[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 5924-5933]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 5925]]

  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 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

[[Page 5926]]

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. 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

[[Page 5927]]

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 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

[[Page 5928]]

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 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'

[[Page 5929]]

     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.

     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

[[Page 5930]]

       ``(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;

       ``(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

[[Page 5931]]

     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 
     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;

[[Page 5932]]

       ``(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 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

[[Page 5933]]

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 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.

                          ____________________