educational agency, in collaboration
with--
``(A) the State educational agency;
``(B) an institution of higher education;
``(C) a nonprofit organization;
``(D) a teacher organization;
``(E) a principal or school leader organization;
``(F) an educational service agency;
``(G) a teaching residency program; or
``(H) another nonprofit entity with experience in helping
schools improve student achievement.

``SEC. 2503. PROGRAM EVALUATION.

``(a) In General.--Each program required under section
2502(a) shall include a formal evaluation system to
determine, at a minimum, the effectiveness of each such
program on--
``(1) student learning;
``(2) retaining teachers and principals, including
differentiating the retainment data by profession and by the
level of performance of the teachers and principals, based on
the evaluation system described in section 2502(a)(3);
``(3) teacher, principal, and other school leader practice,
which shall include, for teachers and principals, practice
measured by the teacher and principal evaluation system
described in section 2502(a)(3);
``(4) student graduation rates, as applicable;
``(5) teaching, learning, and working conditions;
``(6) parent, family, and community involvement and
satisfaction;
``(7) student attendance rates;
``(8) teacher and principal satisfaction; and
``(9) student behavior.
``(b) Local Educational Agency and School Effectiveness.--
The formal evaluation system described in subsection (a)
shall also measure the effectiveness of the local educational
agency and school in--
``(1) implementing the comprehensive induction program
described in section 2502(a)(1);
``(2) implementing high-quality professional development
described in section 2502(a)(2);
``(3) developing and implementing a rigorous, transparent,
and equitable teacher and principal evaluation system
described in section 2502(a)(3);
``(4) implementing mentoring, coaching, and professional
development for school principals and other school leaders
described in section 2502(a)(4);
``(5) ensuring that mentors, teachers, and schools are
using data to inform instructional practices; and
``(6) ensuring that the comprehensive induction and high-
quality mentoring required under section 2502(a)(1) and the
high impact professional development required under section
2502(a)(2) are integrated and aligned with the State's school
improvement efforts under sections 1116 and 1117.
``(c) Conduct of Evaluation.--The evaluation described in
subsection (a) shall be--
``(1) conducted by the State, an institution of higher
education, or an external agency that is experienced in
conducting such evaluations; and
``(2) developed in collaboration with groups such as--
``(A) experienced educators with track records of success
in the classroom;
``(B) institutions of higher education involved with
teacher induction and professional development located within
the State; and
``(C) local teacher, principal, and school leader
organizations.
``(d) Dissemination.--
``(1) In general.--The results of the evaluation described
in subsection (a) shall be submitted to the Secretary.
``(2) Dissemination.--The Secretary shall make the results
of each evaluation described in subsection (a) available to
States, local educational agencies, and the public.

``SEC. 2504. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2011 and such sums as may
be necessary for each succeeding fiscal year.''.
______

By Mr. PRYOR:
S. 3243. A bill to require U.S. Customs and Border Protection to
administer polygraph examinations to all applicants for law enforcement
positions with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to require U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to complete all periodic background
reinvestigations of certain law enforcement personnel, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the related
problems of corruption at the U.S. border with Mexico, turf wars
between Federal investigators of corruption, and inadequate screening
for corruption of law enforcement personnel. Solving these problems is
crucial to ensuring we have a system that keeps drugs out, guns in, and
maintains an effective defense against efforts by drug cartels to
infiltrate parts of the Department of Homeland Security tasked with
border security.
The Mexican cartels that dominate drug trafficking into the U.S. are
sophisticated, ruthless, and well-funded. They operate widely in Mexico
through bribery and corruption and smuggle up to $25 billion of illegal
drugs as well as people into the U.S. They also smuggle illegal guns
and drug money back into Mexico. In 2009, drug violence in Mexico
resulted in over 9,600 murders. Already this year there have been over
3,300 murders. Some of the illegal drugs and money goes to and through
my State of Arkansas.
The cartels used to operate differently in the U.S. relying mostly on
stealth and a U.S. distribution network that reportedly includes
operations in an estimated 230 American cities. In my State, the
network includes the cities of Little Rock, Fort Smith and
Fayetteville. The heightened U.S. border defenses have put a squeeze on
cartels. They have tried to regain an advantage by exporting to the
U.S. their experience and success in bribing and corrupting government
officials who can facilitate their business.
Today, I am introducing legislation and sending a letter with three
other

[[Page S2527]]

senators to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to
reverse what has become a successful campaign by drug cartels to
infiltrate U.S. law enforcement. At risk here is more than drug
trafficking. National security is also threatened because border
weaknesses can be exploited by terrorists to transport operatives and
weapons into the U.S.
At a recent hearing I chaired in a subcommittee of the Homeland
Security Committee, witnesses revealed that while an array of U.S.
Government agencies have been targeted for infiltration by the cartels,
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, known as CBP, has been
shockingly susceptible to the threat. Federal investigators testified
that 129 CBP officials have been arrested on corruption charges since
2003. In addition, the DHS Inspector General opened 576 allegations of
corruption within CBP in 2009. Now, the vast majority of CBP officers
are good, decent, hard-working people. That is why we need to help them
root out those that are corrupting the system.
Some of CBP's susceptibility to infiltrate is the result of the high-
threat environment in which CBP works. But it is also because the
dramatic increases in staff levels since 2003--which is a good thing--
means that the agency doesn't always meet its own guidelines for
screening of job applicants and existing employees. That is not as
good, and we need to take action to make sure that the processes in
place to uncover infiltration and corruption are effective.
Established personnel integrity policies call for polygraph
examinations and background investigations of all job applicants for
CBP law enforcement positions as part of the screening process prior to
being offered employment, however less than 15 percent received the
full screening in 2009. CBP also has a 10,000 person backlog on these
reinvestigations of existing personnel.
There are also indications that there may be coordination and
information sharing problems between the DHS components responsible for
investigating corruption. Evidence of these problems include a December
16, 2009, memo from the DHS Inspector General's office and a March 30,
2010, Washington Post article detailing a lack of coordination between
Federal investigators regarding corruption cases.
As we seem to learn over and over again, cooperation and coordination
by Federal, state, and local law enforcement is essential to
identifying and defeating threats to our national security. The threat
of infiltration by drug cartels is no different.
I am deeply concerned that the department responsible for the
security of our homeland is falling short in these important areas.
To address these problems, I am sending a letter along with Senators
Feingold, Wyden, and Burris to DHS Secretary Napolitano requesting that
she resolve turf issues between investigators and integrity screening
shortcomings at CBP. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be
inserted in the Record after my statement.
I am also introducing the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010. My bill
requires DHS to address the integrity screening problems at CBP and
make progress reports to Congress. Specifically, it requires that DHS
take such actions as necessary to ensure that the backlog of periodic
background investigations is cleared up within 60 days. It also
requires job applicants to receive the polygraph test as required by
DHS policy within 2 years.
Finally, I close with a message about and to the men and women at
Customs and Border Protection. Despite the unfortunate actions of a few
that dishonor a proud tradition at CBP, we know the vast majority of
CBP employees are patriotic, honest, and hard-working. We know and
value the contribution they make to the safety of America and the risks
that they take on our behalf. They deserve and have our thanks,
support, and commitment to help them weed out bad elements in their
organization.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3243

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Anti-Border Corruption Act
of 2010''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) According to the Office of the Inspector General of the
Department of Homeland Security, since 2003, 129 U.S. Customs
and Border Protection officials have been arrested on
corruption charges and, during 2009, 576 investigations were
opened on allegations of improper conduct by U.S. Customs and
Border Protection officials.
(2) To foster integrity in the workplace, established
policy of U.S. Customs and Border Protection calls for--
(A) all job applicants for law enforcement positions at
U.S. Customs and Border Protection to receive a polygraph
examination and a background investigation before being
offered employment; and
(B) relevant employees to receive a periodic background
reinvestigation every 5 years.
(3) According to the Office of Internal Affairs of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection--
(A) in 2009, less than 15 percent of applicants for jobs
with U.S. Customs and Border Protection received polygraph
examinations;
(B) as of March 2010, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
had a backlog of approximately 10,000 periodic background
reinvestigations of existing employees; and
(C) without additional resources, by the end of fiscal year
2010, the backlog of periodic background reinvestigations
will increase to approximately 19,000.

SEC. 3. REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO ADMINISTERING POLYGRAPH
EXAMINATIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL OF
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that--
(1) by not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, all applicants for law enforcement
positions with U.S. Customs and Border Protection receive
polygraph examinations before being hired for such a
position; and
(2) by not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
initiates or completes all periodic background
reinvestigations for all law enforcement personnel of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection that should receive periodic
background reinvestigations pursuant to relevant policies of
U.S. Customs and Border Protection in effect on the day
before the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. PROGRESS REPORT.

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, and every 180 days thereafter through the date that
is 2 years after such date of enactment, the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall submit to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives a report on the progress made by U.S. Customs
and Border Protection toward complying with section 3.
____

April 21, 2010.
Hon. Janet Napolitano,
Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Napolitano: In a recent hearing in the
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on
State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration
on the corruption of U.S. officials by Mexican drug cartels,
senior officials of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
testified that drug cartels are specifically targeting and
infiltrating federal law enforcement agencies along the
southwest border. These corruption activities encompass
almost every layer of the DHS border security strategy.
Of concern are indications that there may be coordination
and information sharing problems that result in duplication
of investigative efforts between the DHS components
responsible for investigating corruption. Evidence of these
problems include the attached December 16, 2009, memo from
the DHS Inspector General's office asserting jurisdiction
over corruption investigations currently being carried out by
the Customs and Border Protection Internal Affairs and a
March 30, 2010, Washington Post article detailing a lack of
coordination between Federal investigators regarding
corruption cases. We ask that you assist these DHS components
in developing clearly defined roles and responsibilities
regarding corruption investigations to ensure proper sharing
of information and prevention of duplicative investigations.
It is our belief that cooperation and participation by
Federal, state, and local law enforcement is essential to
eliminating this growing threat to our national security.
Also of concern was testimony regarding significant,
growing corruption within U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) where 129 officials have been arrested on corruption
charges since 2003. The DHS Inspector General reported that
it had opened 576 allegations of corruption within CBP in
2009. It appears that CBP has been susceptible to
infiltration and corruption because it occupies the front
line in the prevention of smuggling

[[Page S2528]]

and illegal border crossings into the U.S., its dramatic
increases in staff levels since 2003, and DHS not meeting its
own guidelines for integrity screening of job applicants and
existing employees.
Hearing testimony established that although DHS integrity
policies call for polygraph examinations and background
investigations of all new job applicants for CBP law
enforcement positions as part of the screening process prior
to being offered employment, less than 15% received the full
screening in 2009. Testimony also established that periodic
reinvestigations are required of current law enforcement
personnel to uncover signs of corruption. CBP currently has a
10,000 person backlog of periodic reinvestigations, with the
number expected to rise to 19,000 by the end of this year.
These shortcomings pose a clear national security risk. We
believe this issue requires your immediate attention and
would like you to examine and specify what DHS is currently
doing to properly address these problems. We look forward to
working with you to solve this problem.
Sincerely,
Russell D. Feingold.
Mark L. Pryor.
Ron Wyden.
Roland W. Burris.

____________________