[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 108 (Monday, July 13, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4994-S5002]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EVERY CHILD ACHIEVES ACT OF 2015
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 1177, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1177) to reauthorize the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to ensure that every child
achieves.
Pending:
Alexander/Murray amendment No. 2089, in the nature of a
substitute.
Murray (for Peters) amendment No. 2095 (to amendment No.
2089), to allow local educational agencies to use parent and
family engagement funds for financial literacy activities.
Murray (for Warren/Gardner) amendment No. 2120 (to
amendment No. 2089), to amend section 1111(d) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 regarding the
cross-tabulation of student data.
Alexander (for Kirk) amendment No. 2161 (to amendment No.
2089), to ensure that States measure and report on indicators
of student access to critical educational resources and
identify disparities in such resources.
Alexander (for Scott) amendment No. 2132 (to amendment No.
2089), to expand opportunity by allowing Title I funds to
follow low-income children.
Alexander (for Hatch/Markey) amendment No. 2080 (to
amendment No. 2089), to establish a committee on student
privacy policy.
Murray (for Franken) amendment No. 2093 (to amendment No.
2089), to end discrimination based on actual or perceived
sexual orientation or gender identity in public schools.
Murray (for Kaine) amendment No. 2118 (to amendment No.
2089), to amend the State accountability system under section
1113(b)(3) regarding the measures used to ensure that
students are ready to enter postsecondary education or the
workforce without the need for postsecondary remediation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I believe that providing all of our
students with a quality education is one of our most important national
priorities. The workforce in the years to come will depend on today's
students being able to create and take on the jobs of tomorrow, and
providing students with the chance to learn, grow, and thrive will help
our country continue to compete and lead in the 21st-century global
economy.
Today we are continuing our work on the Senate floor to make sure all
of our students have access to a quality education by working to fix
the badly broken No Child Left Behind law. I thank Chairman Alexander,
the senior Senator from Tennessee, for working with me on this
bipartisan bill. He has been a great partner throughout this process.
The bipartisan bill, the Every Child Achieves Act, is a good step in
the right direction. It gives our States more flexibility while also
including Federal guardrails to make sure all students have access to a
quality public education. But I want to work, of course, to continue to
improve and strengthen this bill throughout this process on the Senate
floor. I want to make sure struggling schools get the resources they
need. I want to make sure all of our kids, especially our most
vulnerable students, are able to succeed in the classroom.
Finishing this process and getting a bill signed into law isn't going
to be easy. Nothing in Congress ever is. But students and parents and
teachers in communities across our country--including in my home State
of Washington--are looking to Congress to fix this broken law. We
cannot let them down. We need to work across the aisle to provide a
quality education for all students, regardless of where they live or
how they learn or how much money their parents make.
So I look forward to continuing to work with Chairman Alexander as we
move this through the Senate floor and to conference--and I think he
agrees with me--and, hopefully, to the President to get it signed into
law. I see the chairman is here.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I do agree with the Senator on our
goal. We had a good week last week. We had a large number of amendments
that were agreed to, a number were adopted in addition to ones we had
in committee. We need to finish this week. We need Senators to do what
members of the committee did, which is to pursue a result exercising
some restraint. If we all insist on everything we have a right to
insist on, nothing would ever happen.
As Senator Murray said, teachers, Governors, school boards, and
parents are expecting us to get this job done. We can do it. The House
did its part last week. We can finish our work this week. Put it
together and then she is correct, we want a result, not just a
political speech, which means we need to have the President's signature
in the end. So we have a bipartisan process. We are 7 years overdue.
This is a bill everybody in the country who cares about education wants
us to act on. We have had a remarkable consensus on what we need to do.
Basically, what we are saying is that we want to keep the important
measurements of student achievement so parents and teachers and
communities can know how children are doing, how schools are doing,
whether anyone is being left behind, but we want to restore to States
and local school boards and communities and classroom teachers the
responsibility for deciding what to do about the results of those tests
and make sure they are appropriate and make sure there are not too many
tests.
We believe that is the real way to improve teaching, to improve
schools, and to have real accountability. So we have taken lots of
different opinions and we have put them together in a bill. I was
thinking over the weekend, having a bill on elementary and secondary
education is like going to a football game at the University of
Tennessee. There are 100,000 people in the stands, and they all are
experts on football, whether it is Iowa or Washington or Tennessee.
Well, we are all experts--and so are most of our citizens experts on
education--but we need to have a consensus here. We are close to one. I
thank Senator Murray and the majority leader and the Democratic leader
for creating an environment in which we so far have been able to
succeed.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
[[Page S4995]]
Mr. DAINES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Nuclear Agreement With Iran
Mr. DAINES. Madam President, as we speak, negotiations are ongoing
between Iran and the P5+1 countries regarding one of the greatest
threats to global security today; that is, a potentially nuclear-
capable Iran. If both sides reach a final negotiated agreement, this
body will have to consider whether the agreement truly prevents Iran
from becoming a nuclear state or whether it paves the way for the
leading state sponsor of terror to obtain a nuclear weapon.
Agreeing to a bad deal would pose a serious threat to the national
security of the United States, to Israel, and our other allies. We
cannot take this decision lightly. We should not base our votes on the
legacy of the President. We will be dealing with the consequences of
this potential agreement long after President Obama leaves office.
There are specific terms of any final agreement that are vital to
preventing Iran's nuclear weapons capability. One-hundred percent
certainty is impossible in matters of intelligence, particularly with a
regime like Iran's that has a history of being less than forthright
about its nuclear program. In fact, on June 21, the Iranian Parliament
voted to bar inspectors from military sites. As they were passing this
resolution to bar inspectors from military sites, they were chanting
``Death to America.''
Let's not forget that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism
in the world. It is critical that the International Atomic Energy
Agency be able to conduct extensive inspections at all military
facilities, including unannounced inspections, to ensure that Iran is
upholding its commitments.
A final deal must ensure that we have verifiable evidence that Iran
is complying with the terms of the agreement before lifting sanctions.
A final deal must permit international inspection to occur anytime,
anywhere. A final deal must require Iran to disclose and dismantle its
nuclear infrastructure, its uranium stockpile, and all other aspects of
its nuclear program as specified in six--let me repeat--six U.N.
Security Council resolutions.
A final deal must ensure Iranians never get a nuclear weapon. If Iran
does violate these terms, the deal must guarantee that strong sanctions
go back into place immediately. It took years to get in place the
sanctions we have today. It was largely because of these sanctions that
Iran was forced to come to the negotiating table. The sanctions are
working. I would also like to address the notion that we either come to
a deal or we resort to military action. This is a false choice. In
fact, accepting a bad deal now will make military action more likely
down the road. A bad deal will provide Iran with an influx of cash to
continue sponsoring terrorism around the world, while failing to
prevent them from ultimately obtaining a nuclear weapon when this deal
expires.
Like so many Montanans I have heard from, I truly hope negotiations
are successful. However, I am concerned the that based on the framework
agreement that we have seen so far, the final agreement will ultimately
fail to safeguard our national security and prevent a nuclear-armed
Iran. No deal is better than a bad deal. If the final agreement the
President presents falls short of the requirements I have talked about
today, I will not support it.
Over the past month, we have now blown through four deadlines. It is
starting to look like Groundhog Day in Vienna.
safe kids act
Madam President, on a separate note, this past week the Senate began
debating legislation about our Nation's educational system. In the same
week, we learned more about a major data breach at the Office of
Personnel Management, which put more than 21 million American's
personnel information at risk. Those events and the policy debates
bring to light an issue that often does not gather a lot of
information; that is, protecting our student's personal information and
data in the digital age.
As a father of four, this issue is particularly personal to me. To
date, countless schools across the United States utilize electronic
records to update student information and transfer data from one school
to another. But as the data is collected, it is important students'
privacy is maintained and that the data is being stored safely and
securely. In 2014, a working group was formed to address the issue of
student data privacy. This group produced the Student Data Privacy
Pledge, which intended to set self-imposed principles to ensure that
information collected from students is kept both secure as well as
private.
This week, I will be introducing legislation called the SAFE KIDS
Act, that builds on these ideas by empowering the Federal Trade
Commission to oversee and enforce the collection, storage, and usage of
covered information. This bill will put important reforms in place to
protect students privacy, to establish greater security and
transparency measures, and to encourage innovation among education
technology providers, and better ensure accountability in keeping our
students' information safe.
As someone who spent more than 12 years in the technology sector, I
am excited to see technology being used in innovative ways in our
schools. As a father of four, I also want to ensure that there are
proper safeguards in place to protect our kids' personal data in an
increasingly data-driven world.
I also want to thank Senator Blumenthal for joining me this week to
introduce this important legislation to protect students' personal
information and for his continued work on this issue. With that in
mind, I will yield the floor so we can hear more from Senator
Blumenthal on this most important issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I thank my colleague Senator Daines
for his extraordinarily valuable work on this bipartisan bill, which
will help protect students, help safeguard the privacy of young people,
which would be considered separately from the measure now before us,
the Every Child Achieves Act, which will strengthen the Federal
Government's commitment to ensuring that every child has access to a
high-quality education.
The bill Senator Daines and I are offering ensures that every child
is protected during their education from invasive and intrusive sharing
and selling of highly private information about their educational
progress--all kinds of sensitive, personal data that are accumulated
and collected by school authorities and the companies that contract
with them in the course of that child's education.
When a parent signs a take-home form permitting their children to use
a learning application in math class, for example, they have no
assurance right now--none--regarding what information the app company
will collect or how the app company will protect that information. That
kind of very personal, identifiable, confidential information is
inadequately protected in many school systems around the country. If
that app company fails to protect the personal information of the
student and their family, it could be stolen by hackers. It could be
breached. We have seen how Federal files have been breached on a scale
that none of us would ever have imagined--supposedly protected
information--and we are talking about companies leaving vulnerable
children's information potentially on the same scale--millions of
children being at risk of their data being breached and stolen by
hackers. But we are also talking about that information being bought
and sold, exchanged by companies. The current protections against that
commercial exploitation are inadequate. Children and their parents and
their families deserve better protection of their privacy.
It is a big business. It is a huge and burgeoning business for those
companies. They may serve a very worthwhile purpose for many of those
children and for many school authorities who need someone to organize
and apply software to the raw information that is collected in test
scores or other kinds of educational data. But it is not data that
belongs to the companies; it belongs to the student and the school
authorities, and it ought to be protected not only because of who owns
it
[[Page S4996]]
but because of whom it belongs to. It belongs to students as a matter
of morality, not just legality.
We are introducing student digital privacy legislation, the SAFE KIDS
Act. This week Senator Daines and I will introduce it to establish
strong and vital protections that will give parents the peace of mind
they need and deserve. Our bill would prohibit companies from reselling
student data--something corporations should never profit from doing.
The SAFE KIDS Act would also prohibit companies from using student
data, including a personal profile of a student, for any targeted
advertising. This kind of marketing goes on in our society.
Our legislation also requires companies that hold student data to
enact robust protections, such as proper encryption of that data, which
will prevent the theft of personal information.
Under our bill, parents are empowered to access their children's
information, request corrections of any erroneous information, and
request deletion of certain student data.
Our bill charges the FTC with the responsibility to implement and
enforce the SAFE KIDS Act, and it enables States to enact stronger,
more demanding protections if they choose to do so. It establishes a
floor, not a ceiling. It does not preempt stronger measures if States
choose to move forward.
This measure is in no way incompatible with the provision and
amendment on which we will vote tonight that deals with another aspect
of this issue in establishing a commission. I support that amendment.
The commission would issue recommendations on a number of specific
topics, such as preventing targeted advertising, limiting data
retention, and providing parents with complete information. Those
issues are complex, and they need the kinds of studies and research the
commission would provide. And the results of that commission would help
to inform the FTC regulations that would be issued under the SAFE KIDS
Act that Senator Daines and I are introducing this week.
I look forward to supporting the Hatch-Markey amendment, voting for
it, and I urge my colleagues to support it and the SAFE KIDS Act
because they enable a comprehensive approach to student privacy.
Make no mistake--this data is in danger and so is the privacy of our
students. In a world that has become enormously invasive and intrusive
and where personal information is so much at risk, our students,
children, and their families deserve this protection. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Background Checks and Gun Violence
Madam President, I wish to talk for just a moment about the
disclosure last week that Dylan Roof, the alleged killer of nine
innocent people in Charleston, SC, was able to buy guns without first
passing a background check. The reason, very simply, was the default-
to-proceed loophole in the law, which allows--but does not require--
firearms retailers to proceed with a gun sale after 3 days if an
applicant's background check is still pending.
Undoubtedly, more facts will come to light. Certain facts are unknown
now as we speak, but the FBI acknowledges that a completed background
check would have uncovered Dylan Roof's prior arrest on a drug charge
and his drug addiction. Those discoveries would have barred him from
purchasing the .45-caliber handgun he used to take nine lives in that
unspeakable, horrific tragedy.
In effect, Dylan Roof's exploitation of this loophole is not an
anomaly. In the last 5 years, the default to proceed loophole has led
firearms retailers to proceed with 15,729 gun sales to prohibited
persons--people who were deemed ineligible to purchase a firearm once
their background checks were completed. In effect, those 15,729 people
were able to circumvent the law because of that loophole that enabled
them to do so on a default to proceed after 3 days.
After that default-to-proceed loophole is exploited, the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives then has the difficult,
dangerous, and often impossible job to retrieve the firearms that are
sold. In fact, it is often impossible to even expect that they can once
those firearms are sold without proper recordkeeping or any
recordkeeping. We make that job harder every day by underfunding and
hamstringing the work of the ATF in our appropriations bills. That
creates that impossible task for them.
Responsible gun retailers can act today. The law allows retailers to
decide whether to permit gun sales to proceed after that 3-day default
period has elapsed. They have a duty to ensure that their products do
not get into the hands of dangerous individuals. They have that moral
duty. They have that social responsibility.
In 2008, Walmart, which is the Nation's largest gun store, agreed not
to transfer firearms without a background check even if the 3 days have
passed without it. The short-term inconvenience to retailers is
minimal. In the vast majority of cases, a background check is completed
within minutes and the retailer knows whether they may proceed with the
sale.
After the horror visited on the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, no
responsible gun retailer should give the benefit of the doubt and hand
over a gun without a definitive completion of that background check.
Over the weekend, my colleague Senator Murphy and I urged the Senate
Judiciary Committee to immediately review this failure in our
background check system and potential remedies, lest this legislative
body's silence on the matter be taken as a consent on the repeated
failures we have witnessed. In the long run, this system must be made
as effective and error proof as possible, and it should be extended to
sales not covered now by the law.
As Senator Murphy and I and many of our colleagues in the Senate have
urged consistently and repeatedly, the failure to adopt a
comprehensive, universal background check system is inexcusable, but we
also have to make sure loopholes in the current law are eliminated, as
the FBI and the Department of Justice have recommended, by extending
that 3-day time period and otherwise increasing the efficiency and
effectiveness of the background check system.
Senator Murphy and I will be taking additional steps to try to make
it more effective. Gun retailers can step up in the meantime to stop
dangerous people from getting their hands on dangerous weapons and
taking lives--innocent lives--as happened in Charleston. They can, very
simply, stop selling guns to people who have not passed that background
check even if the 3 days have expired, even if that default period has
come and gone. They can do that on their own.
I look forward to working with my colleagues, including continuing
the great work Senator Murphy and I have sought to do together in
making America safer and better and improving our background check
system and making sure commonsense, sensible gun violence prevention
measures become the law of the land.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much.
Mr. President, first, I compliment the Senator from Connecticut on
his initial statement related to student privacy. I think it is an
essential element to clarify that privacy is meant to protect but not
inadvertently inhibit our ability to give help to those who desperately
need it.
Certainly, I wish to associate myself with his remarks on doing
something about the background check, the timely response. I think the
massacre at Emanuel AME Church deeply troubled the Nation, and the very
least that can come out of this is not only the flag coming down and
all that meant, but other barriers to safety should come down as well.
I want the Senator from Connecticut to know that he has my admiration
and my support.
Protecting Federal Employees
Mr. President, while we are waiting for the vote, in approximately 15
minutes, I know Senator Kaine will be coming to the floor to talk about
an important postsecondary education remediation reform, but I want to
comment on the 21 million Federal employees whose personnel records
have been hacked by--it looks like--a foreign government. I am not
going to go into the who and the attributing of who did the hacking,
but I do want to say that, first of all, those Federal employees need
to feel they have a government on
[[Page S4997]]
their side to now protect them. We should have protected them in the
first place with the security of dot-gov and certainly our personnel
records.
Now, in addition to a bill I have introduced and cosponsored with my
colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin, where we have put in
additional credit protection, credit monitoring, and liability
protection, I have also sent a letter to the President today.
The President of the United States is not only the Commander in Chief
but he is the Chief Executive Officer of something called the U.S
Government dot-gov, and therefore, OPM is his HR operation. With all
due respect to our President, I have called upon him, on behalf of the
300,000 Federal employees and Federal retirees who I have in my State,
that they take additional and immediate action to provide lifetime
credit monitoring, lifetime credit protection and unlimited liability,
and that we also get a new contractor.
I know we want to get a new contractor that does security checks, but
I want a new contractor that is supposed to be answering the phone. I
want a new contractor answering the phone and responding to my Federal
employees, and I have conveyed that to the new Acting Director of OPM,
Beth Cobert. I think she has a lot of skill and a lot of knowledge. I
know she comes to the White House from the private sector, McKinsey &
Company, but I conveyed to her that it is outrageous what is happening
to Federal employees. They try to call to get help to find out what has
happened to them, and they are on the phone for 1 hour or 2 hours, and
when they finally make contact, they get disconnected.
These are our Federal employees, who we count on, many of whom to
protect the Nation--many of whom to protect the Nation. Our cyber
shield is down to protect them, and we are also not protecting them in
terms of our response to our cyber shield being down.
Who are these Federal employees in Maryland? Well, first of all, they
are people who work at the National Institutes of Health trying to find
cures from dreaded diseases and all of the laboratory staff and so on
who support them. Or they are over at FDA or they are over at Goddard
Space Flight Center helping to manage the Hubble telescope. In addition
to that, we have people involved in and also who are direct hands-on
with national security.
Maryland is the home to many Foreign Service officers. They not only
have the information about their own Social Security numbers and their
own health information but that of their spouses and their minor
children. We are also the home to the National Security Agency. Most of
the National Security Agency is made up of civilian DOD personnel with
the highest of security clearances.
So my feeling is we have to get in there really quickly to protect
them. We have to also do something about this contractor--that he ups
his game or we tell him up and out. Up your game or up and out.
The third thing is the President really needs to convene an all-
hands-on-deck on how we are going to protect dot-gov in this country.
There will be more to say about this bill and so on, but I see
Senator Kaine is now on the floor to discuss and present his
postsecondary remediation amendment, so I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Maryland, and I
second the comments she has made about the status of our employees who
have been jeopardized. I am excited to work together on the legislation
introduced last Friday to provide them some protection.
Amendment No. 2118
Mr. President, I do rise on behalf of an amendment that will be voted
on within the next hour, Kaine amendment No. 2118, which is a
bipartisan amendment to the Every Child Achieves Act. It is an
amendment to promote career readiness indicators and make sure our
students, when they finish high school, are not just ready for college
but they are ready for careers.
This is part of a series of amendments I have worked on in a
bipartisan basis, some of which have been included in the underlying
bill and one of which was passed as a floor amendment last week.
I thank the managers, Senators Alexander and Murray, for working
together to support this bipartisan amendment. We need to work to make
sure we help all of our students graduate from high school ready for
postsecondary education and the workforce.
Over the past 40 years, the percentage of jobs that require some form
of postsecondary education has doubled from 29 percent to now nearly 60
percent, but the education system hasn't kept pace with the demand for
a more highly educated and skilled workforce. More importantly, we need
to define what that is--highly educated and skilled--to incorporate
career and technical training, which, for a variety of reasons in the
last generation or so, was sort of an undervalued part of the spectrum
of American public education.
Within a very few years--by 2020, when our pages are now going to be
out in the workforce--two-thirds of jobs will require at least some
form of postsecondary education. But projections demonstrate that as a
nation we will fall short by nearly 5 million workers. We are already
seeing these shortages and having to deal with them, for example,
through specialty visas. That is fine for the economy, but wouldn't it
be better if we could train those in school right now to be skilled in
the areas where the jobs are needed?
The career readiness amendment addresses this problem by
encouraging--not requiring but encouraging--States to include in their
accountability systems the types of indicators that demonstrate
students are ready for postsecondary education and the workforce. These
indicators would include State-designed measures to integrate rigorous
academics, work-based learning and career and technical education, or
technical skill attainment and placement. That will be the core of this
bill.
By doing this, we send a strong message to schools, businesses,
parents, and students that it is critical to be prepared for the
workforce of the 21st century regardless of postsecondary education
plans. As I have talked to educators, counselors, and parents, they
have often commented upon the degree to which career and technical
training has sort of been downgraded and that students aren't
encouraged in that area, even though there are great professions to
achieve in this area.
Under the amendment, schools and districts would have an incentive to
partner with businesses and industries to provide career pathways for
students. It is important for State accountability systems. I say this
as a Virginian who is very proud of the Virginia accountability system.
It is currently kind of managed by my wife, who is the secretary of
education in Virginia. But it is important for these systems to measure
and reward schools for helping students earn industry-recognized
credentials or earn credit for college while in high school.
Just as an example, if you are a Virginia student and you take the
Virginia Standards of Learning Test and you pass, that doesn't
necessarily mean anything in North Carolina, and much less Oregon. But
if you are a Virginia high school student and you pass a Cisco Systems
administrator exam, you can take that credential, move to Oregon and
get a job tomorrow. These industry credentials are, in many ways, more
known, more valued, and more portable than high school credentials
State by State.
Schools across the country are providing this kind of important
learning opportunity. Here are just two examples, and then I will
conclude. In Alexandria, just across the Potomac, the Academy of
Finance at T.C. Williams High School instructs students in money
management skills, financial planning, and business development.
Students complete a 3-year sequential program, start working at an on-
site credit union in the school, and they get early college credit for
that financial literacy.
At the other end of the State--in southwest Virginia, in Vinton, near
the city of Roanoke--William Byrd High School, after struggling during
the 1990s to prepare students for college and career, sought input from
nearby businesses and implemented programs in engineering,
communication, business, and marketing to match local job needs. These
partnerships are helpful
[[Page S4998]]
in helping students find jobs, and they have also engendered student
interest in the curriculum. The school has a 90-percent graduation
rate, and 83 percent of students go on to postsecondary education.
I want to thank Senators Portman and Baldwin--I think Senator Portman
was planning on speaking, and may still--for their involvement and
working together with me on this particular amendment and on the Senate
CTE Caucus.
I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan initiative, and
again, I thank the bill managers for working together with us.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Capito). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to
make a presentation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2080
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise in support of an amendment I have
offered along with my friend, the junior Senator from Massachusetts.
This amendment advances an important priority: protecting student
privacy in an era of vast data collection and tenuous security
protections.
Advances in education technology are revolutionizing the way students
learn in today's classroom. Going forward, it is important to balance
the need for innovation to allow students to take advantage of the new
learning tools with the need to make sure children's private
information is protected. We must also ensure continuing to improve
education through research, while not necessarily allowing researchers
and their employers access to sensitive data.
To this end, our amendment sets up a commission to come back with
recommendations for how to update our outdated Federal education
privacy law. The commission's membership consists of experts, parents,
teachers, technology professionals, researchers, and State officials--a
broad array of leaders capable of providing diverse perspectives on
these issues. Within 270 days, the commission is required to report to
Congress on the current mechanisms for transparency, parental
involvement, research usage, and third-party vendor usage as well as
provide recommendations on how to improve the law to better protect
students. As we seek to identify the best ways of protecting student
data, this commission will serve to outline some commonsense and
effective options for reform that we ought to consider.
This amendment has received support from a wide variety of
organizations from Microsoft to the National PTA to the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, demonstrating how this is a commonsense, bipartisan idea that
we can all support. I urge my colleagues to support this important
innovation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Under the previous order, the
question now occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 2080, offered by the
Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, for Mr. Hatch.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz),
the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey),
and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 231 Leg.]
YEAS--89
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murphy
Murray
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rounds
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--11
Blunt
Cruz
Graham
Kirk
Murkowski
Nelson
Paul
Risch
Rubio
Toomey
Vitter
The amendment (No. 2080) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2118
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs
on agreeing to amendment No. 2118, offered by the Senator from
Washington, Mrs. Murray, for Mr. Kaine.
The amendment (No. 2118) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, there has been some conversation on
the floor. We are working out the order of proceeding.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wicker and Senator Shaheen be
recognized first for a colloquy, followed by remarks by Senator Brown,
followed by remarks by myself, followed by remarks by Senator Baldwin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Reserving the right to object, I ask the Presiding
Officer, are we in morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, we are still on the bill.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Shaheen and I be allowed to enter into a colloquy concerning the 20th
anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
20th Anniversary of the Srebrenica Massacre
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from New
Hampshire today to speak about a moving and important commemoration
that she and I attended over the weekend. We were part of the U.S.
delegation led by former President Bill Clinton that traveled to Bosnia
and Herzegovina to remember the victims of the Srebrenica massacre 20
years ago. We were honored to be joined in this delegation by
Representative Peter King from New York, and I think it is significant
that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was part of that
delegation.
On July 11, 1995, more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys were
brutalized and murdered by Serbian forces that overran a United Nations
safe haven during the Bosnian war. It was the worst massacre on
European soil since the horrors of World War II.
Today, Senator Shaheen and I wear green and white flowers on our
lapels. These flowers were crocheted by Srebrenica mothers and widows
in remembrance of the lives that were lost 20 years ago. The white is
said to symbolize innocence, and the green represents hope. It is said
to be significant that the center is green because hope remains central
to the country's future and to the region's future.
Two decades provide us with a helpful benchmark for reflecting on the
progress that has been made and on the
[[Page S4999]]
progress that needs to be made. The decades have certainly not erased
the deep scars left by the atrocities at Srebrenica, but the hurt
continues to heal.
International courts have recognized the massacre as a genocide, and
a number of the perpetrators have been imprisoned. Peace is now present
in the Western Balkans and we need to do what we can to help maintain
this peace. The Bosnian and Herzegovinian leadership is now applying
for membership in the European Union. We wish them well in making the
progress that will be necessary to attain this status.
Tough decisions still need to be made by the leadership, by the
Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina with regard to governance,
corruption, and combating extremes. There is still way too much
rhetoric that centers on ethnicity and continues to divide Bosnians
rather than unite them. But we can celebrate the fact that this region
is no longer home to the suffering and violence that predated the
historic Dayton Accords, and we can celebrate the contribution and
achievement of the Americans in reaching the Dayton Accords and in
getting us to where we are now with two decades of peace.
I know that these views are shared by my colleague from New
Hampshire. At this point, perhaps she would like to join in this
colloquy.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I would like to join Senator Wicker from
Mississippi in talking about what we saw and heard when we were in
Bosnia.
Unfortunately, the story that came out about that inspiring
commemoration was about the attack by some of the Bosniaks who were
attending on the Serbian Prime Minister, Aleksandar Vucic, who had
attended the ceremony.
But the larger story was one of reconciliation. The Bosniak mayor of
Srebrenica, Camil Durakovic, condemned the attackers, and he was joined
by the Tripartite Presidents in condemning the attackers. After the
attack, the Serbian Prime Minister said that it should not distract
attention from the innocent victims of Srebrenica. He said that his
``arms of reconciliation remain stretched towards the Bosniaks.''
Fortunately, we heard the same from the mayor of Srebrenica, who
actually had invited the Prime Minister.
I am very proud of Mayor Durakovic because he is actually a Bosnian-
American whose family fled from Srebrenica in July of 1995, and they
settled in New Hampshire. He went to high school there, and he got a
degree from Southern New Hampshire University. He returned to
Srebrenica in 2005 and was elected mayor in 2012.
Aside from that isolated, unfortunate incident with the Prime
Minister, the ceremony was a solemn tribute and remembrance to the
victims of Srebrenica. There was a spirit of unity and harmony. The
theme again and again was of reconciliation.
As my colleague points out, it is particularly important for us to
continue to support this reconciliation, for us to continue to support
Bosnia and Herzegovina and their efforts to continue to look west to
join the EU. Across many centuries, the Balkans has been a flashpoint
for conflicts that have spread to the rest of Europe and the entire
world. In fact, 101 years ago next month, World War I began with the
assassination of Archduke Ferdinand right in Sarajevo. We walked by the
block where he was assassinated.
As we have seen most recently in Greece and as we are seeing in the
Balkans and in other countries in Eastern Europe, the Russians are
quick to exploit any trouble in the southeast corner of Europe in order
to spread their influence and destabilize the West. Wouldn't my
colleague agree that it is important for us in the United States to
join the EU in supporting the Bosniaks, the Serbs, the Croatians, the
Muslims, the Orthodox Christians, and the Roman Catholics so that they
can come together and show the world that we really can create a multi-
ethnic, multi-sectarian state that can serve as a model for the Middle
East and for countries around the world?
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I do agree. I would contrast the
magnanimous statements of the Tripresidency and the gesture of the
Serbian President in attending with the disappointing actions of the
Russian leadership, under the leadership of President Putin, in
actually vetoing a Security Council resolution simply to commemorate
the 20th anniversary as a genocide. Russia refused to accept a well-
established fact, confirmed by international courts such as the
International Court of Justice, such as the International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. They vetoed--they were the only
vote against it, but it acted as a veto--thus keeping the United
Nations officially from going on record as saying this was a genocide
and that these acts should be condemned. Such defiance is a disservice
not only to the victims at Srebrenica but also to relations in the area
going forward. I would just contrast that with the very brave step on
the part of the Serbian President, coming to Srebrenica and being part
of the commemorative ceremony.
I will tell my colleagues that former President Clinton spoke on
behalf of this Republican and spoke on behalf of Democrats alike,
making a very instructive and constructive address at the occasion,
specifically commending the Serbian President.
I would say, with regard to the rock throwing incident and what the
President of Serbia actually did, his glasses were broken, and he and
members of his delegation were brought to their knees. I would say that
if the 50 or so people who threw those rocks had heard the remarks
inside the ceremony, perhaps they would not have felt so bitter as to
throw those rocks. I know there are wounds that need to be healed. But
I think the conciliatory words inside, if they had been broadcast to
the entire crowd, would have perhaps caused that incident, which got
all the publicity, not to happen.
This was about 50 people causing a disturbance in a crowd of, I would
say, about 5,000 people gathered outside. It was a very important
ceremony--actually, a funeral, you might say.
So I would have to just say that the Russian leadership really should
be ashamed of standing in the way of international recognition of this
genocide. They thought they were doing their Serbian neighbors a favor,
but, on the other hand, the Serbian President stepped forward in a very
brave way to create unity in this region, and I think my colleague
would agree with that.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Absolutely, and I know Senator Wicker shared my
gratitude as we walked through the streets of Sarajevo and as we met
people in Srebrenica for the appreciation they showed the United States
for our actions in helping to end that awful war in Bosnia and for our
actions in supporting Bosnia as they try to look westward and as they
try to keep their country moving forward, addressing the corruption and
the democracy issues they face. I think it is in our interest as
Americans to support those efforts to help them, as they continue to
move their country forward, in every way we can.
Mr. WICKER. The Senator from New Hampshire is exactly right. It is in
the United States' interest that we care about the Balkans, that we
care about Bosnia and Herzegovina. We owe it to the U.S. troops who
were deployed there in 1995 and later, who kept the peace and made it
work. There is no country on the face of the Earth that could have done
that but the United States of America. We owe it to the memory of the
leadership, not only of President Clinton, who basically hosted the
Dayton Accords in the United States of America, but also Republicans
such as Speaker Gingrich. It was Gingrich and Clinton who joined
together and convinced this government to support the Dayton Agreement
and support the necessary deployment to make sure this worked.
As the Senator pointed out, we owe it to history going forward to
remember that World War I broke out in Sarajevo, that the events
leading up to World War II largely occurred in the Balkans, and to do
what we can in the interest of U.S. citizens to say that this will not
again be a flashpoint for conflict in Europe and conflict
internationally.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. I know the Senator shares my views that we owe it to
the victims of Srebrenica. I look forward to continuing to work with
Senator Wicker to do everything we can to support the efforts in Bosnia
and Herzegovina.
Mr. WICKER. I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis to make
sure
[[Page S5000]]
that this peace holds, to make sure that progress is made on the ethnic
issues--that we give Bosnians and Herzegovinians every reason to
continue to want to embrace Europe and to embrace the United States and
to embrace fairness and anticorruption and all the work that it is
going to take there.
I appreciate the delegation. I appreciate Secretary Albright. I
appreciate President Clinton leading the delegation. And I appreciate
the indulgence of our fellow Senators in hearing this colloquy.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
American Workers and Overtime Pay
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, too many Americans are still struggling in
today's economy. Despite comments by some candidates for President,
Americans work hard but still have trouble getting by. We know that
Americans on average are working longer hours than workers in almost
every other rich country in the world--significantly longer hours.
Simply, they are not getting the pay they have earned and the
compensation and the lifestyle to which they aspire and have worked so
hard toward.
For many workers, it feels as though the harder and longer they work,
the less they have to show for it. And they are not imagining things.
Since the 1970s, middle class wages have been stagnant while the number
of hours spent on the job has gone up. In short, Americans are working
more for less.
The middle class has shrunk in every State in this country. The Pew
Research Center studies show that the share of adults in middle-income
households has fallen from 61 percent in 1970 to 51 percent in 2013. In
Ohio the share of families that are middle class is now below 50
percent. We need to do more to build on-ramps for middle-class hard-
working Americans instead of saying that Americans are not working hard
enough, instead of asking workers to do more and more for less money.
It is not uncommon today for salaried workers--salaried workers, not
millionaire salaried workers but lower income and middle-income
salaried workers--to work 50-, 60-, 70-hour weeks without getting a
cent in overtime. When workers put in extra time, it should be
reflected in their paychecks. Right now a number of employers are
gaming the system to avoid paying overtime, and American workers are
losing wages as a result.
It is past time for overtime hours to mean overtime pay again. That
is why my colleagues and I sent a letter to the President earlier this
year urging the administration to restore the strength of overtime
payrolls. Forty years ago, we as a nation decided that most workers,
whether they were paid hourly or a salary, should receive overtime pay
when working more than 40 hours a week, but the teeth in that law have
been eroded. The strength of that law, the power of that law, and the
effectiveness of that law have been eroded over the past 40 years.
In 1975, 65 percent of all salaried workers were covered by overtime
pay rules. Currently, just 8 percent of salaried workers are covered.
That could be a night manager in a fast food restaurant making $30,000
a year classified as management--classified because that person is
salaried--and asked to work more than 40 hours and still only making
$30,000 a year. So 40 years ago, 65 percent of salaried workers would
have been paid time and a half for those extra hours beyond 40 for that
night manager, but today they don't get paid over time. They may work
50 hours, they may work 60 hours, but they simply are not compensated
for it.
The salary threshold of $23,600 a year has remained static for
decades because it hasn't been indexed for inflation. So in 1975,
somebody making $23,000 a year was paid overtime for beyond 40 hours.
Today someone making $23,000 a year isn't. If they are making $30,000
or $40,000, they aren't paid overtime. So we see what has happened. The
salary threshold was put in place to exempt highly paid executives, but
because it hasn't increased in 40 years--they didn't build an inflation
number into it or a cost of living adjustment--instead of hitting CEOs
and lawyers who shouldn't get paid overtime in hours excess of 40,
workers earning as little as $455 a week now go without overtime pay
just because they are salaried and just because they are called
management. It allows employers the opportunity to put somebody on
salary, work them many more hours, and then fail to compensate them.
The current threshold is now so low that it is below the poverty line
for a family of four. So a salaried worker making a few dollars below
the poverty line and working 50 or 60 hours doesn't get paid overtime.
That is actually what has happened. The American public is starting to
understand this, and that is why so many people are calling on the
President to do this.
Overtime pay should be available to everyone who puts in the extra
time--not just those earning a poverty level wage. That is why I
applaud the Department of Labor's proposed rule that would strengthen
overtime standards and take them back--not quite even as good, but we
are pretty satisfied with this--to the 1975 level. The new rule will
more than double the salary threshold for earning overtime pay from
$23,000 annually to $50,000. That would mean that 40 percent of
salaried workers are now eligible for overtime. In my State, as a
result of this rule, 160,000 Ohioans would get a raise, as would 5
million Americans in States such as Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Wisconsin,
and all over this country.
This means more money in the pockets of American workers. The rule
proposes lengthening the threshold to the 40th percentile of income for
full-time salaried workers instead of setting a raw number. This means
that the strength of the rule is less likely to erode over time. Not
only will this rule help families make ends meet, it also boosts
consumer spending, creates jobs, and bolsters the American economy.
Just like raising the minimum wage, when more money is put in the
pocket of somebody making $8 an hour or $9 an hour or when you put more
money in the pocket of a midlevel manager making $30,000 a year in a
fast-food restaurant--if you put more money in their pocket--they are
going to spend that money. They are not going to invest that money in a
Swiss bank account. They are going to spend that money in the
community, buy more groceries, go into the hardware stores and do more
to fix up their houses and do more to generate economic activity and
create jobs for our economy.
But there is still more we need to do to support American workers.
This is an important step toward building our middle class. There is
still more we need to do to support American workers. We need to give
hourly workers a raise by raising the minimum wage. The legislation a
number of us on the floor have worked on, the Raise the Wage Act, would
increase the minimum wage incrementally to $12 an hour by 2020, giving
a raise to 1 million Ohioans, 28 million people across the country--1
million Ohioans.
Tipped workers shouldn't have to struggle to get by. They deserve to
earn a living wage to help put food on the table. Lots of people in
this body are unaware, as some Americans are. People here should be
more aware of it, but people here tend not to know people that work in
diners. People who work in diners as waitresses and waiters in diners
can be paid as little as $2.13 an hour. The minimum wage for working in
a diner in a so-called tipped wage or for the people who push
wheelchairs in airports or in some case for many other kinds of jobs is
$2.13 an hour. It is not $7.25, which is the minimum wage for everyone
else. That is why we need to move on raising the minimum wage, on
bringing the tipped wage up to at least 70 percent of the minimum wage.
Workers will be happier and they will be more productive when they
are healthy, when they are making decent salaries, making a little bit
better wages. Americans also deserve a day off when they get sick.
Forty-three million Americans--2 million in my State--have no paid sick
leave at all. They are faced with impossible choices. Do they stay home
to care for a sick child or go to work so they can put food on the
table?
Workers are happier and more productive when they are healthy.
Guaranteeing paid sick leave would save precious health care resources,
it would give employers safe and stable workplaces, and it would give
families peace of mind. It would mean that
[[Page S5001]]
workers are not going to work when they are sick, infecting other
workers and affecting productivity and profits at that business. That
is why we should pass the Healthy Family Act. Overtime is important.
Minimum wage is important. The Healthy Family Act for sick leave days
is important. All are steps that we need to support hard-working
American families.
We know what has happened in the economy the last 10 years. We know
the wealthiest 5 percent are doing better and better and better.
Profits are up for companies. Executives are making bigger and bigger
bonuses. But working class, lower-middle-class workers are simply not
getting ahead or even able to tread water to stay even, for that
matter. The minimum wage will help, paying overtime will help, and the
Healthy Family Act will help.
The Toledo Blade put it well last week: ``America's widening income
gap isn't an inescapable outcome of the free market, but a political
choice that can be mitigated with intelligent public policies.''
This is a political choice. We have seen this body and the body on
the other side of the Capitol continue to give more tax cuts for the
wealthiest Americans. We won't invest in infrastructure, we won't
invest in working families, we won't help raise wages, we won't help
with overtime, and we won't help with workers who just need a few sick
days off, as people in bodies such as this typically have.
I urge the Department of Labor to finalize their strong overtime
proposal as quickly as possible. It will make a huge difference in the
lives of millions of Americans.
With that, I yield back.
20th Anniversary of the Normalization of Diplomatic Relations Between
the United States and Vietnam
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here to recognize a historic
milestone: the 20th anniversary of the normalization of diplomatic
relations between the United States and Vietnam. This occasion has some
personal significance for me and my family. My father served as Deputy
Ambassador to Vietnam; in effect, the chief operating officer of that
conflict. I lived with him in that country for several months during
the Vietnam war. If he were alive today, he would be proud of the work
both countries have done to reconcile our past.
It took immense courage on both sides to look beyond the scars of
that war and envision a future in which our two countries could become
partners and friends. No one embodies this courage more than our friend
John McCain, who played a major role in establishing diplomatic
relations between our two countries, and Secretary of State John Kerry,
then a Senator, who was his Democratic partner.
Given Senator McCain's experience as a prisoner in Vietnam, his
subsequent efforts to strengthen the peace and forgiveness between our
two Nations are an enduring inspiration, the power of which I was
privileged to see firsthand when I traveled with Senator McCain to
Hanoi in 2012 and 2014.
Senator McCain said 20 years ago, ``I believe it is my duty to
encourage this country to build from the losses and the hopes of our
tragic war in Vietnam a better peace for both the American and the
Vietnamese people.''
Today, the American and the Vietnamese people can be proud of the
progress made to forge a lasting peace and friendship. Two years ago,
President Obama and Vietnamese President Truong Tan Sang launched the
U.S.-Vietnam Comprehensive Partnership, opening a new phase of
bilateral relations between our nations based on mutual respect and
common interests. I met recently with Nguyen Phu Trong, the General
Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam to
discuss our shared interests and opportunities for closer collaboration
on a range of issues, including regional stability, economic
cooperation, and the lingering human and environmental consequences of
that war.
I had the honor of meeting with General Secretary Trong while
traveling to Vietnam with Senator McCain last summer. I am pleased he
has made this historic visit to the United States. I am hopeful Vietnam
will bring our interests and values into closer alignment, particularly
on human rights, the rights of civil society, transparency, and good
governance issues.
To that end, I look forward to working together to achieve closer
ties. As the United States and Vietnam continue to deepen our
relationship, we should continue to address the legacies of that war,
particularly the health effects and environmental contamination
associated with Agent Orange and other herbicides. Here at home, we
take our commitment to caring for our veterans very seriously. Although
the war has ended, many American veterans and their families still
battle a range of health problems and serious diseases associated with
their service in Vietnam.
We must ensure that veterans get the care they need to combat the
long-term health problems related to exposure to Agent Orange. Those
contamination and health problems are also serious in Vietnam. I am
grateful for Senator Leahy's leadership on the Appropriations
Committee, which has enabled the United States to pursue remediation
projects to clean up the dioxin contamination at Da Nang International
Airport and other hot spots and to support related health and
disability programs.
I urge all of us that we continue to support these initiatives which
strengthen our bilateral relationship. Considerable work remains.
According to initial assessments of Bien Hoa Air Base, the
contamination there is more severe and cleanup is expected to be more
complex and costly than at Da Nang. In addition, health-related
problems and disabilities persist in areas sprayed with Agent Orange or
otherwise contaminated by dioxin.
In 2008, actor, advocate, and long-time friend Dick Hughes brought
this issue closely to my attention and he has shared with me compelling
stories about Vietnamese families who have been affected by diseases
and disabilities related to Agent Orange exposure. Some of the
suffering ascribed to Agent Orange has been harrowing and
heartbreaking. Dick has years of experience working on humanitarian
issues in Vietnam and is a compelling witness to that suffering.
We first met when I was a teenager in Saigon and Dick had established
a program called the Shoeshine Boys Project, to care for homeless
children who had been orphaned or left alone during the war. He brought
them together and sent them on the streets with shoeshine boxes as a
way of making a living and finding something they could do and provided
them care and a home when they came home at nightfall.
Over 8 years, that project helped thousands of children in cities all
across Vietnam. Dick attributes the success of that project to close
partnerships forged with local communities and the project's management
by Vietnamese citizens. When Dick returned to the United States, he
continued to advocate for postwar humanitarian causes and he started a
foundation to raise awareness about the effects of Agent Orange on the
Vietnamese population. Dick remains a trusted friend and tireless
advocate to the Vietnamese people.
As our two countries work together on a new and more engaged future,
we should expand our efforts to improve the health and well-being of
the Vietnamese people. We can learn from Dick's experience about the
power of partnership and the value of local leadership, and together we
can continue to repair the damage--physical, psychological, and
political--of the path we share.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Amendment No. 2093
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Student
Non-Discrimination Act, which Senator Franken is offering as an
amendment to the Every Child Achieves Act. The Student Non-
Discrimination Act would help protect our students from bullying,
harassment, and discrimination. I am a proud cosponsor of this
amendment and hopeful the Senate will agree to this amendment this
week.
As we consider the Every Child Achieves Act, as we did in committee
back in April, and as we have discussed it on the floor over the last
week, I have been guided by a core principle: that this law should
ensure that every
[[Page S5002]]
child, regardless of his or her background, regardless of his or her
family's income, has access to the opportunities provided by a great
education, a high-quality education.
Now, part of providing that opportunity is ensuring that every
student is able to come to school and succeed in an environment that is
safe, supportive, and free from discrimination. While the Every Child
Achieves Act helps advance opportunity for students in numerous ways,
it falls short in addressing a significant problem limiting the
achievement of some of our most vulnerable students.
Unfortunately, there are still far too many stories of harassment, of
bullying, and of discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender students at the hands of their peers but also, sadly,
sometimes at the hands of their teachers or administrators as well.
There remains no Federal law that explicitly protects these students
and provides them and their families with recourse when they face
bullying and harassment that limits their educational opportunities.
No student can achieve if he cannot feel safe at school. No student
will excel if she spends each day in fear of just being herself. I hear
from so many students in my State about the need for us to stand up
against bullying. For example, a young woman in Madison wrote to me,
and I quote from her letter:
[A]s a student myself, I hear the words ``gay'', ``faggot,
``queer'' and others get tossed around . . . daily, and I do
what I can to deter these words from being used in negative
ways by others, but one voice can't make much of a
difference. . . . I'm asking you to help raise awareness in
schools anyway that you can.
I would tell this young woman in Madison that her voice speaking out
on this matter can make a difference. Another young woman from
Kimberly, WI, contacted me about her friend who committed suicide after
suffering bullying. She wrote:
He made everyone else come alive and be the better people
that they were inside. But he killed himself because he
thought he had no way out of the pain, no way to make those
kids stop, other than to make sure he was not living anymore.
Across the country, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender or LGBT
youth experience bullying harassment at school more frequently than
their non-LGBT peers. According to a national survey by the Gay,
Lesbian & Straight Education Network, in the past year, nearly three-
quarters of students were verbally harassed and more than 16 percent
were physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation.
More than 60 percent of students who reported an incident of
harassment said that school staff did nothing in response. It is
unsurprising, then, that nearly one-third of students reported missing
school at least once in the last month because they did not feel safe.
I believe we must fix this immediately. That is why I support including
Senator Franken's Student Non-Discrimination Act as an amendment to the
Every Child Achieves Act currently being debated before the Senate.
Senator Franken's amendment would provide real and strong protections
for LGBT students in public, elementary, and secondary schools. It
would also provide recourse through the Department of Education and, if
necessary, in the courts to help students vindicate their rights.
This amendment is closely modeled on existing Federal education
protections, which have helped ensure that students have remedies when
they face unfair treatment based on race, ethnicity, sex, and
disability. LGBT students are just as deserving of the opportunity to
succeed in the school environment that is supportive and nurturing
rather than discriminatory and unwelcoming.
If we are truly to ensure through this legislation that every child
achieves, we must act to address the bullying, harassment, and
discrimination that limits educational opportunities of too many
students. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Cloture Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for
the Alexander substitute amendment No. 2089.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Alexander
amendment No. 2089 to S. 1177, an original bill to
reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 to ensure that every child achieves.
Mitch McConnell, Orrin G. Hatch, Lamar Alexander, Cory
Gardner, Steve Daines, Pat Roberts, Johnny Isakson,
Susan M. Collins, Michael B. Enzi, Kelly Ayotte, John
Cornyn, Lisa Murkowski, Tim Scott, Richard Burr, Thom
Tillis, Lindsey Graham, John Hoeven.
Cloture Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for
the underlying bill, S. 1177.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 1177, an
original bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to ensure that every child achieves.
Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Pat Roberts, Lamar
Alexander, Cory Gardner, Steve Daines, Johnny Isakson,
Susan M. Collins, Michael B. Enzi, Kelly Ayotte, John
Cornyn, Orrin G. Hatch, Richard Burr, Thom Tillis,
Lindsey Graham, John Hoeven, Bill Cassidy.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
mandatory quorum calls under rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the
Senate with respect to the cloture motions be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________