[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 14, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5023-S5035]
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.
       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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the Democratic leader expressed the 
hope that we could have a path to the end on amendments, and I can 
assure him that Senator Murray and I agree with him wholeheartedly. We 
are working together to try to be able to do that. In the committee, we 
adopted 29 amendments. Most of those were Democratic amendments. We 
have adopted 22 on the floor, and the majority of those are Democratic 
amendments. The Democratic leader has been very helpful to allow us to 
come to the floor without delay, and I can assure him and the majority 
leader that Senator Murray and I intend to try to resolve the couple of 
issues we have right now and be able to recommend to the leadership a 
path forward. It would be my hope that we don't even have to have a 
cloture vote--that we didn't have to have one to get on the floor, and 
I hope we don't have to have one to get off the floor. I am not 
prepared to say we can do that yet, but we agree with him, and we will 
do our best to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Through the Chair to my friend, the senior Senator from 
Tennessee, the way the rules now exist, now after coming in tomorrow, 
there will be a cloture vote. I say to my friend that we need an 
agreement prior to that or we are not going to get cloture on the bill, 
on the substitute, which would be a shame. I hope that we can have 
adequate debate on these amendments. If we have 5 minutes per 
amendment, that won't work. I know that my friend is a fair man, but we 
are trying to understand why there was a rush on filing cloture on this 
bill.
  I know there is a lot of work to do around here, but you can't 
shortchange one bill in an effort to get to something else that may not 
work either. We have two cloture votes on this bill. We can avoid the 
cloture vote, and that would be great. Maybe we can avoid the cloture 
vote on the bill itself. I hope so. But until my Senators are 
protected, we are not going to invoke cloture tomorrow morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I understand what the Democratic leader 
is saying. I think the best thing for Senator Murray and me to do is to 
continue to work as we have with other Senators. I believe we know 
almost all of the amendments that are to be adopted. Not only have we 
adopted the ones in committee and the ones on the floor, but Senator 
Murray and I have several dozen other amendments that we are prepared 
to recommend to the full Senate be adopted in the substitute agreement. 
I would say to Senators that if there is any other amendment, I hope 
you will let us know about it. The filing deadline is 2:30 this 
afternoon. I hope we have all of the amendments that we need to have.
  Occasionally, I am asked: Why do the Senators argue all the time? My 
answer usually is this: That is what we

[[Page S5024]]

are here to do. We are presented with the most contentious issues in 
the country--issues that can't be resolved in other places. So of 
course, we are going to argue a lot. We debate. We have rules about 
debate. We debate what to do about the Iran nuclear deal. We debate 
what to do about health care. We debate what kind of trade agreements 
we should have. But occasionally, we come to a consensus about what to 
do. A consensus is the way you govern a complex country.
  I remember very well when I was a very young staff member here, I 
watched Senator Dirksen, the Republican leader--this was in 1968--and 
President Johnson, the Democratic President, work together to pass a 
civil rights bill. The bill was written in the Republican leader's 
office, even though it had been proposed by the Democratic President. 
It took 68 votes to pass it, in order to get cloture at that time. When 
they finally got 68--it took 67; they got 68--Senator Russell of 
Georgia, who led the opposition, flew to Atlanta and said: It is the 
law of the land; we need to support it. That is why we have the Senate. 
The Senate has been called the one authentic piece of genius in the 
American political system. It is the only place in our Government that 
encourages and actually forces consensus on important issues.
  When you take a complex issue and try to resolve it and have it be 
the rule for a country as big and diverse as ours, consensus is the 
only way to do it. I cannot think of an issue about which there needs 
to be more consensus than one that involves the 100,000 public schools 
in our country, which have 50 million children and 3\1/2\ million 
teachers. Having a debate such as this about elementary and secondary 
education is like attending a football game at the University of 
Tennessee or Arkansas or Washington. Everybody in the stands is an 
expert. Everybody in the stands knows they can be the coach or the 
quarterback.
  It is not that easy to get a consensus about what to do about 
elementary and secondary education in America. What is the proper role 
for the Federal Government? Once you have decided that, then what do 
you do about it? How much do you spend? What rules do you set?
  The remarkable thing is that we have come to a consensus in two ways 
here about our elementary and secondary education legislation which is 
on floor today. The first is that we need to get something done. We are 
7 years overdue. Newsweek magazine said this last week in the headline 
to its story: ``The Education Law Everyone Wants to Fix.'' We have 
tried twice in the last two Congresses. It was a well-intentioned 
bipartisan effort. Each failed. Each failed. We don't have to go into 
the reasons why, but they did fail.
  In this Congress, we are off to a different start. We have heard from 
our teachers, our Governors, our superintendents, and our parents that 
you have to get this done. We want the bill to be as much like the one 
each one of us would write as possible. But in the end, let's get it 
done. Not only do we have a remarkable consensus about the need to fix 
No Child Left Behind, but we have a remarkable consensus about how to 
do it. I give a great deal of credit for that to the Senator from 
Washington, Mrs. Murray, who suggested to me that she and I write a 
draft bill together, which we did. We presented it to our committee, 
which includes many of the most liberal Members of the Senate and many 
of the most conservative Members of the Senate.
  We worked through that draft. We considered 58 amendments. We adopted 
29. A majority of those were Democratic amendments. In the end, every 
single member of the committee voted to report it to the floor. That 
did not mean every single member of the committee supported every 
provision in the bill, but I think what it meant--and I asked the 
members this before they voted: One, has it been a fair process? Have 
you had a chance to have your say? Is this bill good enough to present 
to the full Senate? The answer was yes for 22 Senators on both sides of 
the aisle.

  Now, we have come to the Senate floor and we have been here about a 
week. We have adopted already 22 amendments, 14 of them are Democratic 
amendments. We have several dozen more amendments that Senator Murray 
and I have reviewed with our staffs and we agree with them. We are 
going to recommend to the full Senate that those be adopted by voice 
vote. They are important amendments, important contributions to the 
bill. We have about two dozen remaining to go which we need to vote on.
  We need to do that today and we need to do that tomorrow. There is no 
need for us to go longer than that. We know what the amendments are. We 
have time to talk about those amendments on those 2 days. One or two of 
those are particularly contentious. We are trying to work those out.
  So today what I would appeal to my colleagues for is cooperation. We 
have had excellent cooperation in the committee. We have had members of 
our committee who agreed not to offer amendments in the committee 
because they were told by me and Senator Murray that they have a chance 
to offer those amendments on the floor. We intend for them to have that 
opportunity before we finish this bill.
  Senators on both sides of the aisle exercised restraint in that way 
in pursuit of a result. Most of the Members of the Senate on both sides 
of this aisle so far in this debate for the last week have done the 
same. I would simply ask all the Members of the Senate on both sides of 
the aisle in the next couple of days to show that same kind of 
restraint and help us get a result.
  There is no need for us to go more than a couple of days. There is no 
need for us to have a cloture vote. We should be able to agree the 
amendments we know about can be scheduled and there can be an adequate 
time for debate on those and we can vote on them. We should be able to 
do that by unanimous consent. We want Senators to have a right to have 
their say on amendments that are related--related to elementary and 
secondary education.
  So I thank the majority leader for placing this bill on the floor. I 
thank the Democratic leader for helping to create an environment in 
which we can succeed. I thank Senator Murray and her staff and our 
staff for working with the other Senators to get as far as we go. What 
I would ask our colleagues once again to do is to say: Our filing 
deadline is 2:30. We hope we already have all of the amendments. If 
everyone will cooperate with us, hopefully, the Senator from Washington 
and I can present to the leadership a list of amendments, a time 
agreement for how much debate there should be, and we should get 
started. We ought to be able to have one or two amendments voted on 
before lunch. When that is agreed to, we will let Senators know. 
Otherwise, I would expect there to be several votes in the afternoon, 
and a great many votes on Wednesday.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, at Zillah High School in my home State of 
Washington, Jeff Charbonneau teaches science and engineering classes. 
Nearly half of the students in his school are struggling with poverty 
or come from low-income backgrounds. But despite the challenges poverty 
can present for students, Jeff and his colleagues engage their students 
and work tirelessly to help them succeed.
  That dedication had paid off. Zillah High School graduates more than 
95 percent of its seniors, and Jeff was named National Teacher of the 
Year a couple of years ago. But despite all of that success, today 
Jeff's school is labeled as ``failing.'' The reason: Last year, 
Washington State lost its waiver from No Child Left Behind 
requirements. That means most of the schools in my home State are 
listed as failing.
  That is not fair to teachers like Jeff who pour their energy into 
making sure students can succeed. It is not fair to Washington State 
parents who are still facing a great deal of uncertainty about their 
child's school. It is not fair to students who deserve better than the 
current K-through-12 education law. It is time to finally fix No Child 
Left Behind. I am working hard to fix this broken law for teachers in 
my home State like Jeff.
  I am working to restore certainty for parents in Washington State and 
across the country because they want to feel confident in the school 
where they send their child. I am working to make sure all students can 
get a quality education at our public schools no matter where they live 
or how they learn or how much money their parents

[[Page S5025]]

make. The Every Child Achieves Act is our chance to finally fix the 
current law.
  It gives States more flexibility, while also including Federal 
guardrails to make sure all students have access to a quality public 
education. I look forward to making this good bill even better. It is 
why I am disappointed with the majority leader's decision last night to 
file cloture and move toward ending debate on the bill. We still have 
several important issues to address. Senator Franken has an amendment 
to help protect LGBT students from bullying and discrimination at 
school.
  I think it is an absolutely critical issue. When students do not feel 
safe at school, we have failed to provide them with the educational 
opportunities they deserve. I hope all of our Senate colleagues agree 
that we need to protect LGBT students from bullying and discrimination. 
We also have an amendment to expand access to high-quality early 
childhood education from Senator Casey, making sure kids can start 
kindergarten ready to learn. It is one of the best investments we can 
make to help them succeed in school and later in life. I look forward 
to having that debate on the Senate floor.
  We also need to improve accountability. Our bipartisan bill already 
includes some Federal guardrails to help students get access to a 
quality education, but there is more we can do to strengthen those 
measures and make sure all kids, especially our most vulnerable 
students, are able to learn and grow and thrive in the classroom.
  So we have many issues yet to work through concluding debate on this 
bill. Getting this right cannot be more important for students across 
the country. Providing a quality education is not just good for 
students today, it is an investment in our future workforce, it is an 
investment in our future economy, and it will help our country grow 
stronger. Around the country, and in my home State of Washington, 
parents, students, teachers, and communities are looking to us to fix 
the No Child Left Behind law. We cannot let them down.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, first of all, before I get into my 
prepared remarks, I want to say thanks to Senator Alexander and Senator 
Murray for their great work on this bill. I very much appreciate where 
we are today, and hopefully when the amendments are all done, this bill 
will continue to be a step forward for this country's public education 
system and the students who are in it.
  As everybody may know in this body, I am a third-generation farmer 
from North Central Montana. My wife Sharla and I have the incredible 
opportunity of farming the same land my grandfather and grandmother 
homesteaded and my folks worked for 35 years. I have been working on 
the farm since I was very young. From the age of 8, I knew I wanted to 
be a farmer, but my parents were insistent that I work hard in school 
and that I pursue a degree, even though agriculture was in my blood.
  They knew a degree would give me greater opportunity both on and off 
the farm. My mother, in particular, had an unbreakable faith in the 
power of public education. So I went to college and after college--I 
graduated and got a degree--I started teaching in the same elementary 
school I attended as a child. While my calling as a farmer pulled me 
away from my time as a public school teacher in rural America--now, to 
be honest with you, the fact is, I could make more money in 1 day 
processing meat than I could in a week of teaching school. But that is 
another problem.
  Nonetheless, I left the formal public education classroom. But it 
remained a key part of my life because I knew education was important. 
My parents instilled that in me. So I ran for the school board and got 
elected. I have been involved in public education my entire life, as a 
student, as a teacher, as a parent, as a school board member, as a 
State senator, as a grandfather, and now as a U.S. Senator. I have seen 
the positive impact that good education can have on folks' lives. I 
have seen how our system has failed too many kids.
  Last year, Denise Juneau, Montana's Superintendent of Public 
Instruction, put out a report on why graduation matters. Nearly 80 
percent of the male inmates in Montana's prison system are high school 
dropouts--80 percent of the male inmates in Montana's prison system are 
high school dropouts. Nearly three-quarters of the women in Montana 
jails are high school dropouts.
  Superintendent Juneau estimated that Montana could combine crime 
reduction savings and additional revenue of over $19 million annually 
if we just graduated 5 percent more kids and incarcerated fewer of 
them. Nationally, these stakes are just as high. According to some 
figures, over 80 percent of the incarcerated population is high school 
dropouts. It is true that over 8,000 Americans drop out of high school 
each and every day. We can see how quickly the cost of incarceration 
will add up, even if many stay out of trouble and some go back and get 
their GED years later.
  But it is not only the question of incarceration. The only jobs left 
within reach of a high school dropout are almost always going to be 
minimum wage or close to it. That perpetuates the cycle of poverty. So 
every American ought to know what we are up against. I know that what 
we do this week with the Every Child Achieves Act will affect millions 
of American families for years to come.
  For the past few months, the Appropriations Committee has been 
working on bills that impact everything from our national defense to 
veterans, to agriculture, to access to public lands. I have been highly 
critical of where this majority thinks we should spend money and where 
it thinks we don't need to invest. My colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee deserve a lot of credit for doing the best they can, but the 
end result is still unacceptable.
  They have underfunded care for veterans by over $850 million compared 
to what the VA says it needs to keep up with the increased number of 
veterans accessing the VA. They have rejected efforts to make Head 
Start a full-day, full-year learning initiative. By freezing Head Start 
funding, they risk kicking more than 12,000 kids out of Head Start, 
despite the successes I have already told you about prison populations 
and education. It is a direct connection.
  They have cut half a billion dollars out of clean water projects. 
Meanwhile, they have funneled $40 billion of borrowed money into an 
off-the-books account used for overseas military operations. This week, 
as we work to reform elementary and secondary education to ensure that 
our kids and our grandkids are prepared for the challenges of this 
worldwide economy in which we live, we simply cannot afford to 
shortchange their future.
  That doesn't just mean providing the framework that will guide our 
Nation's 100,000 school districts as they work to improve education 
that our students receive, it also means letting them make decisions 
for themselves. If schools are not teaching well, they are accountable 
to school boards. If school boards are hiring bad teachers or 
misapplying resources, they are accountable to their voters. I can tell 
you as a former school board member, they are accountable to their 
voters.
  But we also have to provide them with the resources they need to 
succeed. This is an investment we must make. Almost everyone in this 
body agrees that education is the single best investment we can make to 
ensure that folks are able to climb the economic ladder and get out of 
poverty. While I do not agree with everything in the Every Child 
Achieves Act, I can tell you it is certainly a step in the right 
direction.
  Most importantly--most importantly--this bill eliminates adequate 
yearly progress known as AYP and moves us away from some of the failed 
high-stakes testing we have come to know. The chairman and ranking 
member need to be applauded for that. No Child Left Behind assumed that 
all students were the same and that success in the classroom meant 
passing a standardized test. We all know that is simply not the case. 
No Child Left Behind aimed to hold teachers and administrators solely 
responsible for the performance of their students, and punishment for 
low performance was rendered in the halls of the Department of 
Education here in Washington, DC.

[[Page S5026]]

  Well, yes, I can tell you teachers and administrators must be held 
accountable, but much of that achievement gap is tied to things out of 
the hands of those teachers and administrators. It is tied to what 
happens outside the classroom.

  Students' lives both inside the classroom and out are significantly 
different depending on their community and the home in which they live.
  One of the single biggest factors that impact students' lives is 
poverty. If we do not address that issue, then this well-intentioned 
bill will not have the desired effects. If we do not recognize that 
urban poverty and rural poverty are very different, then we will fail 
to keep the promise that in America, any kid can grow up to be in the 
U.S. Senate or be successful in business or in the arts. Quite simply, 
if we are going to hold teachers and students accountable without 
addressing the root of some of the inequities in our public schools, 
then we are not addressing one of the most basic problems our Nation 
and our schools face.
  Using a single formula to grade the Nation's 100,000 schools didn't 
work, especially when folks in Washington expected schools to change 
overnight. That expectation added so much pressure to perform that 
students and teachers alike dreaded going to school. We lost a lot of 
good teachers.
  This bill, resulting from the hard work of Senator Alexander and 
Senator Murray, acknowledges that Washington doesn't have all the 
answers when it comes to educating our kids. It puts more control in 
the hands of our States and local school boards.
  For example, under No Child Left Behind, all 100,000 schools in this 
country were subjected to the same regulation for graduation rates. 
Under that regulation, schools can only count students who graduate 
with a diploma in 4 years. School districts don't get credit for 
students who graduate in 5 years or if they earned a GED.
  Oftentimes, students who take more than 4 years to graduate have 
personal or family issues that prevent them from graduating on time. 
States would have to beg for permission from the Department of 
Education to count fifth-year graduates, and if the Department chose to 
accept those graduates, it would tell the States how much weight those 
students would count toward the schools' assessment. Under the Every 
Child Achieves Act, States will no longer have to apply to count fifth-
year graduates and they can determine on their own how to weigh those 
students when assessing graduation rates.
  This bill also builds on the Schools of Promise Initiative that has 
worked well in Montana to put some of our poorest performing schools on 
the right path. Under the leadership of Superintendent Juneau, the 
communities that are home to Montana's five lowest rated public schools 
have received support to attract and retain better teachers and to 
encourage community members to be more involved in the education of our 
children. That model, which empowers districts and schools to get 
better--and hire better--is being strengthened by the Every Child 
Achieves Act.
  While this bill can and should go further to place more power at the 
local level, we have taken a good first step in its potential to do 
even better.
  I recently paid a visit to Busby, MT, on the border of the Northern 
Cheyenne and Crow Indian Reservations. Beautiful country surrounded by 
rolling hills, Busby is so small that if you blink while driving, you 
could miss it. Busby is home to one of Montana's three Bureau of Indian 
Education schools. It is easy to see how broken America's promise to 
our tribal communities really is when one goes to Busby. The school has 
too few resources. The science teacher doesn't have any working 
microscopes. The teachers often cut pages out of their instruction 
manuals and make photocopies for each of their students. And the school 
needs maintenance.
  While the scene at many BIE schools would drive you to tears, the 
public schools that educate over 90 percent of our Native American 
students are also in serious need of support. Over the last decade, 
Native American students are the only group--they are the only group--
who has not seen improvements in reading and math. In fact, the 
achievement gap in math has actually widened during that time. Native 
American students are also the most likely to skip school or drop out 
and the least likely to go to college.
  That is why last week the Senate passed my amendment to restore four 
grant programs that could help improve education in Indian Country, if 
they get funded. My amendment allows schools and colleges to train 
teachers to understand Native American culture so they are better 
equipped to help those Native American students succeed. It preserves 
fellowship programs for Native American students to get greater hands-
on experience through their degree. It protects gifted and talented 
programs to better address the needs of bright young Native American 
students, and it maintains support for adult literacy and GED programs 
in Native American communities. Those title VII initiatives have never 
been funded, but they will have a major, positive impact on Native 
Americans across the country if we can find the money to fund them. 
Last week's bipartisan vote showed there is real support for these 
initiatives, and we should provide them with adequate resources.
  Additionally, this bill includes strong steps toward improving native 
language instruction. It is a very good initiative because we know that 
when Indian kids learn in their native language, they do better in 
school and carry their history and tradition on to future generations, 
and they graduate at a higher rate.
  Another important step we can take--one that I hear about often when 
meeting with parents, teachers, and administrators back home--is 
reducing the annual Federal testing requirement because right now, 
under No Child Left Behind, we are testing our kids to death. As my 
colleagues know, a student will take 17 federally mandated tests by the 
time they graduate high school--17.
  I met with some fourth and sixth grade students, as well as their 
teachers and parents, about how much testing the Feds require. As my 
colleagues well know, fourth and sixth grade students usually tell it 
like it is. There is not a political agenda behind it when they ask a 
question or tell it the way they see it. So when I asked how much 
testing is the right amount, one bright young girl replied, ``I don't 
know, but I can tell you now it is too much.'' A fourth grade teacher 
there told me they are spending over 4 weeks a year testing. That is 4 
weeks out of the year. That takes away from instruction time where kids 
could be learning. The level of testing that is currently required is 
choking out creativity, innovation, and taking away from our students' 
ability to learn.
  I have offered an amendment to replace that current annual testing 
with fewer tests. Instead of taking federally mandated tests every 
year, students would be required to take one test in elementary school, 
one test in middle school, and one test in high school. If States want 
to test their students more, they can. If school boards want to test 
their students more, they can. But, as the young girl in Billings said, 
what we are doing right now is too much.
  My goal and the goal of many in this body is to give a greater voice 
to the State and local community leaders to determine how best to 
educate the next generation. This bill as drafted puts us on that path. 
It is a chance to leave a better future for our country by making sure 
that every child--from the best school in the big city to the poorest 
Indian reservation in Montana--has a chance to succeed.
  Our schools should not be designed as data warehouses where we can 
collect statistics on every student in America. Instead, we should be 
making sure our students love to learn so that they continue to learn 
even after they graduate and enter the workforce. We should make sure 
they have the same appreciation for education my mother did. That is 
what we should be investing in, and that is whom we should be investing 
for.
  I once again thank Senator Alexander and Senator Murray for their 
work on this bill. I look forward to making this bill better through 
the amendment process--not worse--so that hopefully we have a good bill 
to vote on at the end of this week.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

[[Page S5027]]

                           Amendment No. 2132

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I rise today regarding my amendment No. 
2132, specifically targeting an opportunity to improve education for 
those kids attending title I schools. This is a portability amendment.
  As we debate this Education bill, we must ensure our focus is in the 
right place. Education policy is not about protecting a bureaucracy, it 
should not be about empowering Washington, and it cannot be about an 
endless, fruitless push for some sort of one-size-fits-all type of 
system. This conversation must be about kids--5-year-olds and 15-year-
olds--and their unlimited potential.
  I believe without question that each and every child has within them 
a reservoir of potential. We should make sure that the access to 
experiencing the fullness of their potential is available to all 
Americans throughout this country. Too many of our Nation's children 
today do not have access to quality education. They don't have access 
to the education they deserve.
  Now, more than half of the students in our Nation's public schools 
come from low-income households. This is an important point. As someone 
who grew up in poverty, as someone who grew up in a single-parent 
household, I know full well the challenges that come with poverty. Poor 
kids too often move a lot. By the time I was in the fifth grade, I had 
attended four different schools--four schools in my first 5 years of 
education. That is 4 different administrators, 4 different sets of 
teachers, 4 different funding streams--probably 40 different funding 
streams. So when we look at this through the eyes of a poor kid or if 
we look at this through the eyes of a single mother who is struggling 
simply to make ends meet, it seems very clear to me that providing more 
educational options is the right path forward for us to make sure every 
child everywhere experiences their full potential.
  Giving States the ability to provide portability for the title I 
dollars--school choice for those most in need--is the kind of reform 
our kids deserve. It is the kind of reform they need. I don't care 
whether it is public, private, charter, virtual, home school; I don't 
really care what option as long as we have all the options so that the 
parents find the best for their kids.
  Instead of forcing funds through redtape and bureaucracy, let's have 
it directly follow our students. We are not talking about all the 
school funding this amazing Nation provides--somewhere around $700 
billion of funding for schools. We are talking about a sliver--about 14 
percent. Let that 14 percent of the Federal dollars--let those dollars 
be portable. Give the children in title I areas the greatest 
opportunity for success we know as a nation.
  We all understand and appreciate the fact that to achieve the 
American dream today, it requires a quality education. By backpacking 
those funds, we will help kids who are like I used to be--growing up in 
difficult circumstances--to look into their own future with hope, 
understanding that opportunity lives and breathes everywhere in 
America.
  We are seeing what happens when the majority of parents simply do not 
have those basic options, and we are seeing it in some challenging and 
stunning statistics. In 2010, there were 2.8 million high school 
dropouts between the ages of 16 and 24. The unemployment rate in 
America today is around 5.2 percent, but for those kids who dropped 
out, the unemployment rate is 29 percent, and nearly 36 percent--more 
than a third of those students--were not participating at all in the 
workforce. Taken as a whole, nearly two-thirds of all high school 
dropouts are simply not working. These are devastating numbers for our 
Nation as a whole. No matter where one lives in America, one is 
impacted by these statistics, and they should cause us to stand up and 
take notice.
  These are students who deserve better, students who just need a 
little confidence in their abilities, and we can provide that through 
school choice. These kids, trapped in failing schools and 
underperforming schools, deserve an opportunity. It is simply not fair 
to our children, it is not fair to their parents, and it is not fair to 
America to allow the status quo to remain.
  I know there is no silver bullet, but school choice is a large step--
a leap--in the right direction. That is one of the reasons why I 
launched my Opportunity Agenda with school choice, the CHOICE Act, as a 
part of the foundation. That is why I am standing here today 
discussing--pleading with my colleagues to take a serious look at the 
educational opportunities available in some of the poorest ZIP Codes in 
America.
  I think it is important to note that my amendment complements a 
growing body of evidence where we see 57 school choice programs in 29 
States--57 school choice programs in 29 States--not in the South 
primarily, but in the South, yes; the Southwest, yes; the Northeast, 
absolutely; and the Midwest, yes. Local and State leaders are figuring 
out that when parents have a choice, kids have a chance.
  Let me be crystal clear. It is absolutely paramount that we act and 
that we act now. I know opponents of school choice want to use 
``voucher'' as a dirty word. I understand the tactics of those who do 
not support giving every child a quality opportunity. I understand. But 
they forget that the Federal Government already authorizes vouchers for 
education. We just call them Pell grants. Too often too many of our 
poor kids and our kids of color never receive a Pell grant because 
their high schools did not prepare them for college.
  Now we know there are quality public schools all over this country, 
and we should celebrate the success of our quality public schools. I am 
a big fan of our public schools when they work, but I am a bigger fan 
of removing the potential traps to our kids in underperforming schools.
  We can make a difference, we should make a difference, and this 
amendment provides us the opportunity to make that difference today. We 
don't have to wait until tomorrow. We don't have to wait until next 
year. We can do it today. You see, this Senator took a Pell grant to 
Charleston Southern University, probably the greatest university in the 
history of the country. Charleston Southern University, a private 
university, is where I took my Pell grant and experienced a wonderful 
education.
  Faith and hope are two of the most powerful and necessary emotions. 
They oftentimes serve as the glue to better opportunity. We can restore 
those two powerful emotions in areas where kids too often are losing 
hope. This Senator knows that personally. This Senator has seen it 
happen personally in his own life. That is the power of school choice.
  All of our kids--yes, all of our kids--have amazing potential. I 
believe there are good people on the other side of this argument. I 
know the other side believes school choice, as I am describing it, is 
wrong. I believe they have good intentions. This Senator is speaking 
from personal experience. This Senator is speaking from the statistical 
realities that we see across this country. This Senator is speaking on 
behalf of those kids who have been trapped too long, locked out too 
often, and said no to too many times. It is up to us as policymakers to 
create an environment where we unlock their potential.
  I hope we will continue to have a robust debate, leaving politics 
behind and figuring out how to improve educational opportunities for 
all of our children.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                   American Workers and Overtime Pay

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, American workers have fought long and hard 
to improve their lot--banning child labor, better safety on the job, 
minimum wage, and an 8-hour workday. Unions often led these fights, but 
their efforts also helped tens of millions of workers who often had no 
union representation.
  In 1868, Congress passed its first 8-hour workday law, and by 1975 
rules protecting the 8-hour workday covered about 65 percent of all 
workers. Of course, those workers might work longer--might be required 
to work longer--but if they did, they got time and a half for their 
extra hours. Managers were exempt from those rules, but they were paid 
more to offset the lost overtime.
  To be sure, American workers did their part too. Year over year, 
decade over decade, workers increased output so that today American 
workers are among the most productive in the

[[Page S5028]]

world. The basic 8-hour day, with overtime for extra hours, was a 
godsend to families, and, in a larger sense, it was a core part of the 
deal that American workers could count on. From the 1930s through the 
1970s, as American workers' productivity increased, GDP went up and so 
did wages for the average worker. In other words, as companies got 
richer, their workers got richer too. This was the America that built 
the great middle class, the America that created opportunity and 
protected that opportunity for nearly two-thirds of all workers.
  But over time, that basic deal quietly vanished because we haven't 
meaningfully updated these rules since the 1970s. Instead of two-thirds 
of the workforce being protected, today only 8 percent of all salaried 
workers are covered. That means that only the lowest paid workers, 
workers whose salaries are so low that they are below the poverty line 
for a family of four, are legally entitled to be paid anything for 
their overtime. Today, a fast-food worker or a janitor or a grocery 
store clerk making a little over $23,000 can be classified as a manager 
and be required to work 10, 12, 14 hours a day, 5, 6 or 7 days a week, 
with no overtime pay of any kind.
  Today, the productivity of American workers continues to rise, but 
the gains go to Wall Street and to CEOs and are no longer shared with 
the people doing much of the back-breaking work to make it all happen. 
That is a broken system.
  Two weeks ago, the President announced he is going to fix these 
broken overtime rules. The administration's new proposal would raise 
the salary threshold under which a worker is guaranteed overtime pay to 
just over $50,000, more than double the current threshold and roughly 
back to the 1975 level, when both corporations and workers benefited 
from a growing economy.
  This matters. According to the White House, nearly 5 million 
Americans--including over 100,000 people in Massachusetts alone--will 
get a raise. They estimate that workers will see an additional $1.4 
billion in wages in just the first year alone.
  But make no mistake, it will be a fight. Some businesses are used to 
getting an extra 5, 10, 20 hours for free from their employees--and 
they are just fine keeping the rules just the way they are. They will 
claim that fixing overtime will hurt businesses. Well, don't believe 
it. History shows that increases in overtime pay are actually good for 
the economy.
  Employers usually respond to increases in the overtime threshold in 
one of three ways. Some will actually pay existing employees overtime 
for the extra work. Others will avoid overtime costs by hiring more 
workers to get the job done, and some will increase the hours of part-
time workers. That is what we are likely to get: higher wages, more 
jobs or more hours for part-time workers. Even the National Retail 
Federation, which has lobbied hard against fixing the overtime rules, 
admits this proposal will add tens of thousands of jobs to this 
economy. We need those jobs.
  But this issue is about more than jobs. This issue is also about 
fairness. If a worker puts in more time and produces more for the 
company, the worker should get a chance to share in its benefit. No 
more free work. Economic growth over the past three decades has been 
built on the backs of hard-working people, and it is time those hard-
working people get a little bit more of all they have produced.
  Fixing our outdated overtime rules will not end inequality. It is 
time to raise the minimum wage. Women should get equal pay for equal 
work. Workers deserve paid sick leave and paid family leave. Social 
Security should be expanded. But this is an important step forward, a 
vital piece of the puzzle that will increase wages, increase hours, and 
increase employment for millions of Americans, and it is a step that 
will show that the government can be made to help working people. There 
are plenty of examples of Washington writing rules that favor the rich 
and the powerful, but this time we have an overtime rule that will give 
working families a fighting chance to build some security for 
themselves. The President has proposed a new rule to benefit working 
families, and the rest of us are here today ready to fight for that 
rule.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, we are continuing our discussion of 
legislation to fix No Child Left Behind. We are still hopeful that we 
may have an agreement that we will have one or two votes before lunch.
  I remind Senators that because of their cooperation we have done 
pretty well. We have adopted 29 amendments in committee, 22 already on 
the floor. Senator Murray and I have a large number of other amendments 
that we are prepared to recommend to the full Senate be adopted by 
consent. We have about two dozen amendments which we would like to have 
a vote on today and tomorrow. So the sooner we can move to those, the 
better, which will take some cooperation from all Senators.
  Senator Tester, the Senator from Montana, was here earlier. I thank 
him for his comments. He is a former school board member. He recognizes 
that the idea that we want to restore responsibility for student 
achievement to local school boards, to classroom teachers, to States, 
to chief State school officers is not just a Republican idea, it is a 
bipartisan consensus. We agree. We want to know whether the children 
are learning, but we want to restore to the States the decisions about 
what to do about the results of the tests the students take.
  As the New York Principal of the Year wrote to us, wrote to our 
committee: We cherish our children, too. What she was saying was just 
because we fly to Washington once a week doesn't make us any more 
caring or any wiser about how to deal with 50 million children in 
100,000 public schools from Native villages in Alaska to the mountains 
of Tennessee. In fact, we are less able to deal with that because we 
are further removed from those students.
  The Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Scott, made that point 
eloquently. He said school choice is not a political slogan, school 
choice is an option, and we should look at it from the point of view of 
someone who is low-income or someone who is growing up in a home with a 
single parent, which he did. He talked from his own perspective. We 
shouldn't look down, we should be looking up. Look up at opportunity. 
Look up to the point of view of a single parent with less income and 
one or more children who is thinking: How can I help my children rise? 
How can they look up? Probably the one thing that almost all of us 
would agree on is, the better the educational opportunity is, the more 
chance that child has to climb the ladder.
  If you have money in your family, you have those choices. You may 
move to a different part of town or you may choose a private school if 
you have the money. If you don't have the money, you don't have the 
choices. So what Senator Scott proposes to do is to take $14 billion of 
Federal funding and allow States--this is not a mandate on the State; 
this will be up to the State--to say that money can follow the low-
income child to the school the child's parent wants that child to 
attend, public or private.

  There is often a lot of talk about what is the proper Federal role 
for education. Some people don't think there is any. I was in that camp 
and probably still would be if I were the king. I remember going to see 
President Reagan in the early 1980s and suggesting that the Federal 
Government get completely out of elementary and secondary education and 
let the States do it all. In exchange, the Federal Government would 
take all of Medicaid. That would have been a good swap for the States, 
and it would have been good for education. But that is not where we are 
as a country today.
  But if someone were to say what is the single reason why the Federal 
Government ought to have something to do with education, one answer 
would be to prevent discrimination, and another answer would be to help 
low-income children.
  What is the best way to help the low-income child? This is what the 
Senator from South Carolina is saying: Why don't we take the money we 
have available, and let it follow that child to the school that the 
child's parent thinks is best? That is what we allow the wealthier 
parent to do. Why don't we

[[Page S5029]]

do it for the child? Why do we send it through bureaucracies and let 
other people make that decision? Why do we look down when, instead, we 
should be looking up?
  As he also pointed out, it is not such an alien thought--this idea of 
letting money follow a student to a school. He pointed out that since 
1944, with the GI bill for veterans, we have had great success in this 
country with allowing Federal dollars to follow students to the college 
of their choice.
  In fact, the GI bill for veterans is often described as the most 
successful social piece of legislation in our country's history. It 
helped to create the ``greatest generation.'' It said you could take 
your Pell grant or your student loan to Notre Dame, to the University 
of Arizona, to Maryville College in Tennessee or you can go to Yeshiva, 
you can go to Howard University. That is your choice. Public, for-
profit or nonprofit, you go. If it is accredited, that is your choice.
  We also have vouchers, and that is a voucher at the other end of the 
scale. We have something called the child care and development block 
grant. It is a very big Federal program, maybe $8 billion. It says to 
low-income mothers--mainly mothers--that here is a voucher that you 
could spend at a daycare center while you work or while you go to 
school so that you can earn enough money so that you won't have to have 
a government voucher anymore.
  So we have vouchers for parents with 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-year olds. We 
have vouchers for students who are 18, 19, and 21 years olds, and 
somehow we think there is something wrong with having vouchers for 
elementary and high school students. That line is changing all the 
time.
  I was in Jackson, TN, recently, and the president of Jackson State 
Community College told me that 30 percent of the students at Jackson 
State Community College are also in high school. We call that dual 
enrollment. That means that while you are a junior or a senior in high 
school, you might be taking physics, mathematics or some program at the 
community college or some apprenticeship there that might better 
prepare you for a job.
  At Walters State Community College in Morristown, TN, I spoke at the 
graduation this year. A student there was graduating from Jefferson 
County High School and Walters State Community College in the same 
week. That student was going on to Purdue University, but he was going 
to enter Purdue at the second semester of his sophomore year. In other 
words, because he had been in both community college and in high 
school, he was able to save, he said, $65,000 by enrolling in the 
second semester of the sophomore year.
  So we have a voucher to help him pay, if he is low income, to go to 
Walters State Community College, but somehow there is something wrong 
with a voucher to allow him to choose among the public high schools he 
attends. That doesn't make a lot of sense based on our history. It 
would be rare that we have a social experiment or a social legislation 
offered in our country where we have these two good pilot programs: the 
GI bill for veterans, operating since 1944, and the child care and 
development block grant, operating since the first President Bush was 
in office and which was reauthorized just last year by Congress.
  We all vote for Pell grant vouchers. We all vote for child care and 
development block grant vouchers, and then we have a big argument when 
it comes time to talk about vouchers for elementary and secondary 
education. I think a way to resolve that is to take Senator Scott's 
advice. Instead of looking down on the students, let's look up. Let's 
look up from the perspective of Senator Scott--the Senator from South 
Carolina--when he was a child, when he was growing up in a home without 
much money, with a single parent, with limited educational options.
  He knows the value and option that a Pell grant gave him for college. 
He would like to extend that option to elementary and secondary 
education for students who grow up as he grew up, and I would like to 
do that as well. We have an opportunity to do that by voting for his 
amendment when it comes time for a vote on this bill. I intend to vote 
yes, and I hope my colleagues will too.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up Casey amendment No. 2152, the Strong 
Start for America's Children Act, an amendment to the Every Child 
Achieves Act, which will establish a Federal-State partnership to 
provide access to high-quality public prekindergarten education for 
low- and moderate-income families.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, as well, to add Senators 
Tester, Reed of Rhode Island, Klobuchar, and Merkley as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to adding the cosponsors?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is 
a very important amendment that was thoroughly discussed in the 
education committee when we considered this legislation.
  Both Senator Murray and I believe it should be offered on the floor 
and that Senators should have a chance to vote on it.
  The trouble is that the Finance Committee objects to the way it is 
paid for. And in a moment, on behalf of the chairman, Senator Hatch, 
the Senator from Utah, I will have to object.
  But my hope would be that the Senator from Pennsylvania, who is a 
member of that committee, could work with the chairman and the ranking 
member to come up with a different way of paying for the bill so that 
Senators would have a chance to vote on this important amendment today 
or tomorrow.
  So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, by way of response, I understand what my 
colleague from Tennessee just mentioned as it relates to the objection 
to the so-called pay-for. I don't agree, obviously, for a couple of 
reasons.
  No. 1 is I would hope that corporations that get the benefit of 
retaining a lot of operations in the United States and then seek to 
avoid taxes by so-called inversion would understand, I believe, the 
duty they have to this country. They benefit from our workers, our 
infrastructure. They benefit in so many ways. I would hope those 
companies would understand and Senators here would agree with the 
notion that they should undertake the duty to pay their fair share. I 
understand there is a debate about that. I understand there is an 
objection, but I would hope at some point we can get to the resolution 
of this basic question: Are we going to require companies to do more if 
they seek to engage in a tax-avoidance scheme by a so-called inversion?
  But I respect what my colleague said, and we will try to move forward 
constructively.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I have nothing more.
  Mr. CASEY. I yield to my colleague from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you.
  Mr. President, first I commend my friend and colleague from 
Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, for his amendment, and I appreciate the 
discussion between him and the chair of the committee.
  I think that getting rid of these inversions is very important. I am 
surprised people on the other side don't want to do it, but so be 
it. Funding this program is the most important way, and if we could 
come up with a bipartisan way to get the funding, that will help 
educate millions of America's young children, and that is why I support 
this amendment so strongly.

  Educating our children is not a sprint, it is a marathon. No one just 
gets up one day and decides to run a marathon. They plan, they train, 
and they eat right. We can avoid the most common problems if we start 
our kids

[[Page S5030]]

out early with the right training, not just for some but for every 
student.
  The research has shown that children who attend high-quality 
preschool programs are more likely to be prepared for school and 
graduate on time. They get better jobs. They are less likely to wind up 
in the criminal justice system or to rely on our social safety net. All 
too often in this body we do what many groups, corporations, and others 
in America do, we are unwilling to think of the long term. We may be 
spending a dollar today on this program, but we are going to save tens 
of dollars for each dollar we spend over the long run. All the studies 
show it. So having quality pre-K programs for kids who need it is a 
great investment in America. Yet millions of middle-class and low-
income children don't have access to these programs that would provide 
an immense benefit to them and our country.
  In short, pre-K should not be a luxury for the wealthy. Every child, 
no matter where they live or how much money their parents make, should 
be able to start their education in pre-K. It is not only for the good 
of them and their families but for the good of America. Senator Casey's 
amendment helps us get there by helping States fund high-quality 
prekindergarten for 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families. 
It specifies that all preschools be inclusive of children with 
disabilities and addresses the need for increased funding to support 
their needs.
  As I said, there is nothing wrong with doing inversions. Getting rid 
of them is the right thing to do, but if there is another way to go, I 
am certainly open to it, and I know Senator Casey, our leader on this 
amendment, is too.
  By the way, we will see where the pay-for is. It is the kind of win-
win that everyone can get behind, and so I hope my colleagues will come 
together and fully pay for this. If we can't do it with inversions, 
which I think is right--and I believe most Americans would think 
closing the inversion loophole is right--let's find something else.
  In New York, there are cities and communities that are already making 
the investment to ensure access to pre-K for their children. It is 
working. But at a time when budgets are tight, they shouldn't have to 
do it alone. Under this amendment, New York will receive the support it 
needs to serve an additional 137,000 kids over 5 years. States across 
the country would be able to help a similar number of their 
schoolchildren, all without costing the Federal Government a single 
plug nickel.
  As we debate how to best ensure students graduate ready for college 
or careers, we are doing a disservice if we ignore the need to invest 
in early education.
  I thank my friend Senator Casey for offering this amendment. I urge 
my colleagues to vote on it in the original form. Stand up against 
these inversions, but if that vote fails, to have a different proposal 
would be a good thing to do, although I think we should have a vote on 
this particular amendment first.
  Mr. President, I would like to speak for a moment, with the 
indulgence of my colleagues, on the title I cuts and the amendment 
Senator Burr has offered with respect to title I funding, which of 
course provides assistance to low-income districts and schools that 
educate a high number of low-income children.
  We cannot forget that title I is the largest source of Federal 
education funding and applies to a wide swath of school districts and 
includes many suburban and middle-class communities as well as school 
districts in our cities where poverty is concentrated. You might say: 
Well, this only affects the poor. It doesn't. If a school is going to 
lose its title I funding, they may have to do it and spend the money on 
their own and take away from science or afterschool programs or sports 
or something else. It affects everybody. Even though title I, since the 
days of Lyndon Johnson, was aimed at poor kids, it is going to hurt 
everybody if we make the kind of drastic cuts in so many school 
districts that the Senator from North Carolina has proposed.
  What Senator Burr's amendment would do would not increase funding, 
which is what we usually do around here when we want to try to change 
formulas, as we should. He simply robs Peter to pay Paul. He takes away 
money from a needy school in one State to give to a needy school in 
another State.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, over 9,600 school 
districts across the country will lose title I funding under this 
amendment. These schools count on title I funds year in, year out. They 
budget for it, and without the funding, they could be forced to lay off 
teachers, cut afterschool programs, and make other dramatic cuts. So it 
is no answer. Redistributing a limited pie is no way to make Federal 
policy.
  One of my disappointments with this bill is that every American 
supports increased funding in education, particularly in things like 
title I. The bill doesn't do it.
  At a time when America is competing against China, Japan, Europe, and 
the world, we are saying we shouldn't help with education, which is the 
ladder up for so many millions of American families, but we are not. 
But then to say, while keeping the funding flat, we should take huge 
amounts of money--$300 million from my State--and give it to other 
States to help the poor, when in fact it doesn't even require that that 
money goes to the needy, that doesn't make much sense, in my opinion, 
and that is not the way to legislate.
  We should have a real conversation about our Federal investment in 
education, one that recognizes that all of our school districts with 
low-income student populations would benefit from additional resources, 
one in which my colleagues across the aisle are fond of saying, in a 
different context, we are not picking winners and losers. I think we 
would agree that all of our low-income school districts need and 
deserve extra help.
  In conclusion, education is the cornerstone of the American dream. We 
have to keep that American dream alive, and there is no better way than 
in funding education. I know my colleagues believe that.
  I hope everyone will join us across the aisle in opposing Senator 
Burr's amendment to change the title I formula without increased 
Federal support for our schools.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for 
his remarks. I know how passionately he feels about the amendment by 
the Senator from North Carolina. He has made that clear to me on more 
than one occasion, and my hope is that the Senator from New York and 
the Senator from North Carolina will have a successful resolution of 
that difference of opinion in the next day or two. I know Senator 
Murray and I will be glad to work with them to try to do that, but I 
hear him loud and clear, and I appreciate him coming to the floor and 
making those statements.
  Mr. SCHUMER. If the Senator will yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Tennessee, and 
I know how much he cares about both this bill and education. I look 
forward to making this bill as good a bill as we possibly can make it, 
and so I am always open to any suggestion he might make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York. He 
has not been on the floor in the past at the beginning of the day when 
I thanked both the majority leader and Democratic leader for their 
attitude toward this bill. While it is probably not noticed by people 
around the country, it is noticed here.
  The Democratic leader and the Democratic leadership, which the 
Senator from New York is a part of, allowed this bill to come to the 
floor without any delay. We have had a chance to offer and consider a 
lot of amendments. We have already considered and adopted 22 on the 
floor.
  Senator Murray and I have several dozen or more that we will 
recommend to the full Senate to be adopted, and we have about two dozen 
other amendments that we would like to begin voting on soon. We seem to 
be moving along. Senators are cooperating.
  There have been some developments this morning that are encouraging, 
and I hope to be able, within the next few

[[Page S5031]]

minutes, to announce that we will have a few votes--one to four votes--
before lunch and that we will have more votes at 4 p.m., but I am not 
able to make that agreement yet. For the information of Senators, that 
is our hope. Then, tomorrow, if we continue on this path, we will have 
a large number of votes.
  I thank the Senators for their cooperation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I have just a point of clarification. I may 
have said amendment No. 215-something, it is amendment No. 2152.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise again in support of my sanctuary 
cities amendment and to urge us to come together around sensible 
legislation that will stop jurisdictions around the country from 
opposing and not following what is already Federal law.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, Federal law is very clear. It says 
deportation and immigration enforcement is a Federal responsibility, 
but local law enforcement authorities need to properly cooperate with 
Federal authorities regarding that. It doesn't mean they need to take 
it over or take on huge burdens or unfunded mandates. It does mean they 
need to properly cooperate with Federal authorities.
  Well, for several years, as the Presiding Officer knows, there have 
been hundreds, if not thousands, of so-called sanctuary cities in other 
jurisdictions around the country that have a formal policy that is 
completely at odds with that. These policies in various jurisdictions, 
such as the city of San Francisco, say straight out: We are not going 
to cooperate in any meaningful way with Federal immigration 
enforcement. I think that is flatout ridiculous, and tragically it 
leads to dangerous situations and horrible results. We saw one of those 
dangerous situations and horrible results just in the last few weeks 
with the murder of a completely innocent woman in San Francisco by an 
illegal alien who had been convicted of felonies seven times, deported 
five times, and released onto the streets of San Francisco, in part, 
because of San Francisco's sanctuary city policy.
  This absurdness--political correctness gone haywire--is to the 
detriment and danger of American citizens, and it has to end. That is 
why several years ago I brought legislation to the Senate, beginning in 
2009, to put teeth in what is already Federal law. My legislation will 
ensure that there are consequences when jurisdictions, such as San 
Francisco, don't properly cooperate with Federal authorities over 
immigration enforcement. Unfortunately, that has been blocked and 
blocked and blocked in the Senate.
  I brought the same proposal as an amendment to the education bill 
that is on the floor now to revisit this issue and to urge us to come 
together around sound, sensible policy that ends sanctuary cities 
flaunting Federal law and creating very dangerous situations. I urge my 
colleagues to come around to a commonsense solution to that.
  I have fully cooperated with Senator Alexander, who has been the 
floor leader on this important education bill. As part of that, I 
agreed not to demand a vote on that amendment on the floor this week if 
our Judiciary Committee, the appropriate committee of jurisdiction, 
takes up the issue in a timely way--we reached that agreement yesterday 
with Senator Grassley, the chair of the Judiciary Committee--and that a 
Vitter bill on this topic would be taken up appropriately at a markup 
of the Judiciary Committee this work period.
  Well, that is certainly progress, and so let's use this opportunity 
to make real progress and end sanctuary cities flaunting Federal law 
and not properly cooperating with immigration enforcement. Let's come 
together around a strong, meaningful bill that doesn't allow that, that 
puts consequences and teeth in present Federal law that says local law 
enforcement has to properly cooperate with Federal immigration 
enforcement.
  I very much look forward to doing that in the Judiciary Committee--
the committee of jurisdiction--thanks to the work of Senator Alexander 
and the agreement of Senator Grassley to take up this measure to work 
with me and have a markup this work period.
  I very much look forward to that being a very constructive path 
forward. If for any reason it is not, I will certainly be back. I will 
certainly be back directly on the floor in the context of the highway 
bill or some other significant piece of legislation because we can't 
allow this ridiculous political correctness to continue to create truly 
dangerous situations in communities all over the country.
  Federal law requires local law enforcement to properly cooperate with 
Federal immigration enforcement. The problem is there are no teeth in 
that law, and that law is ignored and flaunted all the time by many 
jurisdictions which advertise and brag about their so-called sanctuary 
city policy and they will not cooperate with Federal immigration 
enforcement in any way. Really? A seven-time convicted felon, five 
times deported from the country. And once he was back in, still 
released onto the streets of San Francisco to commit murder? Really? 
That is really going to be your policy? If it is, is it really going to 
be our response that we do absolutely nothing about it?

  I urge appropriate action. I urge us to come together around 
commonsense change and reform to end this all-too-pervasive practice. I 
look forward to starting that very constructive path forward in the 
Judiciary Committee with the markup of the Vitter bill, and I am 
already working with Senator Grassley and his staff in this work 
period.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wish to say to the Senator of 
Louisiana two things:
  First, I understand his passion on this issue. I have heard him speak 
about it. He talked to us last week about how best to express that on 
the Senate floor. There are a number of Senators who share his view on 
that. He is a member of the Judiciary Committee. We will have an 
opportunity to deal with it when the committee does work next week.
  Second, I would like to say to him through the Chair that I greatly 
appreciate the way he has handled this. He not only gave us advance 
notice of his interest in this amendment last week, he has worked in 
the Judiciary Committee to find a way to move ahead on his interest 
without interfering with the progress of our bill to fix No Child Left 
Behind. I am not surprised by that because he has made a major 
contribution to the bill to fix No Child Left Behind. Specifically, we 
have adopted his language or some of his language that would end the 
common core mandate and stop Washington, DC, from telling Louisiana, 
Arizona, Tennessee, and Washington State what their academic standards 
have to be. If a State wants to have an academic standard, it can have 
it; if it doesn't want it, it doesn't have to have that particular 
standard.
  The fact that the Senator has been willing to say that this is a very 
important issue and that he will work with Senator Grassley in the 
Judiciary Committee and pursue it there leaves us free to move ahead on 
fixing No Child Left Behind, which is important to his State as well as 
to all other States. I greatly appreciate the way he has handled that 
and thank him for doing that.
  We are still hoping to consider three or four amendments and perhaps 
have one rollcall vote before lunch, but we will know more about that 
in the next few minutes.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as we continue to debate this bipartisan 
bill to fix the badly broken No Child Left Behind law, I want to take a 
step back to lay out why this is so important.
  First of all, the idea of a strong public education for all children 
is part of who we are as a nation. It is sewn into the fabric of 
America.
  Providing quality education is also an economic imperative. When all 
of

[[Page S5032]]

our students have the chance to learn, we strengthen our future 
workforce, and that helps our country grow stronger. And we empower the 
next generation of Americans to lead the world. Education is like 
insurance for our Nation's future economic competitiveness in the years 
to come. It opens more opportunities for more students, and it helps 
our economy grow from the middle out, not the top down.
  One of the best ways I believe we can strengthen our education system 
is by making sure more students start kindergarten ready to learn. As 
we work to fix No Child Left Behind, we also have the opportunity to 
expand access to high-quality early childhood education and set 
students on a path toward success.
  I am very proud of the bipartisan early learning grants we secured in 
the base of this bill. I think we should continue to build on that 
bipartisan progress to make sure more students have access to high-
quality early learning programs. That is exactly what Senator Casey's 
amendment would do. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  First of all, it is important to understand why early learning is 
essential. Learning begins at birth. Research suggests that before 
children set foot in kindergarten, they have already developed a 
foundation that will determine all of the learning, health, and 
behavior that follows. Early learning programs can strengthen that 
foundation so more students can start their K-12 education on strong 
footing.
  Preschool programs can be especially important for students from low-
income backgrounds. A child growing up in poverty will hear 30 million 
fewer words by her third birthday compared to a child from a more 
affluent family. That is a serious disadvantage. By the time she starts 
kindergarten, the deck will already be stacked against her and her 
future success.
  Studies have confirmed both the short-term and long-term benefits of 
quality early learning. Children who attend preschool are less likely 
to repeat a grade. They are less likely to be placed in special 
education. They are less likely to drop out of school, depend on social 
safety net programs, or commit a crime. And they are more likely to go 
to college and earn higher wages. Research suggests we get back between 
$7 and $8 for every dollar we invest in high-quality preschool 
programs.
  Simply put, early learning is one of the smartest investments we can 
make for our families, our children, and our country. But today just 14 
percent of our 3-year-olds in America are enrolled in Federal- or 
State-funded preschool programs and 41 percent of 4-year-olds are 
enrolled.
  If we are serious about closing education gaps in grades K through 12 
and if we are truly committed to making sure all students have the 
chance to succeed, we have to invest in quality early education.
  I was pleased that during the committee debate on this bill, we were 
able to pass a bipartisan amendment for early childhood education. I 
thank my colleague Senator Isakson for working with me to include that 
in the committee markup. Throughout this process, I have appreciated 
the way he has worked with me on a bipartisan basis to improve the 
legislation before us.
  Our amendment, which is now part of the base bill we are considering, 
would create a grant program for States that want to improve early 
childhood education coordination, quality, and access. The program 
would target resources to low- and moderate-income families. States 
that want to serve children from birth to the time they enter 
kindergarten will be eligible. It will help support the work that 
States like my home State of Washington are already doing to make sure 
more of our youngest learners have access to preschool. These grants 
will help States improve the quality of their early childhood system 
and also expand access to high-quality early learning opportunities for 
more children.
  While I am very proud of what we have achieved in this base bill on 
our early childhood education, this is not the last step we need to 
take to improve and expand access to high-quality preschool. The grants 
are a step in the right direction, but we need to significantly 
increase investments to ensure that every child in this country starts 
kindergarten ready to succeed.
  My colleague, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, offered an 
amendment that would expand access to high-quality preschool programs. 
It would provide Federal funding to every State that commits to improve 
access to high-quality learning opportunities for all of our low- and 
moderate-income 4-year-olds. For the States that already meet that 
goal, it will help them offer preschool to 3-year-olds. This amendment 
would support States that don't yet have the infrastructure needed to 
provide preschool to all low- and moderate-income kids. With preschool 
development grants, these States will be able to build up their early 
learning systems. This amendment also provides funding for early Head 
Start and childcare partnerships to improve the quality of childcare 
for infants and toddlers through age 3 and provide funding for early 
learning services for young children with disabilities. Finally, his 
amendment recognizes the importance of the Maternal, Infant, and Early 
Childhood Home Visiting Program, which I helped to create to deliver 
voluntary parent education and family support services to parents with 
young children.
  I am glad to say this amendment will be fully paid for by closing a 
wasteful corporate tax loophole. Our Tax Code is riddled with a lot of 
wasteful loopholes and special interest carve-outs. Far too many of 
these tax breaks are skewed to benefit the wealthiest Americans and 
biggest corporations.
  Today some of my Republican colleagues objected to bringing up his 
amendment solely because it would close one of those corporate tax 
loopholes. It is disappointing that they are choosing the biggest 
corporations over our youngest learners.
  I urge our Senate to consider this amendment. I support it because I 
believe investing in our youngest learners is so important for our 
children and their families, and it is one of the smartest investments 
we can make so students can start kindergarten ready to learn and 
succeed later in life.
  I don't believe this is a partisan issue. When I talk to sheriffs in 
my State, they tell me the young people they bring into the police 
station might have chosen a better path in life had they had a stronger 
start in school. That is why law enforcement officials across the 
country want Congress to expand early learning.
  Military leaders have stressed the importance of early learning 
investments. In fact, at a Senate hearing last year, Air Force Brig. 
Gen. Douglas Pierce, Retired, said: ``How we prepare our youngest kids 
to learn and succeed has a profound impact on our military readiness.''
  Business leaders have called on Congress to support preschool 
programs. Why? Because they need the students of today to be able to 
create and take on the jobs of the 21st-century global economy.
  Lawmakers from red States and blue States alike see early learning as 
a wise investment. Alabama, Kansas, Michigan--States with Republican 
Governors and Republican-controlled legislatures--have recently made 
stronger investments in early learning.
  It is now time that the U.S. Senate catch up with what State 
lawmakers, business leaders, law enforcement officials, and military 
leaders recognize. We need to invest in early childhood education so 
all of our students can start school ready to learn.
  The importance of early childhood education is something I have 
witnessed firsthand. Before I ever thought about running for office, I 
taught preschool in a small community in my home State of Washington. I 
remember that the first day with new students would always start the 
same way: Some kids would not even know how to hold a pencil or turn a 
page in a book. But over the first few months, they catch up; they 
learn how. They learned how to listen at story time. They learned how 
to line up for recess. By the time they left for kindergarten, they had 
basic skills so they could tackle a full curriculum in school. I have 
seen the kind of transformation early learning can inspire in a child.
  If we are serious about strengthening our education system, we have 
to make sure more children have the chance to get a strong start in 
preschool. In reauthorizing this Education bill, we have the chance to 
help more students start kindergarten ready to learn.
  With the amendment Senator Casey offers, we have the opportunity to 
set

[[Page S5033]]

kids on the path toward success not just in grade school but into 
adulthood. We have the chance to fortify our economic competitiveness 
for years to come.
  I urge my colleagues to support his amendment, to support this bill 
that already contains bipartisan early learning grants, and then take a 
step further and support the Casey amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator that we are 
hoping to be able to lock in some amendments, but we are not quite 
ready yet. So what I might do is ask him to yield during his speech so 
that we can do that. I would say to the Senator through the Chair that 
we look forward to his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   American Workers and Overtime Pay

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues in voicing my 
support for President Obama's proposal to extend overtime benefits to 
nearly 5 million people across the country. These new rules will 
significantly enhance family budgets and add over $1.2 billion 
nationwide to workers' pockets. Once implemented, the proposal would 
more than double the salary threshold for overtime eligibility from the 
current level of $455 per week to $970 a week next year. That means 
employees earning an annual salary of around $50,000 or less will 
automatically become eligible for overtime pay. Today, the annual 
salary threshold for earning overtime pay is around $24,000. That is 
well below the poverty level for a family of four, particularly so for 
families in Hawaii.
  The overtime salary threshold is long overdue for an update. Since 
1975, it has been updated only once. Forty years ago, nearly two in 
three employees benefited from overtime pay--two in three. Today, it is 
one in nine.
  I appreciate the priority this administration and especially 
Secretary Perez have placed on work and family issues, policies that 
directly impact the lives of average Americans.
  According to the Department of Labor, approximately 20,000 workers in 
Hawaii would become eligible for overtime pay with this rule change.
  By increasing the overtime salary threshold, current employees would 
be able to earn more money and employers could hire more workers, 
creating more jobs for our economy.
  Housing, transportation, and food costs in Hawaii have made Hawaii 
one of the most expensive places to live in the country. The high cost 
of living requires a large percentage of people in Hawaii to work more 
than one job. The new overtime rules could allow workers to make a 
liveable wage with one job. If a worker is able to live without a need 
for a second or third job, it creates more employment opportunities for 
individuals struggling with unemployment or underemployment to find 
work.
  The potential change in overtime rules can offer more than financial 
benefit to Americans. If a business does not want to pay overtime, the 
employees' hours would be limited to 40 hours a week. Since they are 
salaried and not paid by the hour, they would have more time off with 
no loss of pay. This would allow individuals to better balance their 
work and family obligations and give them the opportunity to spend more 
time with their family, a chance to volunteer in their community, or 
perhaps further their education.
  The new rules will be subject to a 60-day public comment period. I 
encourage my constituents from Hawaii to let their voice be heard.
  This change in overtime rules is appropriate and will help to lift 
our national and state economy, offer families more choices, and foster 
greater fairness in the workplace.
  I yield the floor.
  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.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. For the information of Senators, I am about to ask for 
unanimous consent--which I expect to receive--to have two rollcall 
votes and two voice votes before lunch. So I now will do that.
  I ask unanimous consent that at 12:10 p.m. the Senate vote in 
relation to the following amendments: Scott No. 2132, Booker No. 2169, 
Portman No. 2137, Bennet No. 2159; further, that at 4 p.m. today the 
Senate vote in relation to the following amendments: Isakson No. 2194, 
Bennet No. 2210, Lee No. 2162, and Franken No. 2093; with no second-
degree amendments in order to any of the amendments prior to the votes; 
that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote, with 4 
minutes prior to the vote on the Franken amendment, and that all after 
the first vote be 10-minute votes; that the Scott and Franken 
amendments be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold for adoption 
and that it be in order to call up any amendments in the list not 
currently pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


       Amendments Nos. 2169, 2159, and 2210 to Amendment No. 2089

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask to set aside the pending amendment 
and call up the following amendments en bloc: on behalf of Senator 
Booker, amendment No. 2169; Bennet amendment No. 2159; and Bennet 
amendment No. 2210.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments by 
number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Bennet] proposes amendments 
     numbered 2169, 2159, and 2210 to amendment No. 2089.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 2169

 (Purpose: To require a State's report card to include information on 
 the graduation rates of homeless children and children in foster care)

       On page 76, line 13, insert ``and for purposes of subclause 
     (II), homeless status and status as a child in foster care,'' 
     after ``(b)(3)(A),''.


                           Amendment No. 2159

 (Purpose: To amend title IV regarding family engagement in education 
                               programs)

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of July 8, 2015, under ``Text 
of Amendments.'')


                           amendment no. 2210

   (Purpose: To require States to establish a limit on the aggregate 
                  amount of time spent on assessments)

       On page 52, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       ``(L) Limitation on assessment time.--
       ``(i) In general.--As a condition of receiving an 
     allocation under this part for any fiscal year, each State 
     shall--

       ``(I) set a limit on the aggregate amount of time devoted 
     to the administration of assessments (including assessments 
     adopted pursuant to this subsection, other assessments 
     required by the State, and assessments required districtwide 
     by the local educational agency) for each grade, expressed as 
     a percentage of annual instructional hours; and
       ``(II) ensure that each local educational agency in the 
     State will notify the parents of each student attending any 
     school in the local educational agency, on an annual basis, 
     whenever the limitation described in subclause (I) is 
     exceeded.

       ``(ii) Children with disabilities and english learners.--
     Nothing in clause (i) shall be construed to supersede the 
     requirements of Federal law relating to assessments that 
     apply specifically to children with disabilities or English 
     learners.


                Amendment No. 2137 to Amendment No. 2089

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2137.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Alexander], for Mr. 
     Portman, proposes an amendment numbered 2137 to amendment No. 
     2089.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To provide for early college high school and dual or 
                  concurrent enrollment opportunities)

       On page 69, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

       ``(N) how the State educational agency will demonstrate a 
     coordinated plan to

[[Page S5034]]

     seamlessly transition students from secondary school into 
     postsecondary education or careers without remediation, 
     including a description of the specific transition activities 
     that the State educational agency will carry out, such as 
     providing students with access to early college high school 
     or dual or concurrent enrollment opportunities;

       On page 106, line 3, insert ``early college high school 
     or'' after ``access to''.
       On page 314, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       ``(C) providing teachers, principals, and other school 
     leaders with professional development activities that enhance 
     or enable the provision of postsecondary coursework through 
     dual or concurrent enrollment and early college high school 
     settings across a local educational agency.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. 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.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2132

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I yield back time on the first 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the Scott amendment No. 2132.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) 
and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Flake
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--51

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Carper
     Graham
     Nelson
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.


                           Amendment No. 2169

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate prior to a 
vote on the Booker amendment No. 2169.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of my amendment, 
which I am offering with Senator Inhofe, Senator Grassley, Senator 
Ayotte, and Senator Wyden.
  The homeless population is at an alltime high in our country, with 1 
in 45 children--or 1.6 million--homeless in the United States every 
year. Homeless students experience a significant educational 
disruption, and only about 11.4 percent are proficient in math and 14.6 
percent proficient in reading compared to their peers. Homeless 
students are almost twice as likely as other students to have to repeat 
a grade, be expelled, get suspended, or drop out of high school.
  There are more than half a million foster children in the United 
States, and foster children also have challenges and are not likely to 
be on grade level, more likely to change schools during the academic 
year, and more likely to drop out of high school.
  Sixty-seven percent of inmates in our State prisons are high school 
dropouts, and this disproportionate share comes from these backgrounds.
  The amendment is simple. It adds a simple reporting of the graduation 
rates for homeless and foster youth to the State and school district 
report cards so we can begin to focus in on this important population 
we should not leave behind. It provides----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an 
additional 18 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
  Mr. BOOKER. This amendment provides essential information to 
educators, policymakers, and the public toward improving the 
educational outcomes for these students.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New Jersey 
for his passion for education but suggest that I am going to vote no 
because this amendment is premature. It is another burden on States. It 
adds reporting requirements instead of reducing reporting requirements. 
It adds 2 new subgroups for every school in the country, and there are 
100,000 of those. These populations are difficult to track due to the 
transient nature of the populations. For foster youth, school districts 
are poorly equipped to do it. Child welfare agencies would probably do 
better.
  Now what we should be doing is recognizing that we do not need a 
national school board. This is a good argument, but it should be made 
to the local school board or to the State school board. We do not need 
another Federal mandate on 100,000 local schools. That is exactly the 
wrong direction for us to go.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) 
and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 233 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Inhofe
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

[[Page S5035]]



                             NOT VOTING--4

     Carper
     Graham
     Nelson
     Rubio
  The amendment (No. 2169) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2137

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate prior to a 
vote on the Portman amendment No. 2137.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, amendment No. 2137 is about early college 
high school. This is a program that is working incredibly well around 
the country, both to get young people through high school and to 
increase graduation rates, which is part of the objective of this 
legislation, and also to get them not just into college but to stay in 
college. All of the experience from this program indicates it is 
working.
  I had a recent opportunity to visit the Dayton Early College High 
School, the academy, and 100 percent of their graduates are from a low-
income area. Almost every single one of the students were either the 
first generation to go to college or into the military. Their retention 
rate in college is incredibly impressive. This amendment encourages 
more of that.
  Early college high schools are working. It is part of the reform 
effort that is being undertaken in my State and others, and I strongly 
encourage a ``yes'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I am honored to join with the Senator from 
Ohio in cosponsoring this amendment. I, too, have recently visited an 
early college high school in my home State, which Delaware State 
College, our historically Black college, has established. It has shown 
real promise in terms of the possibilities for college access, college 
affordability, and college completion.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote from my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 2137.
  The amendment (No. 2137) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2159

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate prior to a 
vote on Bennet amendment No. 2159.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield back our time.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to amendment 
No. 2159.
  The amendment (No. 2159) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, that concludes the votes for now. We 
are moving along very well. We expect to have votes at 4 p.m. today on 
amendments by Senators Isakson, Bennet, Lee, and Franken. We may have 
other votes.
  Senator Murray and I have a number of amendments that Senators have 
suggested to us. We would like to move through them today and tomorrow.

                          ____________________