[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 29737-29745]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 29738]]

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 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

[[Page 29739]]

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 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

[[Page 29740]]

     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--
       ``(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.

[[Page 29741]]

       ``(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 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

[[Page 29742]]

     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.
       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

[[Page 29743]]

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.
  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

[[Page 29744]]

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 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.

[[Page 29745]]

  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 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.

                          ____________________