College Saver's Credit Act of 2007

Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation I am introducing entitled the School Accountability Improvements Act. We all know about No Child Left Behind, the Federal legislation that was introduced in 2001. We recognize that NCLB made significant changes to Federal requirements for school districts in our States. Many of these changes have been very positive and truly quite necessary. Because of No Child Left Behind, there is clearly more national attention being paid to ensure that school districts and the States are held accountable for the achievement of students with disabilities and for those who are economically disadvantaged and for minority students.

In Alaska, this has meant, for example, that more of our urban school districts are paying closer attention than ever to the needs of our Alaska Native students. People across the Nation are also more aware that a teacher's knowledge of the subject matter and his or her ability to teach that subject are perhaps the most important factors in a child's achievement in school. Teachers, parents, administrators, and communities have more data now than they have ever had, more data about the achievement of the individual students and the subgroups of students and about our schools. With that data, we are making changes to school policies and procedures, and more students are now getting the help they need to succeed.

While these are just a few of the positive effects of No Child Left Behind, we recognize there have been problems. This is not surprising, as it is quite difficult to write one law that will work for a large urban city such as New York City in the East and have that be made generally applicable to a small remote rural community such as Nuiqsuit, AK.

My bill, the School Accountability Improvements Act, is meant to address five issues that we have identified in Alaska that are of particular concern to our State and of equal concern to other States. The first area we are focusing on would give flexibility to States regarding NCLB's highly qualified teacher requirements. In very small rural schools, particularly in my State, we will see a school where you have one teacher who is tasked with teaching multiple course subjects in the middle and in the high school grades.

Under NCLB, the requirement is that the teacher must be highly qualified in each of these subject matter areas. But I have been listening to some of the teachers out in my remote communities. They may be hired to be the English teacher, but in a remote community with a small school, something may happen during the year. Say, the science teacher or the math teacher has left in the middle of the school year-- not an uncommon situation--they are not able to get anyone into that school to help. So now the English teacher is tasked to teach another subject.

Under NCLB, he or she would then be required to be highly qualified in every subject they teach. So what my legislation would allow is for middle and high school teachers who work in schools with fewer than 200 students and that have difficulty hiring and retaining qualified teachers in these areas to be deemed to be ``highly qualified'' if they have a degree or they pass a rigorous subject matter test in one of the core subjects they teach, as long as they can demonstrate they are highly effective at delivering instruction on a State-developed performance assessment.

We are doing this in the State of Alaska now, where essentially a teacher can demonstrate, through the use of a video, their teaching methodology. But we must recognize we will have situations in our smaller schools, in our rural schools, where in order to be highly qualified in every core subject area they are teaching, we simply are not able to meet that. So we are asking for a level of flexibility for the States.

We recognize it is vital that the teachers know the subjects they teach. This is critical. But it is also unreasonable to expect teachers in these very tiny schools to meet the current requirements in every single subject they may end up teaching. It is almost impossible for school districts to find and then hire such teachers. So this provision is offered as a compromise in these limited situations.

The second area the legislation focuses on is how we determine or how we calculate Adequate Yearly Progress. My legislation would require the U.S. Department of Education to approve a State's use of a growth model for calculating Adequate Yearly Progress if that model meets the core requirements of No Child Left Behind.

Now, we know it can be useful for teachers, certainly for the administrators, to know how one group of third grade students, how one class compares to, say, the next year's class. But it is much more useful for educators, students, and parents to know how well each individual child has mastered each year's State standards.

As a parent, yes, I want to know how my son's class is advancing as a whole. But as a parent, I want to know how he is doing from year to year, not just how his third grade class did and how the next class coming up behind him is going to do. I want to know what it means for me and my child as an individual.

Schools should be held accountable for how well they are addressing each child's needs. Is the child proficient? Is he or she on track to be proficient? Or is he or she falling behind? These are things parents want to know. Are the schools making great progress in bringing all children to great proficiency, or are they maybe just missing the mark, or are they having very systemic difficulties? We know so many of the States now have very robust data systems that will allow them to track this information. NCLB should allow them to use the statistical model that is going to be most useful. It will actually be the best indicator of how each child is doing.

Another area the legislation addresses is the issue of school choice and tutoring. As you know, No Child Left Behind gives parents an opportunity to move their children out of a dysfunctional school. If the school fails to meet AYP 2 years running, then the next choice that is offered the parent is your child can go to another school. In some parts of my State, that is geographically, physically impossible, and we have made accommodations around that. In the more urban school districts in Alaska, what we have found is parents are not choosing, as a general rule, to exercise that option. They are looking for something else. The law requires school districts to offer the school choice and to set aside funds to pay for the transportation in year 2 of improvement status. Then, in year 3, schools are required to offer tutoring if they reach that needs improvement status then.

What I am suggesting in my legislation as to school choice is that moving children in year 2, if we fail to meet Adequate Yearly Progress, is too early in the process. Schools should be given the opportunity to address their deficiencies first, addressing them first within the school before they transport the students all over town. I think most parents agree with this. This is why, at least in Alaska, we are seeing fewer than 2 percent of parents choosing to transfer their children to another school. They would rather have those supplemental services offered in the school to see if they can't help address the needs of the child. Then if it still does not work, let's look to the next option.

So my bill would flip the school choice and the tutoring. It would also limit the requirement for schools to offer these options to students who are not proficient rather than to all the children, including those who are being well served by the school. It would also allow the school districts to provide tutoring to students even if they are in improvement status. It is recognizing, again, we should look at the individual child and see if we can't tailor this to make it more responsive.

As you know, assessing whether a child is proficient on State standards in a reliable and valid way is difficult. It is even more difficult when the child has a disability or has limited English proficiency. Research has not caught up with assessments for these subgroups, and no one is completely sure

whether the tests they are giving these students are measuring what they know. Yet, NCLB requires that if a school does not make AYP for any subgroup for 6 years, the school district has the option to completely restructure that school. Similarly, a State has the option to restructure an entire school district.

For those truly dysfunctional schools and districts, that may be appropriate as determined by the individual district or State. But if we do not even know if the assessment scores are valid and reliable, how do we justify taking over a school, firing its teachers, turning its governance over to another entity, or other such drastic measures? We cannot. But we recognize that each child with a disability, and each child who is limited English proficient deserves the best possible education.

So that is why my bill would not allow a school or a school district to be restructured if: No. 1, the school missed AYP for one or both of those subgroups alone; and, No. 2, the school can show through a growth model that the students in those two subgroups are on track to be proficient.

Another area in the legislation we focus on is our Native heritage languages. In Alaska, Hawaii, and several other States, Native Americans are working hard to keep their heritage languages and their cultures alive. Teachers will tell you, and the research backs them up, that Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, and American Indian students learn better when their heritage is a respected and vibrant part of their education. This is true of any child, but I think particularly true for these groups of Americans.

Many schools around the country that serve these students have incorporated native language programs into their early curriculums--the curriculums in grades K-3. The problem is that in many instances, there is no valid and reliable way to assess whether the students have learned their State standards in that language. Neither is it valid to test what a student knows in a language they do not speak well.

The example I will give you is that in the Lower Kuskokwim School District, in many of the schools, in an effort to get the children to connect with their education and to connect with their Yupik heritage, Yupik is taught in grades K-3. It is an immersion level program. If you go out there, the children are reading in Yupik. They are doing their math in Yupik. They are doing science experiments in Yupik. But then, in grade 3, they are required to test, under NCLB, in English.

Now, not surprisingly, the children are not doing well on these tests. We need to anticipate the results. If you have not taught a child in a language in which they are going to be tested, perhaps, initially, they are not going to be performing at the level we want.

I want to impress upon my colleagues the importance I believe we should place on allowing for those heritage languages to be preserved, to encourage our students in languages. Our research tells us--and I can tell you from a very personal experience with my two boys, who were part of a Spanish immersion program from the time they were in kindergarten through 8th grade in the public schools in Anchorage, they learned their sciences and math and geography and all their subjects in Spanish as well as English. Initially, you are a little anxious because: Are the test scores going to measure up? But what we can tell you is that by the time the children are being tested, certainly up in middle school, they are not only testing strong--very strong in both languages--but they know a second language very well.

What my legislation will do in this area is allow schools with Native American language programs in States where there is no assessment in that heritage language to count the third graders--the first time they take the standardized tests--to count the students for participation rate only. It would then allow the school to make AYP if those students are proficient or on track to be proficient in grades 4 through 7.

Then, the final area of my legislation is what I am calling the parent piece. As a parent, we know--you know; my colleague from the State of Washington was very involved with education before she came to the Senate as well--we all know as parents how important it is to be involved in our children's education.

At the end of the day, not only did my husband and I check on our boys' homework, we asked them: What happened today? What is going on? I was PTA president at my kids' elementary school.

NCLB recognizes that in many ways it is very important that parents are part of a child's education. But we also recognize we can be doing more. My bill would amend title II of NCLB, which authorizes subgrants for preparing, training, and recruiting teachers and principals, to allow--but not mandate--these funds to be used to develop parental engagement strategies, to train educators to communicate more effectively with parents, and better involve parents in their schools.

We all know how great our Nation's teachers are. But our reality is, very few of them graduate from college having had a course on how to effectively communicate with parents. They know how important it is, but they are taught no techniques. Teachers are busy people. When a parent shows up at a classroom door and says: Hey, I am here to help, teachers often do not know how to react, how to allow them to help. Many teachers have difficulty communicating with parents, who may be working two jobs or have a different cultural background or language. This section of the bill would allow schools to spend some of their teacher training funds on these sorts of issues if they feel it would benefit their students.

I know these five issues are not the only ones my colleagues and Americans may have with the No Child Left Behind Act. I have been talking with Alaskans all over the State about NCLB since I first came to the Senate. I look forward to working very hard on the reauthorization of the law this year with my colleagues. These, though, are the five issues that educators and parents in Alaska have told me are the most urgent for them, and I look forward to working to include them in the reauthorization as we move forward.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the College Saver's Credit Act, a bill designed to open the dream of higher education to many more Americans.

Few choices in life have the economic consequence as the decision to enter college. Compare college-educated workers to their high-school- educated peers: those with a college diploma will earn $1 million more over

the course of a lifetime than their peers without one. That million- dollar difference lays bare the power in college access.

And yet there are literally hundreds of thousands of young men and women who want to choose a college education, and cannot. These young men and women are prepared to enter into our college-educated middle class--prepared in intellect, prepared in maturity, prepared in ambition--and are shut out by the cost of tuition.

This year, 400,000 high school seniors whose families have low or moderate incomes will be priced out of college. Of those, nearly 200,000 will never attend college at all. They will lose their chance at higher education, and as a consequence, they will face almost twice the odds of unemployment.

And unless we take action, the number of excluded Americans is only likely to increase. Over the past 10 years, the cost of attending a 4- year public college has increased by more than $2,800, or 96 percent, and the cost of attending a four-year private college has increased by more than $9,000, or 71 percent. These costs continue to rise today.

We must take steps to break down these barriers to access, starting by making it easier for families to save for higher education. The refundable College Saver's Credit created by this act would do just that--even as it boosts personal and national savings, at a time when these rates are setting new lows. It would provide a powerful complement to the other forms of financial aid available to students, which, I might add, we should also continue to work to strengthen.

The College Saver's Credit would be available to low- and moderate- income taxpayers who save in Section 529 college savings plans: specifically, to joint filers making up to $60,000, heads of households making up to $45,000, and all other taxpayers making up to $30,000, with all numbers indexed for inflation. In other words, the credit is designed to provide the greatest benefit to those who have the greatest difficulty affording college.

Taxpayers could claim a 50 percent credit for Section 529 plan contributions, up to a maximum credit of $2,000. The College Saver's Credit would be fully refundable--meaning that even taxpayers who do not make enough money to have a high tax liability would be eligible to claim the credit's full value--provided that the refunded amount is put towards qualified higher educational expenses. Any refund would be deposited directly and automatically into the taxpayer's or taxpayer's beneficiary's designated 529 college savings plan, taking advantage of the IRS's new ``split refund'' option. Funds attributable to refunds from the College Saver's Credit could accumulate earnings tax-free (like the rest of the taxpayer's savings in a 529 plan), but may only be distributed to pay college costs--otherwise, they must be returned to the Treasury.

In his budget this year, President Bush proposed expanding the Saver's Credit for retirement savings to section 529 college savings plans. Establishing the refundable College Saver's Credit would accomplish this goal in a way that provides the greatest value to those Americans who need it most.

And in doing that, this bill accomplishes two worthy, and linked, goals: It encourages Americans to plan and prepare for the future; and it truly widens the doors to college.

Savings and education: They are pillars of our prosperity--prosperity that will grow even as it is shared more widely.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act of 2007. Food allergies are an increasing food safety and public health concern in this country, especially among young children. I know firsthand just how frightening food allergies can be in a young person's life. My own family has been personally touched by this troubling condition and we continue to struggle with it each and every day. Sadly, there is no cure for food allergies.

In the past 5 years, the number of Americans with food allergies has nearly doubled from 6 million to almost 12 million. While food allergies were at one time considered relatively infrequent, today they rank 3rd among common chronic diseases in children under 18 years of age. Peanuts are among several allergenic foods that can produce life threatening allergic reactions in susceptible children. Peanut allergies have doubled among school age children from 1997-2002.

Clearly, food allergies are of great concern for school age children nationwide, and yet, there are no federal guidelines concerning the management of life threatening food allergies in our Nation's schools.

I have heard from parents, teachers and school administrators that students with severe food allergies often face inconsistent food allergy management approaches when they change schools. Too often, families are not aware of the food allergy policy at their children's school, or the policy is vastly different from the one they knew at their previous school, and they are left wondering whether their child is safe.

Recently, Connecticut became the first State to enact school-based guidelines concerning food allergies and the prevention of life threatening incidents in schools. I am very proud of these efforts, and I know that the parents of children who suffer from food allergies in Connecticut have confidence that their children are safe throughout the school day. States such as Massachusetts and Tennessee have enacted similar guidelines and Vermont, New Jersey, Arizona, Michigan and New York have either passed or have pending legislation to enact statewide guidelines. But too many States across the country have food allergy management guidelines that are inconsistent from one school district to the next. The result is a patchwork of guidelines that not only may vary from state to state, but also from school district to school district.

In my view, this lack of consistency underscores the need for enactment of uniform Federal policies that school districts can choose to adopt and implement. For this reason, I am introducing the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act of 2007 today to address the growing need for uniform and consistent school-based food allergy management policy. The bill I am introducing today closely mirrors legislation I introduced last Congress with former Senator Frist. I thank him for his past leadership and commitment to this important legislation.

The legislation does two things. First, it directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, to develop and make available voluntary food allergy management guidelines for preventing exposure to food allergens and assuring a prompt response when a student suffers a potentially fatal anaphylactic reaction. The guidelines developed by the Secretary are voluntary, not mandatory. Under the legislation, each school district across the country can voluntarily choose to implement these guidelines. The intent of the legislation is not to mandate individual school policy, but rather to provide for consistency of policies relating to school-based food allergy management by providing schools with consistent guidelines at the Federal level.

Second, the bill provides for incentive grants to school districts to assist them with adoption and implementation of the federal government's allergy management guidelines in all K-12 public schools.

I would like to recognize the leadership of Congresswoman Nita Lowey who is introducing companion legislation today in the House of Representatives. She has been a longstanding champion for children and for awareness of the devastating impact of food allergies. I also wish to acknowledge and offer my sincere appreciation to the members of the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network for their commitment to this legislation and for raising public awareness, providing advocacy, and advancing research on behalf of all individuals who suffer from food allergies.

This legislation is supported by the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from these organizations be printed in the Record.

I hope that my colleagues in the Senate and in the House will consider and pass this important legislation before the end of the year so that the Department of Health and Human Services can begin work on developing national guidelines as soon as possible. Schoolchildren across the country deserve nothing less than a safe and healthy learning environment.

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

Mr. President, today I, along with my good friend and ranking member, Senator Craig, introduce comprehensive legislation to improve the capacity of the Department of Veterans Affairs to care for veterans with traumatic brain injuries, otherwise referred to as TBI.

TBI has become the signature wound of the Iraq war. Blast injuries account for over 60 percent of all combat wounds suffered by U.S. forces in Iraq. The brain can be harmed by the shock of an explosion, or by rattling or striking of the head as a consequence of the explosion. The high incidence of powerful explosive attacks means that potentially thousands of OIF/OEF veterans have incurred some form of brain damage or impairment. Many servicemembers who would have perished from their wounds in earlier conflicts are now saved by modern body armor and rapid medical evacuation. Although these individuals survive, many of them suffer brain damage in addition to other injuries. There must be new approaches to best meet the health care needs of these veterans.

On March 27, 2007, I chaired a Committee on Veterans' Affairs hearing on VA's ability to deal with war injuries, including TBI. The provisions of this bill are a direct outgrowth of that hearing and the testimony given by those who suffer with TBI.

This bill addresses the immediate needs of veterans with TBI for high-quality rehabilitation in their communities, and provides VA clinicians with increased resources to develop the expertise and capacity to meet the lifelong needs of these veterans. The bill has seven core provisions, and authorizes a total of $63 million over 6 years to support new TBI-related initiatives. While this amounts to significant new funding, every dollar was included in our Committee's Views and Estimates Letter to the Budget Committee, and was subsequently included in the Senate-passed Budget Resolution.

I will highlight a few of the provisions of this legislation:

First, VA health care providers would be required to develop a comprehensive rehabilitation and community reintegration plan for each veteran with TBI. A diverse team of VA health care providers would be required to review and refine the plan to adapt to the needs of the veteran. Giving an injured veteran or their caregiver an opportunity to request a review of the rehabilitation plan would ensure VA's responsiveness to the needs of these individuals. This provision stems directly from the hearing testimony of Denise Mettie, whose severely injured son Evan went for months without a coherent, well-thought-out rehabilitation plan.

Second, as we heard from the story by ABC news anchor Bob Woodruff, who himself suffered a TBI, VA's four lead polytrauma centers have developed significant expertise in rehabilitative care, but most other VA facilities lack capacity for specialized TBI services. The bill would require VA to implement the individualized plan through outside providers in cases where VA is unable to provide the required intensity of care or the veteran lives too far away to make VA treatment feasible. This provision is inspired by the hearing testimony of Dr. Bruce Gans, who called for greater private sector involvement in veterans' rehabilitation in those cases where VA lacks capacity or geographic reach. Our goal is to ensure that VA care is the finest in the country. When VA cannot adequately serve veterans with TBI, community providers need to be utilized.

Third, care for veterans with severe TBI often leads to nursing home care. This legislation would give VA providers, in collaboration with the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, the ability to conduct innovative research and treatment to ``re-awaken'' veterans with severe TBI, by making $15 million available for research and care over 5 years.

Finally, the legislation makes available $48 million over 6 years for VA to maximize the independence, quality of life, and community reintegration of veterans with TBI who are unable to manage routine activities of daily living. These funds would be available for an assisted living pilot program for those with TBI, so that veterans who might otherwise be forced into institutional long-term care will instead have an opportunity to live in group homes or under other arrangements. The bill also requires special consideration for rural veteran participation in this pilot program.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this innovative and comprehensive legislation, which will bring hope and progress to many brain injured veterans and their families.

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

President, I rise to join my colleagues, Senators Lieberman and Brownback in introducing legislation establishing a wildlife global animal information network for detection of emerging, highly contagious diseases in non-agricultural animals. This bill is an important part of efforts to prevent and respond to natural or intentional pandemic disease outbreaks in the U.S.

Our legislation focuses on the source of nearly all pandemic disease outbreaks over the last 30 years--zoonotic diseases, or diseases that originate in animals, either agricultural or non-agricultural, and, through mutation, are passed to humans. Avian influenza, West Nile Virus and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) are all zoonotic diseases originating in animals and subsequently transmitted to humans. The prevalence of such diseases underscores the need to link veterinary health and public health arenas. America's infrastructure for pandemic flu preparedness and response should therefore include the ability to monitor zoonotic diseases, creating an early warning and response system which will alert public health officials and animal health experts at the emergence of highly contagious diseases before they are passed to humans.

The global animal information network for surveillance proposed in this bill has its roots in the activities of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to assist countries dealing with the most recent outbreak of the H5N1 strain of avian influenza. In close cooperation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Departments of State, Defense, Agriculture, Homeland Security and the Wildlife Conservation Society, USAID is providing assistance to those countries most hard hit by avian influenza. To date, animal outbreaks have been reported in 55 countries, and 12 countries have had confirmed human cases. A total of 291 humans have been infected, resulting in 172 deaths. This translates into a case fatality rate of roughly 60 percent.

To date, USAID has committed a total of $192 million for avian influenza assistance activities in these countries for preparedness and response. The goal of its activities is to lower the amount of circulating virus and limiting the opportunity for people to become infected with avian flu.

Despite these efforts, many of which have demonstrated the effectiveness of interventions being used to control the spread of avian flu, this zoonotic disease continues to mutate and as such, persist as a threat, both to animals and to people. The animal surveillance network being proposed in this bill is one critical tool to detect other wildlife-based emergent contagious diseases before they impact humans and agricultural animals.

While detecting and preventing these highly contagious diseases is critical for human health and economic stability, I would like to emphasize that, as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) observed in a 2000 report entitled ``West Nile Virus Outbreak: Lessons for Public Health Preparedness'', on the West Nile Virus outbreak in New York City, ``Because a bioterrorist event could look like a natural outbreak, bioterrorism preparedness rests in large part on public health preparedness.'' Creating early warning tools such as this one can aid efforts to protect the U.S. from natural outbreaks and deliberate bioterrorist attacks. While the network alone does not protect us, it does contribute to the mosaic of homeland security activities designed to protect Americans, and those in other countries most vulnerable to bioterrorist attacks.

It is for this reason that I am pleased to join Senators Lieberman and Brownback in introducing this bill and urge its support.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Campus Law Enforcement Emergency Response Act of 2007. This legislation takes several important steps to enhance the security of college and university campuses, including ensuring that schools have created and tested emergency response procedures and notification systems.

We will never forget the tragic events at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007, when a mentally ill gunman brutally murdered 32 men and women over a period of several hours. This horrible incident demonstrated the need for colleges and universities to develop and test procedures for responding to emergency situations that pose a large-scale threat to public safety. In the era we live in today, college campuses may be viewed as inviting targets for those who seek to terrorize or kill. We have to be prepared for the possibility of mass-casualty attacks on our college campuses, and we have to be ready to respond to them if they occur.

Many schools in my home State of Illinois and elsewhere have taken measures, both before and after the Virginia Tech shootings, to safeguard against such emergency incidents. However, there are nearly 4,300 colleges and universities in the country, serving over 17 million students and millions more faculty, staff and campus visitors each year. We need to ensure that all of these institutions have effective law enforcement emergency response procedures in place, and we need to provide guidance and assistance for schools that need it.

The Campus Law Enforcement Emergency Response Act would ensure that institutions of higher education meet baseline preparedness and testing requirements for law enforcement emergencies. The bill would expand the focus of the Clery Act, an existing law that requires colleges and universities to issue annual reports on campus crime and crime security measures, to cover ``law enforcement emergency'' situations. The term ``law enforcement emergency'' as defined in the bill would include situations that occur on a college campus that involve a law enforcement response and that pose a potential threat of continuing danger. Such situations would include ``a shooting, the presence of an armed and dangerous person, a bomb threat, the presence of an unauthorized hazardous or toxic material that poses a threat to health and safety, a lock-down, a reverse evacuation, or any other comparable type of incident on the campus . . . that involves the participation of one or more law enforcement agencies.'' Because of the threat of large- scale dangers that these types of emergency incidents pose to the campus community, additional preparations should be made for them.

First, the bill would require higher education institutions to develop and distribute policies regarding the institution's law enforcement emergency response program. These policies would have to specify the procedures students and employees should follow if a law enforcement emergency occurs and the procedures that the school and its partner law enforcement agencies would follow to inform and guide students and employees in case of such an emergency. Under this bill, schools are encouraged to establish notification procedures such as e- mail alerts, telephone alerts, text-message alerts, radio announcements, television alerts, audible alert signals, and public address announcements.

The bill would also require institutions to test their law enforcement emergency response procedures at least annually. Such testing is crucial for ensuring the efficient and effective coordination of law enforcement response activities with the actions of those on campus.

In addition, this legislation would require institutions to provide notice to the campus community through its notification procedures no later than 30 minutes after the discovery of a law enforcement emergency. Many have pointed out that over 2 hours passed between the discovery of the first shootings on the Virginia Tech campus and the initial threat notification to the Virginia Tech community. In the interim period, the Virginia Tech gunman moved across campus and shot many more victims. A 30-minute notification requirement provides enough time for law enforcement agencies to assess an emergency situation and to issue, at minimum, an alert notifying the campus community about the possibility of further danger.

The bill would give the Departments of Education and Justice joint authority to review, monitor, and ensure compliance with the bill's requirements. Given the Department of Justices experience in dealing with law enforcement emergencies, joint authority and coordination with the Department of Education will provide a significant benefit to schools. Additionally, the bill would authorize the Education and Justice Departments to advise schools on model law enforcement emergency response procedures and to disseminate information about these procedures. The bill would further require schools to report statistics on the actual occurrence of law enforcement emergencies at each school.

Finally, the bill would create a competitive grant program, to be administered by the Department of Education, to help institutions develop, implement, operate, improve, test, and disseminate campus law enforcement emergency response programs. The program would be authorized for 5 years, at $5 million for the first year and for such sums as may be necessary thereafter.

The tragedy at Virginia Tech should cause us to reassess numerous laws in an effort to prevent such tragedies from happening in the future. We need to reevaluate the State and Federal laws that allowed a man to purchase guns and ammunition despite a prior determination of mental illness by a court. We need to take a hard look at mental health in this country and to craft policies that identify and provide support for those with signs of mental illness. We must also work to strengthen the security of our primary and secondary schools in order to safeguard against shootings and other dangerous incidents on those school grounds. These issues will be the subject of discussions in the days to come, and enhancing the preparedness of our college campuses for law enforcement emergencies must be a part of those discussions as well.

Sadly, we cannot guarantee that a mass tragedy will never occur again on an American campus. But it is imperative that the Government, law enforcement agencies, and school administrations work together to guard against mass-casualty threats as best we can and to be ready to respond if they occur. The Campus Law Enforcement Emergency Response Act will help ensure that those who live, work, and study at our colleges and universities can do so more safely. I urge the Congress to pass this important and critical legislation.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Protecting America's Workers Act.

This week, on Workers' Memorial Day, we remember those who have been killed or injured on the job, and we reaffirm our commitment to workers and their families to do all we can to end these senseless tragedies.

We've made progress in protecting worker safety since we passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970.

But too many workers still are not safe. In 2005 alone, over 5,700 workers were killed on the job. Over 4 million became ill or were injured. That's nearly 16 deaths and 12,000 workplace injuries or illnesses each and every day.

Last year, the tragic deaths of miners at Sago and Alma mines showed us the gaps and shortcomings in mine safety. Across the country, America saw the senseless deaths of workers and the suffering of their families and friends. Every day, workers in other industries are facing equally dangerous conditions. Those dangers may not make headlines, but they continue to threaten workers' health, their lives, and their families' security.

One of the most obvious problems is that literally millions of employees today are not covered by our safety laws. Too many other firms blatantly ignore the law and refuse to do what is necessary to keep their employees safe.

Too often, as well, we find that those responsible for administering our safety laws aren't doing their job--not issuing new safety standards, not vigorously enforcing the law, and not even going after the worst offenders.

Many companies are doing too little to deal with this challenge. Some employers blatantly ignore the law, but are rarely held accountable, even when their actions or neglect kill a loyal employee who works for them. Criminal penalties are so low that prosecutors don't pursue these cases. And employers who repeatedly violate the law--time and time again--pay only minimal fines, which they treat as just another cost of doing business.

American workers and their families are paying the price. This includes people like Mike Morrison, who was killed while installing pipes at a construction site in Florida, when the nine-foot-deep trench he was working in collapsed. An OSHA investigation found that the trench had not been secured properly before workers were sent into it. The employer whose failures had killed Mike was fined a mere $21,000, a slap on the wrist. Two years earlier, the company had been cited and fined for other safety violations. As Mike's step-daughter Michelle says, ``If the penalties had been more substantial two years ago, maybe Mike's company would have complied with the law and protected him properly, and maybe he'd still be with us today.''

Or Eleazar Torres-Gomez, who was killed working at a laundry facility in Tulsa, OK, where he had been employed for seven years. Eleazar was dragged into an industrial dryer, where the temperatures were near 300 degrees. The company he worked for had been previously fined for not installing protective guards on a similar dryer and belt at one of its other plants. Eleazar's eldest son Emanuel said, ``If the company had added the guards, which it knew were required by OSHA, my father would be alive today. The sorrow we feel is overwhelming.''

And they include workers like Tracee Binion, a science teacher in Pinson, AL. Tracee became ill after renovations on her school exposed her to chemicals in unventilated classrooms. She developed chemical pneumonitis and chemically-induced asthma, lost weeks of school and to this day must manage her asthma with medication. In Alabama, Tracee and thousands of

teachers like her are not covered by our safety laws. They have no one to call when they need protection from workplace hazards.

We need to do everything we can to see that other workers and their families don't have to suffer the same grief.

Congress can take concrete steps to address many of these failures. That's why today we are reintroducing the Protecting America's Workers Act. This legislation will do several key things:

It expands the coverage of our safety laws to protect 8.6 million public employees and transportation workers.

It requires OSHA to investigate every case where a worker is killed or seriously injured. And it gives family members greater rights to be part of accident investigations.

It also protects workers who speak up about unsafe conditions on the job, by bringing OSHA whistleblower laws in line with protections in other areas.

It puts real teeth in our safety laws by increasing penalties. These penalties have not been raised since 1990. This bill sets a minimum penalty of $50,000 for a worker's death caused by a willful safety violation. And it increases the maximum criminal penalty for killing or seriously injuring a worker to ten years of prison, instead of six months.

Beyond this legislation, we must also find new and smarter ways of keeping workers safe. We must shine a light on OSHA to ensure that our safety laws are implemented the way they were intended--to protect workers by preventing hazards on the job. The administration needs to put workers first and get the job done.

It's time to send a message to those who put their employees in harm's way that life and health must be valued above profit and greed. It's time to redouble our efforts and make our commitment a reality. It's time for Congress to act, so that the hardworking men and women of our country get what they deserve at last--the security of a safe and healthy workplace.

I urge my colleagues to join me in fighting for safe workplaces for all of America's workers. The best way for Congress to honor the Nation's hardworking men and women on this Worker's Memorial Day is to end our complacency and see that the full promise of OSHA becomes a genuine reality for every working family in every community in America.