[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 14, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5035-S5057]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              EVERY CHILD ACHIEVES ACT OF 2015--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am here today to stand up for Maryland 
and for all the students who could lose resources under an amendment 
offered by the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Burr.
  There is much I admire about Senator Burr, but his current amendment 
would cause Maryland tremendous problems. The Burr amendment would 
punish States that make significant investments in those students who 
need extra help. This amendment would not do one thing to lift kids out 
of poverty or to close the achievement gap. In fact, it makes it worse.
  The so-called hold-harmless provision that is in the amendment does 
not hold Maryland harmless. It does not prevent any of the Maryland 
school districts from losing money. Under the Burr amendment, Maryland 
would lose $40 million. Let me repeat. Under the Burr amendment, 
Maryland would lose $40 million.
  Marylanders know that I have always been on the side of students, 
teachers, those who run programs, and the taxpayers who pay for them. 
We in America believe in public education, where one generation is 
willing to pay taxes to fund the education of the next generation.
  Title I in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was created to 
lift children up and to close the education gap.
  Let me tell you what the Burr amendment would do. Right now, every 
county and Baltimore City would lose money. There are 24 school 
districts in Maryland, with 400,000 public school students. Mr. 
President, 170,000 students--or 45 percent of that population--are 
eligible for something called title I funding. If the Burr amendment 
passes, every single one of those boys and girls would lose academic 
resources they currently get. Let me give you the numbers: Baltimore 
City, 12 percent; Baltimore County, 23 percent; Garrett County in 
western Maryland, 20 percent; Somerset County on the Eastern Shore, 15 
percent.
  From my students in urban schools in the Baltimore/Washington 
corridor to my rural schools in western Maryland and the Eastern Shore, 
every single one loses resources, and if you lose resources, you lose 
opportunity. If we believe in an opportunity ladder, then do not cut 
off the rungs. It is not the schools that lose, it is the kids who 
lose. They lose resources and they lose opportunities.
  I have heard from school superintendents across Maryland. They tell 
me the same thing over and over: Do not cut the money for title I.
  Dr. Henry Wagner, the superintendent in Dorchester County over on the 
Eastern Shore, says that the rural schools on the Eastern Shore would 
be impacted and that he would have to eliminate teaching positions, 
reduce reading and math services. And the very services to bring in 
parents would go by the wayside.
  Over in Washington County, the gateway to the Eastern Shore, Dr. 
Clayton Wilcox, the superintendent of Washington County schools, 
describes how a rural school would be harmed. In his letter in which he 
describes title I, he said: Senator Mikulski, title I resources ``have 
allowed us to create hope.'' He said: ``They have enabled us to provide 
extra instructional support in literacy and math--subjects that open up 
windows and doors often shut to [these boys and girls].'' Without title 
I dollars, Washington County would have to cut this instructional 
support in literacy and math. He writes: ``Senator Burr's amendment is 
bad for the children and young people of Maryland.'' It is bad for all 
of the children in Maryland.
  Baltimore City, where we certainly have had our share of problems 
lately, would be deeply cut. Right now, Baltimore City receives $50 
million. It will lose 10 percent of that funding. Mr. President, $5 
million in Baltimore right now sure means a lot. If we cut that money, 
we are going to shrink pre-K access. The afterschool and summer 
learning programs will go by the wayside. If they go by the wayside, 
you will not only have kids with time on their hands, but they will 
fall behind in reading, in the very things they had gained over the 
school year. And the professional development for teachers, especially 
those new teachers we were bringing in, will be eliminated.
  I am so proud that Maryland allocates more of its title I dollars to 
schools that need it the most. For example, 85 percent of students in 
Baltimore--those kids live in poverty. It has the lowest wealth per 
pupil in Maryland. So the State allocates more of its resources in this 
area.
  Maryland actually gets penalized under the Burr amendment for putting 
money where it will do the most good, and, in fact, Maryland gets 
penalized for making education a priority. Well, I thought we believed 
in State determination. If a State determines it is going to make a 
significant investment

[[Page S5036]]

in public education and make the funding of the closing of the 
achievement gap a priority, why punish it for States that cut taxes, 
cut opportunity? And now we want to change the formula to reward their 
behavior when we should be rewarding the good behavior of States like 
my own.
  This amendment is bad for Maryland, it is bad for other States, and 
most of all it is bad for children. Mr. President, 58 percent of the 
students who benefit from title I funding will get fewer resources, 
less opportunity.
  Title I certainly does need to be reformed and refreshed. Senators 
Murray and Alexander should be congratulated in the way they led the 
committee through a civil, cogent process. But we cannot make changes 
based on the needs of a handful of States that essentially have 
penalized their own children.
  The last time the Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act was in 2001. During that reauthorization, Congress 
clearly stated that it shall be a national priority that title I should 
be a priority. In that bill, Congress committed to steadily increase 
funding for title I. But Congress never fully funded the program. It 
never provided the adequate funds.
  In the major effort that was done just 2 weeks ago within the 
appropriations bill of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, 
Senator Murray offered an amendment to increase title I by $1 billion. 
Every single Republican on the committee voted against it.
  We cannot keep doing this. We need to fully fund title I. This is not 
about statistics. This is not about numbers. This is about human 
beings. The genius of America is that we believe--we believe--in the 
education of our people, that we truly believe that the way we lift all 
boats in our country is to have a public education system that works 
well and is funded adequately.
  We have had a formula that has worked for title I because it rewards 
those States that are willing to make public education and the next 
generation a priority. Let's keep the formula we have. Let's reform 
where we need to. And let's make sure that our focus is not on bottom 
lines but that more children get to the head of the class.
  Mr. President, 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. DONNELLY. 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. DONNELLY. Mr. President, early childhood learning is critical to 
building a strong foundation for each child's welfare and success. It 
is linked to better outcomes in school, such as high school and college 
completion rates, higher wages, and better social and emotional skills.
  Research shows that for every dollar spent, the benefits of early 
childhood education to society are $8.60. Around half of that reflects 
increased earnings for children when they grow up. Early childhood 
education can also lower involvement with the criminal justice system 
and reduce the need for remedial education.
  Clearly, early childhood education such as pre-K is crucial to 
preparing each generation for the academic and professional challenges 
ahead. There is no doubt that families play a critical role in 
achieving academic success. When families are involved in children's 
learning at a young age, it better prepares them to succeed in school. 
Research shows that when parents and families are involved in their 
children's education, children are more likely to succeed. For example, 
children whose parents read to them at home recognize letters and write 
their names sooner than those whose parents do not.
  It is because of the importance of early childhood education and 
parent and family involvement in that early education that I worked on 
language that is now included in the Every Child Achieves Act.
  I thank my colleagues, Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray, 
for working with me to include language allowing funding for programs 
that promote parent and family engagement in the new early learning and 
improvement grants as a part of the Every Child Achieves Act. This 
effort was also supported by the National PTA, the National Center for 
Families Learning, the National Education Association, and the American 
Federation of Teachers. The competitive early learning alignment and 
improvement grants would provide funding to States that propose 
improvements to coordination, quality, and access for early childhood 
education. The language I worked on would allow States to use funding 
from the early learning alignment and improvement grant to develop, 
implement or coordinate programs determined by the State to increase 
parent and family involvement; encourage ongoing communication between 
children, parents, and families, and early childhood educators; and 
promote active participation of parents, families, and communities.
  I thank my colleagues again for working with me to get this included 
in a substitute amendment because parent and family engagement in those 
early years is critical to each student's success as well as to our 
country's future.
  I am committed to working with partners in Indiana to ensure that 
Hoosier children can take advantage of these important programs, and I 
stand ready to continue working with my friends on both sides of the 
aisle to further invest in early childhood education so we can provide 
brighter futures for more Hoosiers and additional American children.
  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. BENNET. 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. BENNET. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I am obviously a Senator from Colorado, but as I rise, I am speaking 
more as the father of three daughters in the Denver Public Schools and 
a former superintendent of schools.
  It was a great privilege of mine, probably the privilege of a 
lifetime, to have been the superintendent of Denver Public Schools for 
almost 5 years. I can't begin to express, as I am standing on this 
floor, my gratitude for what I have learned from teachers, principals, 
and parents who were sending their kids to what was then a school 
district that had seen declining enrollment for many years. It is now 
the fastest growing urban school district in America. Of course, the 
students themselves day after day inspired all the adults around them 
to want to help deliver a high-quality education.
  But I also was struck when I was superintendent with the barriers 
that we have accepted as a country and as a society that we would never 
accept for our own children. We would never accept them for our own 
children. The first barrier I talked about on the floor before is the 
fact that if you are born poor in this country, you show up to 
kindergarten having heard 30 million fewer words than your more 
affluent peers. This is an enormous barrier we haven't addressed as a 
country, and there are many other challenges up to and including the 
fact that we have made it harder and harder as years go by for people 
to afford a college education without bankrupting themselves or 
shackling themselves to a mountain of debt.
  In the face of all that, we have been very slow to change. We have 
been very slow at every level to change the way we deliver K-12 
education or early childhood education through higher education. Let me 
just give you one example that this bill addresses today, in part. We 
have done almost nothing in this country to change the way we attract 
teachers, recruit teachers, inspire teachers, train teachers, reward 
teachers, since we had a labor market that discriminated against women 
and said the only job you can have is being a teacher or being a nurse. 
Those are your two jobs. So why don't you come to the Denver Public 
Schools and teach Julius Caesar every year for 30 years of your life 
for a really low compensation. But if you stick with us for 30 years--
which you would not do anymore--we will give you a pension worth three 
times that of Social Security. That sounded like a good deal because 
you

[[Page S5037]]

were likely to outlive your spouse, you weren't paid a lot during your 
lifetime, and you get the pension at the end. We have done nothing to 
change that. That is our offer.
  I can tell you again--not speaking as a politician but speaking as a 
school superintendent, speaking as somebody who has never done anything 
but substitute teach. I have never actually taught as a traditional 
teacher. I substitute taught from time to time. That is the hardest job 
a person can have, especially when you are teaching in a high poverty 
school. It is much harder, I can say without any doubt, than any job 
any Member of the U.S. Senate has. Yet we have an offer that belongs to 
an era that no longer exists.
  In all honesty, we used to subsidize the public education system in 
this country through that discrimination in our labor, our approach to 
labor, because even though the deal wasn't a good deal, we might have 
been able to get the very best British literature student in her class 
to commit to be a teacher of British literature because she had no 
other options except for perhaps becoming a nurse. Fortunately, that 
hasn't been true in this country for 30 or 40 years, but we haven't 
updated the offer, and we haven't changed the way we train our teachers 
once they get there.
  That is why this bill is important in some parts because it makes 
some important steps in the right direction. We are not going to teach 
children from Washington. Our kids who today are in systems all across 
this country in their schools and classrooms are never going to 
remember who here worked on the new version of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. That is not going to be of concern to them, 
but hopefully what they will remember is a third grade teacher who made 
a huge difference for them, a fourth grade teacher who made a huge 
difference for them, a college adviser who took a special interest and 
made sure somebody who didn't know that college was for them was for 
them.
  Our job, it seems to me, is to do what little we can to try to help 
put people at home in a position to do that job. That is why it is 
critical in this bill that we raise the quality of professional 
development by encouraging ongoing training and education that actually 
tracks the specific strengths and areas of growth for each individual 
teacher, instead of group workshops that we know are ineffective. For 
instance, teachers who need help in classroom management will receive 
training in that specific area, if a school district or a school would 
want to do that.

  We promote collaboration and the use of common planning time, so that 
teachers can work together in groups as teams, each of whom may have a 
different view of each kid but together can figure out how to get each 
child in the school to their potential. One of the things I heard all 
of the time from the teachers that I worked with in Denver was that 
they felt that they faced a binary choice when it came to their 
profession. Yet they loved to teach. They loved being with the kids. 
But the only other option besides teaching was becoming a principal or 
going to work in the central office. We worked very hard in that school 
district and across the State to think differently about career ladders 
for teachers, to give more opportunity and options for people to give 
back, and to be able to help perfect their own craft as teachers by 
learning from their peers and also serving as master teachers.
  This bill, for the first time, allows funding to be used for hybrid 
roles that allow teachers to serve as mentors or academic coaches while 
remaining in the classroom. It creates options, as I said. It 
encourages teacher-led and colleague-to-colleague professional 
development among teachers. I may have learned it the hard way, but I 
know that nobody knows how best to improve instruction more than our 
teachers do.
  But the struggle is how to figure out how to break out of the old 
roles to give people the opportunity to be able to have the chance to 
mentor their colleagues and also, significantly, have the time in the 
school day and in the school year, when the stress of other business 
makes it hard to do, to create the time for people to be able to work 
together for our kids.
  In this bill we recognize the work that is happening in cities such 
as Chicago, Denver, and Boston, around teacher residency programs, an 
alternative approach to bringing teachers into the profession, not 
relying anymore solely on higher education, understanding that maybe 
what we need is content matter experts who can learn how to teach by 
being latched to master teachers in a school district such as the 
Denver public schools, who bring their content, their substance from 
their undergraduate degree but can acquire a masters as they are 
learning on the job in the classroom, as in a medical residency 
program. We allow funding to be used for that. These programs can 
provide critical clinical experience to teacher candidates.
  There is funding to train and place effective principals to lead 
high-need and low-performing schools. You cannot have a good school 
without a good principal. Ask anyone. You cannot have a good working 
environment for a teacher without a good principal. It is impossible. 
We skipped over that in our efforts of implementation across the 
country. When I had the good fortune to be the superintendent of Denver 
Public Schools, my chief academic officer was a guy named Jaime Aquino, 
a gifted school leader.
  He and I would start every single day for 2 hours with a group of 15 
principals in one of their schools. It was not about broken boilers, 
and it was not about who got left on the bus. It was about teaching and 
learning in Denver Public Schools.
  We would do the same thing for 3 weeks, and then we would start over 
again, which meant that I got to see every principal in my school 
district once every 3 weeks, and they got to see each other. They came 
to understand that they had a reciprocal obligation to each other as we 
thought about the obligation we had to the kids in Denver. I will give 
you an example of one of the sessions. Jaime would bring a 1\1/2\-page 
piece of student writings to these meetings, because it is really 
important for teachers to look and analyze student work to be able to 
differentiate their instruction to meet the individual needs of kids in 
the classroom.
  It is easy to say that. It is easy to have the fly-by professional 
development where a bunch of people are sleeping in auditorium 
listening to really boring stuff. It is another thing to actually get 
people to want to do the work. At the beginning it was hard. We would 
pass out that piece of student writing and you would hear sort of a 
crescendo as people were talking about it, and they would say: I cannot 
read this. I don't know what this says. This looks like a foreign 
language to me.
  Then Jaime would say: Based on what you have read, what are Nancy's 
strengths as a writer?
  She turned out to be a very typical fourth grader in our school 
district.
  They would say: Well, she writes from left to right. She has a sense 
of story structure. She spells high-frequency words correctly.
  Jaime would say: Well, why is that? He would say: Well, maybe she had 
a vocabulary test. He would say: Maybe she had a word wall, and she is 
using it to scaffold her instruction.
  Over time, the principals saw what their role was as leaders and how 
reliant we were on them.
  I can tell you firsthand that school leaders have a powerful affect 
dramatically improving the quality of teaching and raising student 
achievement, and we have skipped over them. This bill no longer skips 
over them.
  We also update and improve the teacher incentive fund in this bill. 
We encourage districts to redesign their systems for recruiting, 
hiring, and placing teachers.
  We incentivize districts to think about paying different teachers 
differently. In Denver, we don't have a monopoly on wisdom, but if you 
are working in a high-poverty school, you get paid more for that. It is 
harder to find you. It is a harder job. We recognize that. If you are 
teaching a subject for which it is hard to find people to teach, we pay 
a little more for that.
  If you are driving student achievement or your colleagues are, we pay 
you a little more for that. Through this incentive fund, we promote 
school autonomy over budgeting, staffing, and other school-level 
decisions. We incentivize folks to change hiring schedules so high-need 
schools can hire

[[Page S5038]]

earlier in the year and select from the best and brightest teachers, 
instead of the reverse.
  So we have done some good things here on teachers. It is one of the 
reasons why I am supporting this legislation. I want to thank Chairman 
Alexander and Ranking Member Murray, who are both on the floor today, 
for their exceptional leadership in bringing this bill out of 
committee. The people who are watching this on television know that 
this body cannot seem to agree on anything these days. Because of their 
work, we were able to produce a bill that got unanimous support in the 
HELP Committee. Every single member of the committee supported it. 
Imagine that. Imagine that in this body.
  You know what. There are no ringers on that committee either. That 
committee has the junior Senator from Kentucky on it, Mr. Paul; it has 
the junior Senator from Vermont on it, Mr. Sanders, and everybody in 
between. That is a rare case of unanimity among a very diverse set of 
Senators, which I think argues well for getting this bill through in 
the Senate and hopefully in the House.
  I see my colleague is here. If I can just take 2 more minutes I want 
to mention a word or two about the title I formula. I have joined my 
friend from North Carolina in supporting an amendment to change the 
title I funding formula. The formula I think that we are trying to 
propose today is sensible and eliminates the overly complex and opaque 
formulas that we currently have. It creates one formula that is 
targeted and provides more funding for districts with higher 
concentrations of poverty.
  I am extremely sensitive to the arguments that others have made, such 
as my friend from New York. I also agree that we need to invest 
significantly more in our kids. This formula change is good for my home 
State of Colorado. I think if you are a poor kid in Alamosa or Woodrow, 
CO, you deserve every chance to get a great education, including 
receiving an equitable share of Federal resources.
  With that, I see my colleague from Utah is here. So I will relent and 
yield the floor and come back at a later time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                Amendment No 2162 to Amendment No. 2089

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask to call up and make pending the Lee 
amendment No. 2162.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2162 to amendment No. 2089.

  Mr. LEE. 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 amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     relating to parental notification and opt-out of assessments)

       On page 52, strike line 3 and all that follows through line 
     9 and insert the following:
       ``(K) Parental notification and opt-out.--
       ``(i) Notification.--Each State receiving funds under this 
     part shall ensure that the parents of each child in the State 
     who are scheduled to take an assessment described in this 
     paragraph during the academic year are notified, at the 
     beginning of that academic year, about any such assessment 
     that their child is scheduled to take and the following 
     information about each such assessment:

       ``(I) The dates when the assessment will take place.
       ``(II) The subject of the assessment.
       ``(III) Any additional information that the State believes 
     will best inform parents regarding the assessment their child 
     is scheduled to take.

       ``(ii) Delayed or changed assessment information.--If any 
     of the information described in clause (i) is not available 
     at the beginning of the academic school year, or if the 
     initial information provided at that time is changed, the 
     State shall ensure that a subsequent notification is provided 
     to parents not less than 14 days prior to the scheduled 
     assessment, which shall include any new or changed 
     information.
       ``(iii) Opt-out.--

       ``(I) In general.--Notwithstanding the requirement 
     described in section 1111(b)(3)(B)(vi), or any other 
     provision of law, upon the request of the parent of a child 
     made in accordance with subclause (II), and for any reason or 
     no reason at all stated by the parent, a State shall allow 
     the child to opt out of the assessments described in this 
     paragraph. Such an opt-out, or any action related to that 
     opt-out, may not be used by the Secretary, the State, any 
     State or local agency, or any school leader or employee as 
     the basis for any corrective action, penalty, or other 
     consequence against the parent, the child, any school leader 
     or employee, or the school.
       ``(II) Form of parental opt-out request.--Unless a State 
     has implemented an alternative process for parents to opt out 
     of assessments as described in this subparagraph, a parent 
     shall request to have their child opt out of an assessment by 
     submitting such request to their child's school in writing.

       ``(iv) Applicability.--The requirements relating to 
     notification and opt-out in this subparagraph shall only 
     apply to federally mandated assessments. A State may 
     implement separate requirements for notification and opt-out 
     relating to State and locally mandated assessments.''.
       On page 58, on line 21, after ``paragraph (2)'' insert 
     ``(except that such 95 percent requirements shall exclude any 
     student who, pursuant to paragraph (2)(K), opts out of an 
     assessment)''.

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Paul be 
added as a cosponsor to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, parents and teachers all across America are 
frustrated by Washington, DC's heavyhanded, overly prescriptive 
approach to public education policy. I have heard from countless moms 
and dads in Utah who feel as though anonymous Federal Government 
officials, living and working 2,000 miles away, have a greater say in 
the education of their children than they do.
  One of the most frustrating issues for parents is the amount of 
standardized tests that their children are required to take, 
particularly the tests that are designed and mandated by the Federal 
Government. It is not just the frequency of those tests that is 
frustrating. Too often parents do not know when these federally 
required assessments are going to take place, and they do not even find 
out until after the fact. It is important to recognize that this is not 
a partisan issue. The notion that parents should not be expected to 
forfeit all of their rights to the government, just because they enroll 
their children in the public school system, is not a Democratic idea 
nor is it a Republican idea. It is simply an American idea.
  That is why several States, including States as distinct as 
California and Utah, have passed laws that allow parents to opt out of 
federally required tests. But there is a problem. Under current law, 
States with opt-out laws risk potentially losing Federal education 
dollars if a certain portion of parents decides opting out is best for 
their children, because schools are required to assess 95 percent of 
their students in order to--and as a condition to--receive Federal 
funds.
  The bill before the Senate today, the Every Student Achieves Act, 
does not fix this problem. My amendment does. Here is how. My amendment 
would protect a State's Federal funding for elementary and secondary 
schools by removing the number of students who opt out of Federal tests 
from the number of non-assessed students. In other words, the number of 
students opting out of federally required tests could not threaten a 
State's eligibility to receive Federal funds.
  My amendment would also give parents more information about tests 
mandated by the Federal Government, ensuring that parents are notified 
of any federally required assessment that children are scheduled to 
take. It would allow parents to opt out their children from such 
assessments. It is important to note that this amendment would have no 
effect on assessments that are required by the State, local education 
agency, school or teachers. Nor does it prohibit a State from expanding 
their parental opt-out laws to apply to a broader set of assessments if 
they choose to do so.
  This amendment would not jeopardize a State law that provides parents 
the opportunity to opt out their children and it would allow the State 
to continue to use its own process that allows parents to take such 
action.
  Whether you believe the bill before the Senate today strikes the 
appropriate balance between Federal and State control, I think all of 
my colleagues can support this amendment. I believe all of us can agree 
that parents

[[Page S5039]]

should have the final say in their child's education and should have 
access to information about the testing that is taking place before 
that testing takes place, and they should be able to decide whether 
their child will be part of that testing.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his 
comments. We will be voting on the Senator's amendment this afternoon 
at 4 o'clock, and I want to just make a couple of comments about it.
  I have a little different view of what his proposal is. He talks 
about our being opposed to Washington's heavyhanded approach. The way I 
understand his proposal, it is even more of a heavyhanded approach than 
the bill we are voting on today, and this is why.
  His proposal is that Washington tells Utah or Oklahoma or Tennessee 
or Washington State what to do about whether parents may opt out of 
these federally required tests. Now, they are not federally designed. 
Utah has its test. Tennessee has its test. They are designed by the 
States, but they are required. And there would be--since 2001, and this 
continues that--for example, two tests for a third grader. The 
testimony would be that it might take 2 hours for each test, so that 
would be 2 hours for a math test, 2 hours for a science test; then 
again in the fourth grade, 2 hours for a math test, 2 hours for a 
science test.
  I don't think anyone believes those are a great burden on students, 
it is all the other tests that seem to be required as schools prepared 
for the tests I just described. What we have done in this legislation 
is restore to States the power to decide how much these standardized 
tests count.
  So the legislation Senator Murray and I have proposed--and that came 
out of our committee unanimously--for the first time authorizes States 
to decide whether parents may opt out, may allow their children to opt 
out of these tests or not. Let me say that again. The legislation that 
Senators will be voting on, hopefully tomorrow for final passage, 
allows States to decide for themselves whether parents may vote to opt 
out of the No Child Left Behind tests.
  The proposal from the Senator from Utah is a Washington mandate that 
says to States that Washington will decide that.
  So our proposal is local control. His, the way I hear it, is 
Washington knows best. That is like Common Core.
  The proposal that is on the floor for a vote tomorrow says Washington 
may not mandate to any of our States what its academic standards should 
be. That ends the Washington Common Core mandate. In the same bill, why 
should we put a Washington mandate about whether you can opt out of 
your test? Why don't we allow States to make that decision?
  So I say to my Republican friends, especially, do we believe in local 
control only when we agree with the local policy? I don't think so.
  The great economist Art Laffer likes to say: States have a right to 
be right, and States have a right to be wrong.
  I have a different view. I am going to vote no on the amendment of 
the Senator from Utah because it takes away from States the right to 
decide whether and how to use the Federal tests and whether parents may 
opt out.
  Why is that a problem? Well, in the following States, States use 
these tests as part of their State accountability system. They don't 
have to do it, but they do use it. I am told by the State of Tennessee 
that if we were to adopt the Utah proposal Federal mandate, that the 
State would have to come up with a different accountability system.
  So which States on their own have decided to use these tests as part 
of their State accountability system? Florida has, Georgia, Idaho, 
Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, 
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote for the Alexander-Murray proposal 
because it reverses the trend toward a national school board and 
specifically allows States to decide whether States may opt out of 
tests while the amendment goes the other way. It is a Washington 
mandate that takes away from States the ability to make that decision.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                Amendment No. 2194 to Amendment No. 2089

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask to set aside the pending amendment 
and call up my Isakson amendment No. 2194.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Isakson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2194 to amendment No. 2089.

  Mr. ISAKSON. 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 require local educational agencies to inform parents of 
 any State or local educational agency policy, procedure, or parental 
 right regarding student participation in any mandated assessments for 
                           that school year)

       On page 110, strike lines 7 through 17 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) Information for parents .--
       ``(A) In general.--At the beginning of each school year, a 
     local educational agency that receives funds under this part 
     shall notify the parents of each student attending any school 
     receiving funds under this part that the parents may request, 
     and the agency will provide the parents on request (and in a 
     timely manner), information regarding any State or local 
     educational agency policy, procedure, or parental right 
     regarding student participation in any mandated assessments 
     for that school year, in addition to information regarding 
     the professional qualifications of the student's classroom 
     teachers, including at a minimum, the following:

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I begin my remarks by commending Ranking 
Member Murray and Chairman Alexander on a tremendous due diligence 
effort to see to it that we finally answered the question that States 
have been asking for 7 years; that is, when are you going to 
reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act? When are you 
going to end the day when 82 percent of all educational public school 
systems have to get waivers from Washington to teach children the way 
they want to teach them? When are you going to see to it that money can 
flow to the States and flow to the student from those States, not 
everything flow from Washington to the student. It is about time we 
fixed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  In my lifetime, I have been in elected office for 38 years. I have 
been in every legislative body I can legally be elected to, and I have 
served on the Education Committee in the Georgia House, the Georgia 
Senate, the U.S. House, and the U.S. Senate. I don't know a lot about a 
lot of things, but I know a little bit about public education. In fact, 
in 1996, Zell Miller, whose seat I now hold in the Senate, called on me 
to take over the Georgia State Board of Education when Georgia had a 
major crisis. So I learned under fire.
  I learned the following: Children rise to expectations, and in an 
absence of expectations, children sink. That is why gangs attract kids 
from broken families, because they seek some kind of recognition, and 
the gang gives it to them.
  We need to make sure education gives them that recognition, that 
expectation, and that goal to reach higher and higher standards, but 
that happens closest to home, not in Washington, DC. It happens where 
the parents and the children are. The more opportunities parents have 
to engage with their children--the children see the expectations of 
their local students and their local citizens--the better off they will 
be, which is why in the committee I offered the amendment which is 
included in the body of the Alexander-Murray bill, which allows parents 
in States that approve it to opt out of any testing they want to opt 
out of--a parent's right to see to it they can opt out of a required 
test if the State allows them to do so.
  Amendment No. 2194, which is before us now, makes sure that provision 
is in the section of the bill that calls for the parents' right to 
know. So every parent has the right to know whether the State allows an 
opt-out. It already lets them know what their child's teacher's 
qualifications are, what their level of achievement in school is, 
notice if their child is being taught by a teacher not meeting State 
standards, and rights as a parent of an English language learner.

[[Page S5040]]

  The bill is specific in all of those areas, telling the parent: It is 
your right to know if we have an ESL Program. It is your right to know 
if we allow an opt-out, and if we do not allow an opt-out, it is your 
right as a citizen to go to the board of education and make sure we do 
offer one. In other words, we are opening the door for local control 
the way all of us planned on it being for years and for years and for 
years.
  It is time we took the shackles off public education. The Washington 
weight is dragging it down. It is time our school systems no longer 
have to come to Washington for waivers and all those types of things, 
but instead we said--in the case of title I, our poorest kids and among 
those most in need of help, our IDEA kids, where the Federal Government 
has a role--besides those two areas, it is time for the local system to 
see to it they are meeting the needs of those kids, the parents know 
what the system is doing, and the parents have a right to inquire. And 
if the parent doesn't want the kid to be tested the way the State is 
doing it and the State allows it, they should be able to opt out. That 
is the ultimate of local control. It is also the ultimate of 
expectations for the child through the parent and the school, not 
through some Washington mandate.
  You know the old saying: Education makes people easy to govern and 
impossible to enslave, easy to build and impossible to drive.
  Education is the power that leads our democracy to discoveries. Just 
today in America--or just sometime today in America--Pluto was 
discovered by an American satellite that was launched 9 years ago. It 
has been traveling hundreds of thousands of miles a second to go there. 
That manpower was done in the educational system of the United States 
of America.
  There is no dream that can't be realized in this country, but it has 
to be based on education and knowledge. It has to be based on a country 
that relishes education, a State that embellishes education, and a 
parent that is involved with their child.
  I commend Senator Murray and Senator Alexander for their work, for 
including the opt-out provision in the base of the bill. I ask and hope 
the Senate will adopt my amendment to require that in the parents' 
right to know, that provision is made available to every single parent 
in terms of what the State does and does not require when their kids go 
into the public school system. So we have a better informed parent, 
better local control, less Federal mandate, and a child who has 
expectations that are raised for them by the parents and the teachers 
closest to them, not by a bureaucrat in Washington, DC.
  We live in the greatest country on the face of this Earth. You don't 
find anybody trying to break out of the United States of America. They 
are all trying to break in. And when you ask them why, it is because it 
is a country of opportunity, education, hope, and promise.
  Today and tomorrow, the Senate has the ability to reauthorize the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which has languished for 7 
years without a reauthorization. I hope we will do it and give local 
systems and local boards of education and the parents the choices they 
need to make the decisions that are right for their children.
  I encourage every Senator to vote for amendment No. 2194, the Isakson 
opt-out amendment and the parental right-to-know amendment.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington is going to 
speak in just a moment, but while the Senator from Georgia is on the 
floor, I thank him for his huge contribution to this bill that would 
fix No Child Left Behind. No committee member has been more valuable 
than he. He has worked with Senator Murray to include within a 
provision an important step on early childhood education.
  He has used his experience as chairman of the Georgia State Board of 
Education and as a member of the education committee in both the Senate 
and the House to help us know how to do a better job here.
  He is the champion of giving parents the right to know whether their 
State gives them the opportunity to opt out of the federally required 
tests. That is his amendment today. And he was the sponsor of the 
amendment that appears in the Alexander-Murray bill, which gives States 
the express authority to decide whether the parents may opt their 
children out of the tests.
  So the Isakson amendment says: Give States the power to provide the 
opt-out, and it gives parents the opportunity to know enough 
information to be able to do it. That is consistent with this 
legislation, which requires the important measurements of achievement 
so we can know whether children are achieving and whether schools are 
achieving, but then restores to States and local school boards, 
classroom teachers, and parents the decisions about how to help those 
children achieve.
  That is the kind of local control of education that I think most of 
us on both sides of the aisle--whether it is the Senator from Montana 
speaking this morning or the Senator from Georgia speaking this 
afternoon, that is the spirit of the consensus that guides this bill.
  Senator Isakson's contribution has been enormous to the right of 
parents to provide an opt-out of a federally required test for them and 
their children if they and their State choose to do it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 2093

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak in favor 
of the Franken amendment, which we will be voting on shortly. I want to 
start with the story of Chandler, who was a 9th grader in Arkansas who 
experienced daily bullying and harassment. At school, his classmates 
harassed him based on his perceived sexual orientation. His mom 
described him as a good kid. She said all he wanted was to fit in, but 
Chandler couldn't walk down the hall between classes without kids 
harassing him. He wrote to his school counselor saying he couldn't 
handle ``being an outcast for four more years.''
  And while teachers knew about the bullying, the school district never 
put a plan in place to address his concerns. And one day in 2010, 
Chandler took his own life after enduring endless bullying and 
tormenting at his school.
  Chandler's story is more than a tragedy, it feels like an all-too-
common trend for students across the country.
  As a mother, grandmother, a former educator, and as a citizen, I 
believe Congress has to act to protect kids such as Chandler. When kids 
do not feel safe at school, when they are relentlessly bullied because 
they are different, when they endure harassment simply because of who 
they are, we have failed to provide them with the educational 
opportunities they deserve. We have failed them.
  As we debate our Nation's K-12 education bill, we need to do 
everything we can to prevent bullying, harassment, and discrimination 
and provide students with a safe learning environment. Today, we will 
consider an amendment to address the unique challenges LGBT students 
face.
  I thank Senator Casey for his work on the Safe Schools Improvement 
Act. It is a bill we will not be voting on but will continue working 
on. I thank, especially, Senator Franken for his tireless leadership on 
the Student Non-Discrimination Act.
  On the HELP Committee, I have been a proud cosponsor of this 
legislation for years, and today I hope all of our Senate colleagues 
will join us in protecting students from discrimination based on their 
actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.
  Discrimination, bullying, and harassment at school leads to students 
who feel unsafe. It leads to kids who skip classes so they avoid 
harassment. Some students drop out of school because they don't feel 
safe there. If students don't feel safe, then there is very little else 
we can do to improve their education that will matter.
  This type of bullying and harassment can be severe, particularly for 
LGBT students. The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network recently 
did a survey on the experiences of LGBT youth in our schools. In that 
survey, 6 out of 10 lesbian, gay, and bisexual students reported 
feeling unsafe at school and 8 out of 10 transgender students said the 
same.
  Eighty-five percent of LGBT students report they have been harassed 
because of their sexual or gender identity. Even

[[Page S5041]]

though bullying and harassment is prevalent for these students, they 
and their families have limited legal recourse for that kind of 
discrimination. I believe our students deserve better. The amendment we 
will be voting on will help to tackle this problem.
  The student non-discrimination amendment would prohibit 
discrimination and harassment in public schools based on actual or 
perceived sexual orientation and gender identity. The amendment would 
also prohibit any retaliation for lodging a complaint of 
discrimination. That would give our LGBT students who are suffering 
from bullying and harassment legal recourse, and it would allow Federal 
authorities to address discrimination.
  This amendment would offer LGBT students similar protections that 
currently exist for students who are bullied based on race, gender, 
religion, disability, or country of national origin. Unless you think 
LGBT students don't deserve protection from discrimination the way 
these other students do, this should be easy to support. This amendment 
is absolutely critical for expanding protections for LGBT students. 
Again, I thank the junior Senator from Minnesota for his tremendous 
work.
  I know some of our Republican colleagues have argued that taking 
steps to prevent bullying would only create lawsuits. But I believe 
these students deserve justice. Giving students and families legal 
recourse would help provide that.
  Under this amendment, the process for legal recourse would be similar 
to title IX, which actually has been on the books since 1972. In the 
majority of title IX cases, a school is more than willing to fix the 
problem so it no longer engages in discriminatory practices. After all, 
school leaders want to do the right thing and end bullying or 
harassment in their classrooms. They want to make sure their school is 
safe for a particular group of students. They want to make sure 
students are not discriminated against simply because of who they are. 
With this amendment, this same process would be afforded to LGBT 
students.
  I have also heard some critics of this amendment say there is no need 
to focus on LGBT students. They don't want to define who would be 
covered in an anti-discrimination amendment. But that logic doesn't 
follow what we already know works. There is a reason the civil rights 
laws of our country clearly define who is protected from 
discrimination. For example, our civil rights laws make it clear that 
it is unlawful to discriminate based on race and gender. A generic 
anti-discrimination policy will not cut it. A vague policy would lead 
to years of litigation about who is and who is not protected and what 
legal standards should apply. Making meaningful progress to prevent 
bullying, harassment, and discrimination requires us to clearly define 
who will be protected.
  We know LGBT students are being bullied. They are being harassed. 
They are being discriminated against. Ignoring that fact with vague 
language doesn't help those students; it does them a real disservice, 
and it is wrong.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The pain physical and 
emotional abuse can cause is tragic.
  In Ohio, a young man named Zach is an openly gay student. Since he 
was in the third grade, he has been called names at school. That abuse 
has escalated since then. When he was 16, Zach was physically attacked 
and repeatedly punched by another student during his third-period 
class. In a video from the ACLU, Zach's mom said it is not that Zach 
attended a bad school. She said: ``It's just not a good school for gay 
or lesbian children.''
  It should not matter what school a child attends; all students 
deserve a safe learning environment. Bullying and harassment take that 
away from too many of our Nation's students.
  I want to take a moment to note the historical significance of this 
debate and the vote we will be taking on shortly. A few weeks ago, the 
Supreme Court settled a question that for decades has been an issue of 
debate in our country. After years of fighting for equal rights, LGBT 
couples finally have the guarantee of marriage equality nationwide and 
the protections that all married couples enjoy.
  I am proud of how far our country has come. Since the Court's ruling, 
this--right now, today--will be the first vote this body takes on 
legislation aimed at ending discrimination against LGBT individuals and 
in this case discrimination against LGBT children in our schools. 
Surely we can agree that a minority group of students who have long 
endured bullying, harassment, and discrimination deserves the same 
protections we afford other groups of students. There is no excuse for 
a school or for a United States Senator to stand by as our kids endure 
harassment and discrimination that puts their academic success and 
emotional well-being in jeopardy. The country will be watching.
  I urge our colleagues to support this amendment and give students 
across the country the assurance that we are on their side.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I wish to thank Chairman Alexander and 
Ranking Member Murray for their excellent leadership as stewards of 
this important bipartisan effort. In my conversations with parents, 
educators, and advocates across my State, one theme prevails: We must 
reform this outdated law. This bipartisan legislation before us, while 
not perfect, is a step in the right direction.
  I am glad my language was included in the substitute amendment to 
address conflict resolution and crisis intervention services in 
schools. It will provide support and the ability of school districts to 
provide suicide, trafficking, trauma, and violence prevention models. 
Such models will assist educators as they foster positive school 
climates so that students can enter school excited and ready to learn.
  However, I hope we can also advance my amendment No. 2171, which 
would support those schools where such preventions are needed the most. 
My amendment will restore access and make improvements to school and 
mental health support grants under an existing program in ESEA--the 
integration of schools and mental health systems. Unfortunately, the 
bill before us eliminates this program simply because of recent budget 
cuts. Those budget cuts have allowed for the diversion of its funding 
to other priorities. This program, however, is more important than ever 
today.
  I am not calling for new or expanded funding or even a new program. 
The funding conversation should take place during the appropriations 
process. But for these purposes, we must make sure the program's 
authorization is not eliminated, as students across this country and 
students in my State critically need these integrated services that 
help them deal with the effects of poor educational environments as 
well as the effects of toxic stress and trauma.
  The need to address this problem is something I have heard repeatedly 
since becoming North Dakota's Senator and previously in my role as 
North Dakota's attorney general. Through my personal experiences with 
affected children, school leaders, and tribal representatives, I have 
focused on making sure all children have the ability to succeed and 
overcome obstacles associated with suicide, trauma, violence, and 
stress on their mental health.
  In May of 2015, Futures Without Violence, alongside partners such as 
the Alliance for Excellent Education, the National Education 
Association, and the National PTA, released a report entitled ``Safe, 
Healthy, and Ready to Learn'' that detailed how unhealthy school 
climates, exposure to violence, and the effects of trauma reduce 
academic success. As a result of such conditions, students with two or 
more adverse childhood experiences are more than twice as likely to 
repeat a grade. Students exposed to violence are at a greater risk of 
dropping out or having difficulty in school. Children exposed to 
violence scored lower on tests of verbal ability and comprehension, 
reading and math skills, and overall achievement on standardized tests.
  As a member of the Indian Affairs Committee, I can attest that 
nowhere

[[Page S5042]]

are adverse childhood experiences more common than in schools serving 
this country's Native communities and Native American tribes. The 
suicide rate for young adults aged 15 to 34 years is 2\1/2\ times 
higher than the national average.
  In South Dakota, from December 2014 to May 2015, the Oglala Sioux 
Tribe lost nine--nine--of their young people to suicide between the 
ages of 12 and 24. At least 103--I want to repeat that number--103 
attempts were made by young people aged 12 to 24 just in those few 
months.
  North Dakota has had a similar experience with suicide. Five young 
people--three teenagers and two 25-year-olds--on the Standing Rock 
Sioux Reservation took their own lives within a 2-month period.
  Much like North and South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, and Alaska's 
suicide rate has increased dramatically in recent years--jumping 70 
percent in 10 years, with large increases among middle and high school 
students.
  As populations have increased in the West, violent crime has 
similarly risen 121 percent in some areas. Through drug crimes, 
gunrunning, gang activity, and limited capacity of law enforcement, 
human trafficking has become epidemic, with 83 percent of all victims 
in the United States being American. How can we expect children to 
learn when they face such obstacles as these? This is an injustice.
  We must make sure our schools have the means to partner with health 
systems and provide preventive measures and family engagement models 
for improving school environments and mental health stress. 
Unfortunately, schools are often the last line of defense for our 
country's most vulnerable students. My amendment would simply preserve 
a voluntary program that helps schools provide children stability and 
the tools necessary to handle mental stress.
  I understand the call for Federal streamlining and local flexibility. 
For North Dakota, strengthening local efficiency is a top priority. 
However, this particular program should not be a part of that 
streamlining. This authorization is about updating a civil rights law 
based on helping all--even the most disadvantaged--students achieve and 
have access to a better future.
  But for many of our States, those disadvantaged students are also 
owed a Federal trust responsibility. While this language would protect 
a grant program that is accessible to all, the services provided under 
this amendment target issues epidemic to Indian Country. As such, it 
would work to uphold the distinct trust responsibility of this 
government to provide educational resources to Native children. Much 
like the amendment from the senior Senator from Montana, which the 
Senate adopted last week, I hope the Senate will similarly protect this 
program.
  By helping schools coordinate with health professionals specializing 
in addressing the effects of traumatic events and mental stress, we 
will secure for our most disadvantaged the equal opportunity they 
deserve--that equal opportunity to learn and to achieve.
  I want to tell you a quick story. The first year I was elected, I had 
an opportunity to visit with a lot of North Dakota constituents who 
came into my office. I remember distinctly the day the grade school 
principals came to visit me, and I thought that I would prepare for 
this meeting--that I would prepare on No Child Left Behind. I shared a 
lot of their concerns, and I was ready to talk about No Child Left 
Behind. That is not what they wanted to talk about. One principal told 
me a story about two young boys who were in second and third grade who 
had ridden the bus that morning and beaten up two little girls. When 
they got to school, the principal asked them why they would ever do 
that. They said: Well, you understand that last night my dad beat up my 
mom and he went to jail. They wanted to visit their dad.

  How prepared is a school district to deal with that situation? If we 
do not engage the mental health community, our schools will continue to 
be those first responders, ill prepared to deal with the trauma of that 
life. We have to begin to integrate these programs, and we have to look 
at what is happening with trauma and stress and the effects trauma and 
stress have on learning and the ability to succeed.
  I understand and can completely appreciate and support the idea that 
we need to streamline programs. I think this is a program whose time 
has come. We should fund this program. That is a conversation for the 
Appropriations Committee. We have to begin to emphasize the conditions 
in which children live if we are going to educate all of our children 
equally.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Futures Without Violence report, 
``Safe, Healthy, and Ready to Learn,'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Safe, Healthy, and Ready to Learn


                           executive summary

       Dr. Martin Luther King, at the crossroads of this nation's 
     civil rights movement more than 50 years ago, talked about 
     the ``fierce urgency of now.'' Today, more than ever, every 
     child deserves equality of access and opportunity that will 
     prepare him or her to compete in the changing economies and 
     realities of the 21st century. Yet, for too many children, 
     exposure to violence and trauma can deny them both access and 
     opportunity. Forty-six million children in the United States 
     will be exposed to violence, crime, abuse, or psychological 
     trauma in a given year: two out of every three children in 
     this country. They are our sons, daughters, grandsons, 
     granddaughters, nieces, and nephews. They are our future.
       There is an undeniable urgency of now to shine the light on 
     these children and, even more importantly, prevent our 
     children from exposure to violence. We owe it to them to give 
     them the opportunity to live up to their full potential. We 
     should not wait, we cannot wait, and we must not wait.
       In partnership with leaders from throughout the health, 
     education, justice, and child development fields, Futures 
     Without Violence (FUTURES), with the support of The 
     California Endowment, Blue Shield of California Foundation, 
     and the Lisa and John Pritzker Family Fund, has spent the 
     last year working to develop public policy solutions to 
     prevent and address childhood exposure to violence and 
     trauma. We examined research, consulted with experts across 
     the country, and convened a multi-disciplinary working group 
     to develop a comprehensive set of recommendations designed to 
     combat this silent epidemic.
       Children's exposure to violence, trauma, and ``toxic 
     stress'' can have a permanent negative effect on the chemical 
     and physical structures of their brain, causing cognitive 
     impairments such as trouble with attention, concentration, 
     and memory. Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) research 
     documents the short- and long-term connections between 
     exposure to violence and other adversity and poor health and 
     educational outcomes, such as increased absenteeism in school 
     and changes in school performance. Individuals who have 
     experienced six or more ACEs die, on average, 20 years 
     earlier than those who have none. We know that the effects of 
     this trauma are playing out in numerous ways every day.
       The good news is that we know what works to prevent harm 
     and heal children. Our collective task is to identify and 
     elevate the effective policies, programs, and practices that 
     are working and advance them at the federal, state, and local 
     level. This report is designed to do just that.
       FUTURES is especially grateful to the thoughtful work and 
     commitment of our policy working group, which made the report 
     possible. The group is unique in its diverse membership and 
     in the willingness of its participants to cross boundaries 
     and recognize the interconnectedness of multiple issues. From 
     reforming school discipline practices and creating positive 
     school climates to combating child abuse and promoting 
     children's physical, emotional and mental health, the group 
     worked to examine and lift up core strategies to meet the 
     needs of the whole child, to address trauma in children's 
     lives, and to create conditions to allow our children to 
     thrive and succeed.


                                 goals

       The working group developed a set of recommendations that 
     will support each of these seven goals:
       1. Invest early in parents and young children
       2. Help schools promote positive school climates, be trauma 
     sensitive, and raise achievement
       3. Train educators, health care workers, and other child-
     serving professionals about preventing and responding to 
     youth violence and trauma
       4. Prevent violence and trauma
       5. Improve intra- and inter-governmental coordination and 
     alignment
       6. Increase the availability of trauma-informed services 
     for children and families
       7. Increase public awareness and knowledge of childhood 
     violence and trauma


                       summary of recommendations

       The following summarizes the key recommendations for each 
     goal:
       No. 1--Invest early in parents and young children. The 
     federal government should support states, local 
     jurisdictions, and tribes in providing parents, legal 
     guardians, and other caregivers the resources necessary to 
     help their children thrive. A multi-generational

[[Page S5043]]

     approach to comprehensive and evidence-based services and 
     trauma-informed care promotes positive caretaking, reduces 
     inequities, enhances family cohesion, and interrupts the 
     cycle of intergenerational trauma. We recommend expanding the 
     federal Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting 
     Program (MIECHV) and implementing a two generation approach 
     to addressing ACEs, child abuse, and domestic violence. We 
     also suggest modifying Medicaid and child welfare financing 
     formulas to extend services to parents to address their own 
     experience of trauma.
       No. 2--Help schools promote positive school climates, be 
     trauma sensitive, and raise achievement. The federal 
     government should provide significant resources and 
     incentives for states and local jurisdictions to create 
     connected communities and positive school climates that are 
     trauma-sensitive to keep students healthy and in school, 
     involved in positive social networks, and out of the juvenile 
     justice system. Such investments should increase opportunity 
     and close achievement gaps, promote health, resilience, 
     social and emotional learning, and engage the school 
     personnel necessary to effectuate a positive learning 
     environment. We recommend using the reauthorization of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act to support the 
     creation of positive school climates; supporting full-service 
     community schools that include school-based health centers; 
     adopting inclusive disciplinary policies that involve the 
     community; reconsidering school safety strategies and 
     prioritize investing resources in students' emotional health 
     and social connections; providing assistance to school 
     districts in their efforts to prevent and appropriately 
     respond to incidents of bullying; and having the United 
     States Department of Education design and disseminate a 
     practice guide that offers school-wide strategies and best 
     practices for creating trauma sensitive schools.
       No. 3--Train educators, health care workers, and other 
     child-serving professionals about preventing and responding 
     to youth violence and trauma. States and other accrediting 
     bodies should support training and certification of child- 
     and youth-serving professionals to effectively respond to 
     children's exposure to violence with a coordinated and 
     trauma-informed approach. Our report urges that school 
     personnel should be trained on implementing effective 
     academic and behavioral practices, such as Positive 
     Behavioral Interventions and Supports and social and 
     emotional learning, and providing pediatricians and staff in 
     community health settings the tools they need to serve 
     traumatized youth.
       No. 4--Prevent violence and trauma. Federal, state, and 
     local governments and tribes should increase incentives and 
     expand violence prevention efforts to reduce children's 
     exposure to violence. Research and strategies should be 
     interwoven among the fields of community violence, child 
     abuse, school violence, sexual assault, and domestic 
     violence. Specific policy recommendations are as follows: 
     expanding funding for domestic violence prevention and 
     response services within the Family Violence Prevention and 
     Services Act; providing greater technical assistance to 
     health care providers so they can effectively deliver 
     universal education to parents and caregivers about the 
     impact of exposure to violence on youth and deliver more 
     integrated care to children who may already be exposed to 
     violence; expanding targeted prevention programs focused on 
     healthy relationships among youth developed jointly by the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Office on 
     Violence Against Women; engaging men and boys in prevention; 
     and supporting resilient and healthy communities.
       No. 5--Improve intra- and inter-governmental coordination 
     and alignment. Federal, state, and local governments and 
     tribes should better coordinate youth violence prevention and 
     early intervention approaches among themselves and with non-
     governmental organizations, particularly as it relates to 
     school/community and public/private sector coordination. We 
     recommend the creation of a White House task force to 
     identify specific youth violence and trauma prevention goals, 
     make recommendations on how federal agency resources can be 
     used to meet those goals, and provide guidance to state and 
     local partners. In addition, the federal government should 
     include incentives in relevant federal grant applications for 
     states and localities to demonstrate collaboration in service 
     delivery.
       No. 6--Increase the availability of trauma-informed 
     services for children and families. It is time to incentivize 
     and fund states, localities, and tribes to scale up the 
     availability of trauma-informed services for children and 
     their families exposed to violence. These services should 
     support the implementation of two-generation, trauma-informed 
     approaches, coordinate efforts among schools, homes, and 
     communities, and ensure gender-specific and culturally 
     competent practices. We recommend permitting federal 
     entitlement programs to support child trauma assessment and 
     intervention, such as home-based services and crisis 
     intervention, that provide for child well-being, family 
     stability, and community health. The federal government 
     should provide specific support and attention to youth in the 
     juvenile justice system, in foster care, and to those who are 
     homeless.
       No. 7--Increase public awareness and knowledge of childhood 
     violence and trauma. Federal, state, and local governments 
     and tribes should support public education and engagement 
     campaigns to increase awareness of the adverse effects of 
     childhood exposure to violence and trauma. The campaigns 
     should describe action people can take to prevent harm, and 
     promote effective solutions. We recommend that the federal 
     government, in coordination with the states, conduct a mass 
     media campaign that highlights the impact of ACEs and helps 
     to reduce the stigma attached to those who seek professional 
     help.
       We know that meaningful change will not happen overnight, 
     and we recognize that budgets are tight at all levels of 
     government. However, inaction is not an option--not when tens 
     of millions of children are affected by violence and trauma 
     each year. We know what works. We know that these investments 
     will save money and will prevent many children from 
     suffering. This report provides a blueprint for what needs to 
     be done. It is now up to all of us, as policymakers, 
     educators, advocates, and parents, to take action to ensure 
     that our children's future is bright.

  Ms. HEITKAMP. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for 
bringing up a critically important issue. The need for counseling and 
mental health resources in our schools cannot be overstated. There are 
so many kids who appear to be slow learners and have problems that can 
be traced directly to these issues.
  I know that teachers aren't trained to be psychologists and 
psychiatrists. Many of them are struggling just to teach. So I think 
the resources that the Senator from North Dakota is talking about are 
absolutely essential, and I hope her amendment prevails. I will be 
happy to support it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we come together every few years to debate 
education. Why does the Federal Government get into the conversation 
about grade schools and high schools? Because 50 years ago we created 
programs sending Federal money to these schools.
  In my State, about 5 percent of all the money spent on education 
comes from Washington. The rest of it comes from State and local 
sources. Sending this money to schools was part of a program for 
accountability back in the 1960s. The problems we faced were largely 
twofold, problems of poverty and the resulting difficulties that 
children had in school and problems with racial discrimination. So we 
tried to resolve these by sending resources to States and holding them 
accountable if they received Federal money to move toward improving 
test scores and performance for children and breaking down the walls of 
segregation.
  It is 50 years later. We have tried so many different approaches to 
this, and under President George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, 
there was a surprising new approach called No Child Left Behind. What 
was surprising is that a conservative Republican President actually 
called for a bigger role of the Federal Government when it came to 
education.
  President Bush felt that we should hold schools and teachers 
accountable, that we should test to make sure they were making 
progress, and frankly, call them out if they were not. It was a pretty 
bold and controversial idea. Now we come together years later in an 
effort to do it differently. This bill before us, the Every Child 
Achieves Act, basically shifts the pendulum to the other side and says 
that now we are going to give it back to the States to measure the 
performance and progress of schools and intervene where necessary.
  I think this is a worthy effort. We may find that we have gone too 
far in moving it all back to the States and away from the multiple 
tests that face school districts under No Child Left Behind, but we are 
engaging in this new approach in the hopes that it will be better and 
fairer and that more kids in America will get a good education. That is 
generally why I think we are here on this floor.
  There is one aspect of it which I think we should still maintain, and 
that is the question or issue of accountability. Senators Murphy of 
Connecticut, Booker of New Jersey, Coons of Delaware, and Warren of 
Massachusetts filed an amendment which I have joined with to insert 
meaningful accountability measures in this bill, including identifying 
the 5 percent lowest performing schools--high schools where less than 
two-thirds of the students graduate--and subgroups of students who are 
not doing well.

[[Page S5044]]

  There is a concern on the other side of the aisle, and even from some 
of my friends and supporters, that we are going back to the Federal 
accountability standards when schools or subgroups are not succeeding. 
That is not the case with this amendment. It allows the States to still 
decide which interventions are warranted, but it makes the information 
public as to how the schools are doing, particularly those that are 
really struggling, the lowest 5 percent of schools--high schools where 
two-thirds of the students are not performing. We should know this, and 
we should hold the States accountable now that it is their 
responsibility to intervene to make sure that they achieve this. To 
ignore it and turn our backs on it is not fair. It is to ignore a half-
century commitment by this government with the title I program in 
particular and other programs in our government to really help the 
States to improve with Federal resources.
  We have gone away from overtesting in No Child Left Behind, but let's 
not reach the point where we ignore the results. Let's hold States 
accountable. Let them come up with the interventions as required, but 
let's do it in a way that is transparent so there is accountability. I 
support this amendment, and I hope it is called up soon.
  Mr. President, there is another amendment that may soon be before us 
offered by Senator Burr of North Carolina that would make changes in 
the title I funding program in terms of the allocations to States. 
Title I is the single largest source of Federal funding for elementary 
and secondary education. It helps States and districts address poverty 
and the needs of low-income students.
  Senator Burr of North Carolina has created a new formula to send 
money from Washington back to the States. Not surprisingly, his State 
does very well with that formula, others not so well. The Burr 
amendment, which we finally saw in writing last night, would be 
devastating to low-income students in Illinois. It would reduce my 
State's share of title I funds by $180 million a year. So 28 percent of 
all the title I funds now coming into the State would be eliminated by 
the Burr amendment.
  Chicago public schools are struggling. Mayor Emanuel, who is in 
charge of these schools, is trying to resolve decades' old problems 
with pensions, trying to put the money into the schools, and faces some 
extremely difficult choices.
  Under the Burr amendment, Chicago's public schools would lose $68 
million. It is not just about the city of Chicago. Every district in 
Illinois that receives title I funds for low-income students would see 
a cut. North Chicago and East St. Louis are the two poorest school 
districts in the State. East St. Louis is my hometown and where I was 
born. North Chicago would see a 24-percent cut of money for low-income 
students, and East St. Louis would see a cut of 18 percent--one of the 
poorest towns in my State. Rockford would lose $5 million, a 31-percent 
cut. Rock Island would see a 43-percent cut with the Burr amendment, 
and Carbondale and Danville, 27 and 20 percent, respectively. 
Springfield, my hometown, would lose $2 million or 26 percent of their 
total funds would be cut because the Senator from North Carolina wants 
to take more money home to his State.
  These types of cuts to Illinois, divvied up among districts in other 
States, isn't a responsible Federal policy for making sure low-income 
kids in Illinois get a good education. It isn't responsible, and I have 
to say to my friend and colleague from North Carolina that he is in for 
a fight. He may think he has chosen just enough States to get a little 
more money to get a majority together, but my colleagues, at least on 
this side of the aisle, realize that tomorrow someone else could come 
up with a little different formula that would be devastating to their 
own States. This amendment is the most hurtful and damaging amendment 
that is before us in this bill as far as my State is concerned.


                           Amendment No. 2093

  Third, there is an amendment from my friend from Minnesota, Senator 
Franken, called the Student Non-Discrimination Act, also called SNDA. I 
urge all of my colleagues to support it. SNDA will provide critical 
protection for LGBT students by explicitly prohibiting discrimination 
in public schools based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or 
gender identity.
  A few weeks ago the Supreme Court had a historic decision when it 
came to same-sex couples having the right to marry. While this decision 
is a major historic achievement, there is more that needs to be done. 
Students who are or are perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or 
transgender continue to face extraordinary discrimination.
  A recent survey showed that 85 percent of these students reported 
harassment. The survey also found that these students didn't perform 
well when they were subjected to this harassment. That is no surprise. 
Research also shows that these teenagers are four times more likely to 
attempt suicide, and 40 percent of the homeless students and children 
in America are LGBT.
  I support Senator Franken's amendment. Let's end this discrimination.
  Finally, I support the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, Bob Casey, which is based on the Strong Start for 
America's Children Act, to improve and expand high-quality early 
childhood education for more than 3 million low-income kids. The Casey 
amendment would help 100,000 kids in low-income families in Illinois 
get into pre-K. How important is that?
  Well, I am a grandfather and proud of it. We have twin grandkids who 
are 3\1/2\ years old. My wife and I spend a lot of time talking with 
them and reading to them. These kids are doing just great. They have 
terrific parents and are heading to pre-K in just a few months. They 
won't even be 4 years old when they enter the pre-K program in the city 
of Brooklyn, NY. We are excited about it. We know they are going to do 
well. Their parents, and maybe even their grandparents, have helped 
them reach that point.
  What Bob Casey and his amendment try to do is to extend that 
opportunity to a lot of families--low-income families that may not have 
the luxury of being able to spend time with their kids the way other 
families can. Let's give those kids a fighting chance. Let's give them 
the pre-K education that gets them off to a good, strong start so they 
can learn and ultimately earn.
  I support the Casey amendment, and I hope my colleagues will too.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2093

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this important debate about how to improve 
our schools is an opportunity to ensure that children have access to 
equal educational opportunities. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and 
transgender students often face pervasive harassment and bullying in 
our schools. We must ensure that all children can attend school in a 
safe and healthy environment. That is why I am proud to support the 
amendment offered by Senator Franken.
  Similar to his bill on this topic, the Student Non-Discrimination 
Act, this amendment would instill core principles of basic civil rights 
in our Nation's schools. These are commonsense, fundamental rights that 
all Americans deserve, particularly children. No person--of any age--
should face discrimination because of their race, economic status, 
religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or learning 
abilities.
  I have heard from countless Vermont parents about their children 
being bullied at school and online. I am reminded of the tragic story 
of Ryan Halligan, an Essex Junction student who took his own life at 
age 13 after being bullied for his physical appearance. After years of 
torment, the teasing Ryan endured turned into physical violence. Ryan 
was harassed online by one of his peers, who took private messages Ryan 
had sent and showcased them for other students in the school. Ryan was 
later publically shamed for what he thought was an innocent interaction 
between himself and a friend.
  No child should ever face the needless horror of harassment or 
bullying. Unfortunately, as many as 7 in 10 students who are, or are 
perceived to be, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender have been 
bullied or harassed. But unlike other forms of harassment in our 
schools, bullying based on gender identity and sexual orientation is 
often overlooked, and students and their parents have limited legal 
options to hold schools accountable for discriminatory treatment.

[[Page S5045]]

  The Franken amendment would extend Federal protections from 
discrimination in public schools based on actual or perceived gender 
identity or sexual orientation. The amendment prohibits public school 
students from being excluded from educational programs on the basis of 
sexual identity and allows students to take civil action against such 
discrimination. It also ensures that students who file suit will not 
face retaliation of any kind. It is a sad reality that discrimination 
still exists in our country, and that Americans need the powerful anti-
discrimination protection of our civil rights laws. But these abuses 
are happening in our schools, and children are suffering as a result.
  What is worse, LGBT youth who face bullying at school do not always 
have a sanctuary at home. A disproportionate and growing number of 
runaway and homeless youth are LGBT, often because their families have 
rejected them. We must ensure that these kids have a safe place to 
stay, because they are vulnerable to abuse and sexual exploitation 
while living on the street. That is why Senator Collins and I included 
a nondiscrimination provision in another key piece of legislation, the 
Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. This bill 
would ensure that no child in need of shelter is turned away based on 
their sexual orientation or gender identity. We cannot protect these 
children from every injustice they might face, but we should at least 
ensure that they will be safe in our public schools and federally 
funded shelters. I will continue to fight for these protections.
  I am proud of the many students in Vermont who have taken steps to 
prevent bullying in their schools and communities. In 2014, Rutland 
High School students were nationally recognized for their ``Positive 
Post-it'' campaign, in which small notes of praise and encouragement to 
fellow students were placed on windows and message boards throughout 
the school. These young students at Rutland High School should be 
commended for reminding us all that bullying and discrimination have no 
place at school. Students across the country are doing their part and 
we must do ours as well.
  Last month, the Supreme Court issued two consequential and historic 
rulings protecting the basic rights of all Americans to marry and to 
access housing free from discrimination. Our Nation has come a long way 
but our work must continue. All Americans, especially our children, 
deserve the same Federal protections. We have the opportunity to extend 
this simple principle of basic fairness to children across this country 
and make our schools safe places for all children to learn. I hope all 
Senators will support this important amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                           Amendment No. 2194

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from 
Washington, I ask unanimous consent that the 4 p.m. vote begin now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question now occurs on the Isakson amendment No. 2194.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Excuse me. My fault, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I got a little ahead of myself. I 
should have checked with Senator Isakson to see if he wished to speak 
on behalf of his amendment. I see he is now here. Why don't we allow 
him to do that, and then I will ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee, 
and I wish to reiterate my appreciation for what he and Senator Murray 
have done to bring a great bill to the floor.
  This is the ultimate local control amendment, which says if a State 
allows an opt-out, a parent can opt their kid out of testing, and it 
requires the States to ensure that parents know if opting out is 
possible. It is a good amendment for children and local control, and I 
encourage everyone to cast a ``yes'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I support this amendment, and I thank 
Senator Isakson for working with us on this. I encourage a ``yes'' 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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 Florida (Mr. Nelson) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 234 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Graham
     Nelson
     Rubio
  The amendment (No. 2194) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2210

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate prior to 
a vote on Bennet amendment No. 2210.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, as the father of three girls in Denver Public Schools 
and as a former school superintendent, I know there is a lot we can do 
to streamline tests, but the problem is not the Federal requirement. 
That is not the real problem. The real problem is the way the Federal 
requirement works with States and the way the State tests have piled up 
on the Federal requirements.
  That is why States should establish a cap on the total amount of time 
spent taking these assessments. This target would be State-determined, 
subject to discussion among parents, teachers, and policymakers. If the 
district exceeds the policy cap, it would be required to simply notify 
parents. This is an essential way to respond to concerns voiced by 
students, parents, teachers, principals, and communities across the 
country about overtesting.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield back time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to Bennet amendment No. 2210.
  The amendment (No. 2210) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2162

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote on Lee amendment No. 2162.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, my amendment would clarify that parents--not 
the Federal Government--are the primary educators of their children. It 
would ensure that parents may allow their children to opt out of 
federally mandated tests.
  Now, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, is right that States 
should be free to make their own tests mandatory if they so choose. 
However, that is not what this bill allows. This bill mandates that 
States give these

[[Page S5046]]

tests and requires them to get the content of such tests approved by 
the Secretary of Education.
  My amendment is silent on the question of State tests. It simply 
clarifies that tests mandated by this Congress are, in fact, voluntary, 
and that parents--not politicians or bureaucrats--will have the final 
say on whether individual children take Federal tests. It also ensures 
that the Federal Government cannot punish a State by restricting 
Federal funding for education should parents choose to opt out their 
children from these tests.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I urge a ``no'' vote. This bill is 
about reversing the trend toward a national school board. The amendment 
of the Senator from Utah is about more of a national school board. The 
Alexander-Murray bill expressly says that a State may decide whether to 
allow parents to opt out of these tests. The Senator's amendment says: 
Washington knows best; it will tell States what the policy should be.
  That is like common core. Our bill says: We are eliminating the 
Washington mandate on common core. He would reinstate a Washington 
mandate on the opt-out policy. I would say this to my Republican 
friends: Do we only agree with local control when we agree with the 
local policy?
  Art Laffer says: States have a right to be right. States have a right 
to be wrong. A ``no'' vote is a vote for local control. A ``yes'' vote 
is a vote for a national school board.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I concur with the remarks from the 
chairman of the committee and urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be 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), the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Rubio), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 32, nays 64, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 235 Leg.]

                                YEAS--32

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--64

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Isakson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Graham
     Nelson
     Rubio
     Sullivan
  The amendment (No. 2162) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 2093

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote on Franken amendment No. 2093.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, the Student Non-Discrimination Act would 
extend the same Federal civil rights protections available to other 
children to LGBT children.
  I feel very strongly about this, and let me tell you why. LGBT kids 
are facing an epidemic of bullying in our schools. Nearly 75 percent of 
LGBT students say they have been verbally harassed at school. More than 
30 percent report missing a day of school in the last month because 
they felt unsafe.
  Sometimes kids cannot endure the taunting. These boys, 11 years old, 
13, and 15, committed suicide because they were harassed relentlessly, 
and they are just three of the many tragic cases. And in case after 
case, the parents begged the school to do something, only to be 
ignored. Our laws failed these children, but we can change that. We 
have come very far on this issue. As a body, we passed ENDA, which 
protects LGBT adults, but this is about children.
  It is our job as adults, not just as Senators, to protect children. 
Think about the LGBT people you know--your friends, staff, family. Now 
imagine them as children just beginning to discover who they are but 
doing so in the face of taunts and intimidation. You cannot get a good 
education if you dread going to school. My amendment just says that 
schools would have to listen when a parent says ``My kid isn't safe'' 
and then do something about it.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking member for committing to hold 
this vote. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote to protect our 
children.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for 
bringing up the amendment and for the way he has participated in our 
debate and worked for us to make it possible to get a result.
  I am going to ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment. There is no 
doubt that bullying or harassment of children based on actual or 
perceived sexual orientation or gender identity is a terrible problem 
and has become in some parts of our country even accurately described 
as an epidemic. But the question is, Is this an argument that is best 
addressed to the local school board or to the State board of education 
or to a national school board in Washington, DC?
  We have 50 million children in 100,000 public schools and 3.5 million 
teachers. No more set of issues is more difficult to deal with on an 
individualized basis in a rural area in Alaska or the mountains of 
Tennessee or the middle of Harlem than a case of harassment or 
bullying. Teachers, principals, and school advisors deal with those 
every day. We do not know more about that than they do. The U.S. 
Department of Education cannot make regulations for that many different 
kinds of instances.
  This substitutes the judgment of the people closest to the children, 
who cherish them--substitutes the judgment of Washington bureaucrats 
for them. It allows the Federal Government to regulate and dictate 
local school gender identity policies, such as those related to 
restrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes. It will lead to costly 
lawsuits.
  It is well-intentioned. It is a problem that needs to be addressed, 
but it should be addressed by the local school board, the State board 
of education, and not by a national school board in Washington, DC.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, may I ask how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 10 seconds at 
this time.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 
more seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. This isn't about lawsuits; this is about schools doing 
the right thing when the parents ask. They are the same protections 
granted to the kids by virtue of their race. That wasn't a local issue; 
that was a Federal right we had to pass. The same with title IX for 
girls. That is why we just won the World Cup.

[[Page S5047]]

  This is the right thing to do. We are adults here. Let's protect 
children. Let's protect children. This is not about lawsuits. It is 
about adults, about a parent calling the principal and saying ``My kid 
is being harassed'' and then the principal will do something--because 
they aren't. They aren't in many, many cases.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 20 seconds 
to conclude.
  Mr. FRANKEN. I object. I am joking.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the question is whether difficult cases 
of bullying and harassment of whatever kind in 100,000 schools with 50 
million children are best handled by the judgment of men and women 
close to the children, close to the circumstances, or by Senators in 
Washington and Federal employees in the U.S. Department of Education.
  I believe this legitimate concern should be addressed by those who 
are closest to the children because they cherish the children more and 
they will care for them.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. RISCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 236 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     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--45

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Graham
     Nelson
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, as the Senate this week considers the first 
major reform bill for our Nation's public schools in over a decade, I 
rise to talk about how we can ensure that every one of our country's 
children goes to a great school no matter his or her ZIP Code or 
background. Our Nation has long struggled to fulfill our fundamental 
promise of equal opportunity since our Nation's founding. It is a 
struggle that, despite many efforts, continues today.
  Fifty years ago, as America fought to break down racial barriers in 
our Nation's classrooms, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act into law. This civil rights act recognized 
that without actively investing Federal resources in educating 
America's underserved children, their dreams would remain tragically 
deferred.
  Since then, our country has continued to struggle with this 
fundamental civil rights challenge. And five decades after Johnson's 
landmark law and 14 years after President Bush revamped it with the 
bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act, we still haven't found a way to 
ensure that as a nation, we hold every school to the high standards our 
children deserve.
  This week marks the latest effort in this long struggle. The Senate's 
reform bill, titled the ``Every Child Achieves Act,'' makes important 
strides to improve what went wrong in 2001's No Child Left Behind. I 
would like to start by commending Senator Patty Murray and Senator 
Lamar Alexander for accomplishing what has eluded the Senate for so 
many years--a truly bipartisan compromise that deals with some critical 
but often divisive issues at the heart of America's public schools. 
They have worked tirelessly on this bill because they understand the 
urgency of our national education crisis.
  In the wake of No Child Left Behind's Federal micromanagement of 
schools, this bill heeds an important lesson: Communities need to have 
some flexibility and some space to innovate and find their own 
solutions to their education problems. But I would urge my colleagues 
that as we work together to fix many of the law's weaknesses, we not 
lose sight of some of No Child Left Behind's important accomplishments.
  For all its many problems, it exposed uncomfortable realities in 
America's classrooms and empowered policymakers with real data that 
simply did not exist before. Most importantly, it refused to lower our 
Nation's expectations of any school and demanded that every child in 
America gets the education he or she deserves.
  In our drive to decrease the law's rigidity and address its many 
other challenges, we must maintain those high standards and continue to 
hold States and school districts accountable. Unfortunately, if it 
passed today, the Every Child Achieves Act would turn back the clock to 
a time when local control too often meant national indifference. It 
would risk letting too many of our children fall through the cracks.
  I, myself, have seen how this indifference can hurt America's 
students. For 20 years, I was actively involved with the national ``I 
Have a Dream'' Foundation, which works to send some of our country's 
most at-risk students to college. I had the opportunity to visit 
schools all over the United States, in some of our most stressed and 
challenged neighborhoods and some of our most struggling and difficult 
schools. When I met with students during those visits and asked them 
about their vision for their own future, while many wanted to become 
teachers, doctors or scientists, too many others did not believe those 
kinds of careers could ever be within their grasp.
  This, to me, illustrated the twin tragedies of our public education 
system; the fact that for many students with big dreams, their schools 
will not give them the chance to realize them, while for too many 
others, dreams long dead in their families and communities had taught 
them that daring to dream at all was futile.
  These students had fallen victim to what President George W. Bush so 
accurately described as the ``soft bigotry of low expectations.'' They 
had internalized the failings of the system around them to mean they 
were not worth investing in, so they might as well just give up from 
the beginning.
  There are two ways I believe we can and should improve the Every 
Child Achieves Act to change that message, to raise the expectations we 
communicate to kids from the day they are born to the day they enter 
the classroom, to the day they graduate.
  The first way is to pass amendments that strengthen Federal 
accountability provisions and shine a brighter spotlight on the small 
fraction of our schools that fail our children. Simply put, we cannot 
allow ourselves to lower our expectations for any of America's schools.
  I know for many of my colleagues and for teachers and students around 
the country, the very word ``accountability'' in the context of 
education is

[[Page S5048]]

associated with high-stakes testing and unfunded mandates, but it 
doesn't have to mean either of those things. Accountability means 
holding every school and every child to the same high standards because 
our public schools must work for every student no matter where they 
are, where they come from or how they learn. Accountability means not 
allowing schools to maintain the status quo when they fail to graduate 
large segments of their students. Accountability means refusing to 
lower our expectation even when the path forward seems hard.
  We have already seen what accountability can accomplish for our 
children. Over the past decade, all students, but particularly 
disadvantaged students, have graduated at higher and higher rates and 
are performing in math and reading better than ever before. The 
national high school graduation rate is currently 81 percent, its 
highest level on record. Since 2003, the reading gap between Black and 
White fourth graders has closed by 16 percentage points, and over the 
same period Hispanic eighth graders have closed the gap in math by 24 
percentage points.
  Federal accountability is a critical part of ensuring we invest in 
all American students as if they were our own children. I urge my 
colleagues to support Senator Murphy's amendment, which I am proud to 
join and cosponsor. This amendment would strengthen accountability in 
this bill by requiring States to identify low-performing schools and 
tailor interventions to help them improve their performance. It also 
ensures that schools set high goals for--and pay attention to--all 
students, including students with disabilities, low-income students, 
English language learners, Latino and African-American students.
  The second amendment I wish to address takes on another piece of 
increasing expectations of urging every one of our children to dream. 
That amendment is based on my bipartisan bill called the American Dream 
Accounts Act with Senator Rubio, and it would send the important 
message to low-income students that a college education can be within 
their grasp.
  For too long, college has been out of reach for the vast majority of 
poor Americans, but unlike in past decades, economic success today is 
defined by college access. With the new global economy, Americans with 
just a high school diploma earn literally $1 million less over their 
working lives compared to those who go to college. Yet too many of our 
students who need it most are not given the tools, the resources, and 
the information to complete a college education.
  As the administration has pointed out, just about 1 out of 10 
children from low-income families will complete a college degree by the 
time they are 24--just 1 out of 10. The American Dream Accounts Act is 
designed to address and break down many of the barriers to college 
access that our most at-risk students face in seeking higher education. 
They encourage partnerships between schools, colleges, nonprofits, and 
businesses to develop secure, Web-based individual student accounts 
that contain information about each student's academic preparedness, 
financial literacy, connects them to high-impact mentoring, and is tied 
to an individual college savings account.
  Instead of having each of these different resources available 
separately through separate silos, an American dream account connects 
them across existing separated programs and across existing education 
efforts at the State and Federal level. By connecting across these 
different silos, it deploys a powerful new tool and resource for 
students, parents, teachers, and mentors.
  Many of the kids I worked with over many years at the ``I Have a 
Dream'' Foundation have grown up in schools, communities, and families 
where almost no one around them had the opportunity for a college 
education. These kids took that to mean college just wasn't for them, 
that it shouldn't be a part of their plan for their future.
  As part of that organization, it was our job to change that 
perception, and I saw time and again how sending the message that 
college was a possibility from elementary school on had a powerful and 
compounding positive impact on these students' ideas of whom they could 
be and what they could achieve. It demonstrated that exciting and 
engaging not just young students but their parents, teachers, and an 
array of mentors has a cumulative, powerful, positive impact.
  The American dream accounts would expand on this idea and use modern 
social networking technology to bring together existing programs and 
deliver ideas that will work for more and more of our kids. The good 
news is that by utilizing existing Department of Education funds, this 
legislation would come at no additional cost to taxpayers.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment with Senator Rubio. It 
is amendment No. 2127, and it would authorize a pilot program to begin 
making the American dream accounts a reality.
  We have an opportunity right now to build on the bill that Senators 
Murray and Alexander wrote to reform our public schools in a way that 
communicates to every child in every public school that they deserve a 
high-quality education, the kind of education that tells them not only 
that they should have dreams but that those dreams are within their 
grasp.
  Mr. President, 55 years after U.S. marshals escorted first grader 
Ruby Bridges to school, the nature of and need for Federal intervention 
in public education has surely changed. While schools are no longer 
closed to certain races by law, too many students are dropping out of 
school too early or just not receiving an education that prepares them 
for college and future success.
  So while educational inequality is no longer a story of deliberate, 
legalized racism in need of Federal intervention, it is, unfortunately, 
still a persistent and tragic national reality that afflicts classrooms 
from coast to coast.
  We have made significant progress due in part to a bipartisan 
national commitment to raising the bar for all of America's children. 
We cannot allow ourselves to lower it once again.
  I look forward to continuing this important debate and working with 
my colleagues to make sure this bill strikes the right balance between 
Federal oversight and local flexibility. We must work together to make 
sure this bill moves us closer toward the goal President Johnson 
reached for when he first signed the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act into law.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar No. 
27, Calendar No. 28, Calendar No. 29, Calendar No. 30, and Calendar No. 
31, and that the Senate proceed to a vote without intervening action or 
debate on the nominations; that the motions to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that 
no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related 
statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative 
action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
object.
  The reason we should not confirm new judges to the Court of Federal 
Claims has little to do with these nominees and more to do with the 
court itself. It doesn't need new judges. We should keep in mind that 
the number of active judges authorized for the Court of Federal Claims 
by statute, 16, isn't a minimum number, it is a maximum. It is our duty 
as Senators to determine if the court needs that full contingent and to 
balance judicial needs in light of our obligation to be good stewards 
of taxpayer dollars.
  What the caseload data shows is that the court does not need all 16 
judges--far from it. As we can see from this chart, since 2007, the 
court's caseload has dropped dramatically and consistently every year. 
Last year, the court had 2,528 cases on its docket. That is 51 percent 
fewer than in 2011 and 68 percent fewer than in 2007, when the court 
had 7,185 cases on its docket.
  Today, a full-time judge on the court is responsible for an average 
caseload of 180 cases. That is far less than the average caseload of 
324 cases in 2011 and the average of 488 cases in 2007.
  In light of the dramatic drop in caseloads at the court, it is hard 
to justify

[[Page S5049]]

spending more money to confirm additional judges. The court currently 
also uses a contingent of six senior judges who have retired from 
active status but can continue to hear cases. While there are currently 
only 11 active judges, there are actually a total of 17 judges at the 
court hearing cases.
  Furthermore, we should understand that senior judges receive a 
lifetime annuity worth a full-time salary regardless of whether they 
handle cases. If the Senate confirms the five nominees, this will 
expand the number of judges receiving a salary at an extra cost of 
$800,000 every year.
  The bottom line is that there is no caseload crisis at the Court of 
Federal Claims. If anything, there is a caseload shortage. It therefore 
makes no sense to spend more taxpayer dollars on judges that the court 
simply does not need. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask my colleague from Arkansas, through 
the Chair, first, if we cannot receive consent to take up these 
nominations which were made over 15 months ago as a group. I wish to 
briefly describe one of the truly exceptional candidates. If I might 
also, I think it is important for all of us in the Chamber to recognize 
that the Court of Federal Claims, while the actual number of cases 
considered may have decreased, faces a steadily increasing number of 
complex cases which are subject to statutory case management deadlines 
that drive the workload of the court and have roughly doubled in recent 
years from 68 back in 2005 to 113 last year and likely double that this 
year. So the actual number of cases may be declining, but their 
complexity and their workload, because of the need for them to be 
resolved in a certain period of time, have steadily increased, and I 
will simply suggest to my colleague from Arkansas that looking more 
broadly at the workload would suggest some of these nominees are worthy 
of consideration and confirmation.
  I will briefly reference one of the five pending nominees, Jeri 
Somers, who has spent a decade at the DOJ civil division as a trial 
attorney but recently retired, having served in the U.S. Air Force 
Reserves as a lieutenant colonel, having spent two decades as a judge 
advocate and a military judge in the U.S. Air Force. She is a patriot, 
a veteran, a highly qualified attorney, and I will simply inquire of my 
colleague, through the Chair, whether any of the five nominees might be 
subject for consideration for confirmation today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I have to object. Again, this is not so 
much about a particular nominee but the fact that the Court of Federal 
Claims is operating with 11 active judges, and when you include the 
senior judges ready, able, and willing to hear cases, they have more 
than 16 judges allowed by statute, and those judges will continue to 
receive their salary even if we confirm any of these new judges.
  Furthermore, as someone who has practiced at the Court of Federal 
Claims myself many moons ago when I was a lawyer, albeit not a very 
good one, I know the caseload there has always been complex, and I 
simply think the judges who are at the court are ready, willing, and 
able to handle the court's work. Therefore, I must object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. In conclusion, we have a range of highly qualified 
nominees. Armando Bonilla would be the first Hispanic judge to hold a 
seat and has been with the Department of Justice. Thomas Halkowski, a 
third pending nominee, is a respected partner at Fish & Richardson in 
Wilmington, one of the preeminent IP law firms in the Nation, and has a 
wealth of experience at a variety of different Federal courts. I think 
all three of the nominees I referenced today will make excellent 
additions. While my colleague and I view the caseload differently, I 
think the President has nominated able and capable nominees and the 
court needs and deserves to not have to rely on senior status judges to 
meet its constitutional and statutory obligations.
  So, with that, I will yield the floor, although I will not yield on 
the issue.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 2095

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Peters 
amendment No. 2095. Financial literacy has been defined as the ability 
to use knowledge and skills to manage financial resources effectively 
for a lifetime of financial well-being. Unfortunately, too many 
American families, both parents and their children, lack basic 
financial skills. Recent studies have shown that future generations are 
likely to be less financially stable than those who preceded them.
  Just last year, the FINRA Investor Education Foundation conducted a 
survey and found that millenials engaged in problematic financial 
behaviors and expressed concerns about their debt. To address this 
issue, a number of States have included financial literacy as a core 
component of high school education.
  A separate FINRA study found that credit scores significantly 
improved and delinquency rates on credit accounts were reduced in 
States with financial literacy education. For example, that study found 
that credit scores improved by 11 points in Georgia, 16 points in 
Idaho, and 32 points in Texas.
  There is a clear need for practical education programming for both 
parents and students, and we should provide States with the flexibility 
to provide this programming. That is why I have filed amendment No. 
2095. The Peters amendment will include family financial literacy 
programming as an allowable use for title I parent and family 
engagement funding.
  Family financial literacy programming can ensure our Nation's parents 
and children have the skills necessary to properly utilize credit, 
finance an education, manage a household budget, and plan for 
retirement.
  I believe we must do all we can to help our Nation's parents and 
students succeed in every aspect of their lives.
  I thank Senator Murray and Senator Alexander for their leadership on 
this bill and for their willingness to work with me on this amendment. 
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Peters family 
financial literacy amendment No. 2095.
  Mr. President, in addition to my financial literacy amendment, I was 
happy to work with the chairman and ranking member to include language 
in the text of the bill that will help us identify and assist our most 
vulnerable children. The term ``dual status youth'' refers to children 
who have come into contact with both the child welfare and juvenile 
justice systems.
  A growing body of research has shown that dual status youth 
experience poor educational performance, higher recidivism rates, and 
higher detention rates. Many at-risk children lack stable home lives, 
and they are frequently funneled through the school-to-prison pipeline. 
I am glad the Every Child Achieves Act now includes language that would 
encourage States to identify dual status youth and improve intervention 
programs in order to reduce school suspensions, expulsions, and 
referrals to law enforcement.
  I was also pleased to join Senator Gardner in introducing an 
amendment to allow title I funds to be used to support concurrent and 
dual enrollment programs at eligible schools. This amendment would 
enable high school students to simultaneously receive college credit 
from courses taught by college-approved teachers in secondary 
education. With the cost of higher education continuing to grow, 
helping students get a head start on completing their college courses 
helps them save money and get ahead.
  I am proud that this body approved the Gardner-Peters amendment last 
week. This provision will make the dream of higher education more 
accessible to students in Michigan and across the country.


                   Working Americans and Overtime Pay

  Mr. President, I wish to speak at this time in strong support of 
plans to increase our Nation's overtime pay threshold for the first 
time in over a decade and restore meaning to a threshold that has 
significantly eroded over the last 40 years.
  In 1938, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act and President 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the bill into law. This landmark 
legislation represents an important promise that is as true today as it 
was 77 years ago--that if you work hard and play by the

[[Page S5050]]

rules, you will have a secure future. Ensuring fair overtime pay for 
employees is one of the most critical components of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act. It ensures that hard-working Americans are able to make 
an honest wage for their hard work. For middle-class families, who are 
the backbone of our country, and for those families working hard to get 
there, we must protect the important safeguards put in place by the 
Fair Labor Standards Act.
  I personally learned the value of hard work and the importance of 
protecting labor standards for all Americans from my mother, Madeleine. 
Born a French citizen, she met my father during World War II, married 
him, and moved to this country. She later worked as a nurse's aide. 
While she enjoyed working with her patients, she did not like the way 
she or her coworkers were treated by their employer, so she fought for 
a better workplace and ultimately to win union representation. She 
later went on to serve as a union steward.
  A strong labor movement nationwide helped build economic opportunity 
for millions of Americans just like my mother. Standing together to 
call for fair wages, safer work places, and better hours, American 
workers and their families helped build the American middle class and 
make the American dream a reality for regular folks.
  The strong protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act helped ensure 
that American workers have a minimum wage, a 40-hour workweek, and 
overtime pay. Unfortunately, we have allowed these protections to fall 
behind present-day needs. Today, growing income inequality and stagnant 
wages are a serious threat to our middle class, to our economy, and to 
our democracy.
  Americans are working harder and harder only to fall further and 
further behind, receiving less and less pay for their long hours. 
Middle-class families are struggling to stay afloat, and those who 
aspire to be in the middle class are finding it more and more difficult 
to achieve.
  Today, some employees are required to put in 50 or 60 hours or more a 
week and are not receiving any overtime pay for their efforts. Our 
Nation's overtime pay rules are long overdue for an update. Decades of 
inflation have outpaced the current overtime pay threshold of $23,600 
and eroded the value of an honest paycheck for millions of hard-working 
Americans. This means a worker earning only $23,600 gets paid the same 
whether they are working 40 hours or 60 hours in a week. That is simply 
unacceptable. This is not a fair wage, and it is not the American dream 
we fought to secure for generations.
  If we are truly committed to building a strong American economy, then 
we have to make sure American families can thrive. Raising the salary 
threshold for overtime pay will help nearly 5 million workers across 
the country and as many as 100,000 workers in Michigan earn better 
wages for their hard work.
  The pillars used to build and grow our middle class and support our 
democracy are in jeopardy of crumbling if we do not stand up and 
protect them. The American middle class and those who aspire to be in 
it are the heart and soul of our country, and we have an obligation to 
help every family nationwide realize their version of the American 
dream.
  My home State of Michigan is the birthplace of our Nation's auto 
industry, where American workers and their families helped build the 
middle class and make the American dream a reality for millions of 
people. We owe it to our future generations to preserve this legacy.
  I know there are some who do not believe we should update the 
overtime pay rules. They will oppose this rule saying it is a harmful 
attack on our Nation's business community. Well, I strongly disagree 
with that position.
  Prior to coming to Congress, I worked in business for more than 20 
years and I hired many people. I found that paying employees a fair 
wage is the best way to ensure a happy and productive workforce. It is 
good business, and it is the right thing to do. Providing a fair 
paycheck to hard-working Americans so they can build their family and 
own a home and help save for their children's college education as well 
as enjoy a secure retirement is good for business and it is good for 
our country. Workers who are paid fairly for their work are able to 
spend their hard-earned money in their communities, creating new 
customers for local businesses and in the process help our economy 
grow. If we invest in American workers--the best and brightest in the 
world--we will get a strong return on that investment.
  Enforcing the Fair Labor Standards Act gives American workers a fair 
wage for a fair day's work, and it will help keep the possibility of 
the American dream alive. We must do what is right for our workers. 
Updating the overtime pay rule will give millions of Americans a wage 
increase that they have earned and provide economic stability and 
security for hard-working families, while boosting our economy.
  I am proud to support these efforts, and I urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                      Nuclear Agreement With Iran

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to begin by taking a few moments to 
discuss the nuclear deal with Iran that was announced this morning. 
While I am still reviewing the intricacies of the deal, right now I am 
deeply skeptical that this agreement will prevent Iran from acquiring a 
nuclear weapon.
  The Obama administration appears to have capitulated on almost every 
redline it established at the outset, and I have strong doubts about 
whether the final provisions requiring inspections and curtailing 
enrichment and research and development are strong enough to be 
effective.
  Another significant concern is the fact that removal of sanctions 
will give Iran access to billions of dollars and other resources to 
fund its campaign for increased regional influence, which includes 
proxy wars and material support for terrorist organizations. In fact, 
if we look at almost anywhere in the Middle East, whether it is 
Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in the Gaza Strip or the Houthis in Yemen 
or the Shia militias in Iraq, they all trace their lineage back to and 
are proxies for Iran.
  I am deeply concerned about the fact that the deal creates a timeline 
for lifting the embargo on conventional and ballistic weapons without 
requiring Iran to change its behavior in any meaningful way. Given that 
Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and is already 
intervening in conflicts in the region, the last thing we should be 
doing is expanding Iran's access to weapons.
  In the lead-up to this agreement, Members of both parties expressed 
their concerns about the direction this deal was headed, and the 
release of the final document has confirmed many of those fears. 
Unfortunately, the President is apparently unwilling to listen to 
Members of either party, and in his speech this morning he threatened 
to veto any legislation that would prevent his deal from going into 
effect. Well, that is very disappointing, and it lends credence to the 
concern that the President is more worried about securing his political 
legacy than he is about actually preventing Iran from acquiring a 
weapon.
  Regardless of his veto threat, Members of both parties will carefully 
examine this deal and continue to do everything we can to ensure Iran 
never acquires a nuclear weapon.
  Mr. President, I wish to speak as well this week about what the 
Senate is currently doing. The Senate is taking a huge step forward on 
education.
  Nearly 8 years after No Child Left Behind expired, Congress is 
finally taking up legislation to reauthorize Federal K-12 education 
programs. While the law's focus on improving education for our students 
was laudable, No Child Left Behind must be updated. The Every Child 
Achieves Act--the legislation we are considering this week--will 
restore control of education to the people who know students best: 
teachers, parents, and local school boards.
  Just 10 percent of education funding each year comes from the Federal 
Government. Despite this, the Federal Government has a huge oversight 
role in education. Every day, teachers and administrators and students 
have their day shaped by a host of Federal mandates, from testing 
requirements to precisely what to do if a school is deemed ``failing.''
  Federal control of education has reached its peak in recent years, 
with the Federal Government going so far as to coerce States into 
adopting its preferred curriculum and educational standards.
  No Child Left Behind demanded that schools meet a number of 
benchmarks to be judged as adequate. Failure to meet these requirements 
would result in a school being labeled as failing. Unfortunately, the 
rigid nature of these standards meant that many schools

[[Page S5051]]

were at risk of being labeled as failing. In response, States have made 
it a habit to apply to the Federal Government for waivers from the 
terms of the law so they can avoid the burdensome requirements that 
come along with the ``failing'' label. The Obama administration has 
generally complied--but with Federal strings attached. Essentially, the 
administration informs States that it is happy to grant them waivers as 
long as they agree to implement the Federal Government's preferred 
academic standards, adopt the Federal Government's preferred method of 
evaluating teachers, and take the steps the Federal Government believes 
are the appropriate steps to address failing schools.
  Neither Congress nor the administration should be telling States and 
local communities what to teach in their schools. Decisions about 
education should be made by those who actually educate students, not by 
a group of bureaucrats or politicians in Washington, DC.
  As any teacher will tell us, education is not a one-size-fits-all 
proposition. Even within a single classroom, students are likely to 
come from a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences and have 
different learning styles. Teachers are constantly adapting their 
methods and material to meet the needs of the particular students they 
have in front of them. That is a lot harder to do when Washington is 
dictating those methods.
  The legislation we are considering today--the Every Child Achieves 
Act--will revoke the Federal Government's authority to dictate 
standards to the States. Specifically, this legislation explicitly 
prohibits the Federal Government from tying Federal funds to a State's 
adoption of specific educational standards. In other words, the Federal 
Government will no longer be able to blackmail States into adopting its 
preferred academic criteria.
  This is a huge victory for students and for teachers. Thanks to this 
legislation, States and localities will have much more freedom to adopt 
the standards and curricula that will help their students achieve.
  Another one of the problems created by No Child Left Behind, as any 
parent or teacher will tell you, is the phenomenon of overtesting. I 
have received hundreds of letters this year from teachers and parents 
concerned about the effect overtesting is having on students' 
education.
  While NCLB only required two or three tests per year, the law made 
these tests the primary indicator of a school's performance, which 
resulted in many schools deciding to teach to the test. The result? Not 
surprisingly, instead of teachers deciding what is important material 
based upon their knowledge of their subject, teachers' instructional 
priorities are often dictated by the material they think will be on the 
required tests. As a result, students may never receive instruction in 
important topics or concepts simply because they are not covered on the 
tests. In addition, instead of one or two yearly tests required by law, 
students are subject to months of preparatory testing in order to make 
sure the school maintains its ranking by gaining acceptable average 
scores on the mandated tests.
  It is undoubtedly true that the tests, including standardized tests, 
can be incredibly useful in the teaching process both as a diagnostic 
tool and as a measurement of student progress, but problems arise when 
tests become the only measure of progress.
  The Every Child Achieves Act keeps the testing requirements of No 
Child Left Behind but gives States the option to give a single 
comprehensive test, as they do now, or break up the assessment into 
smaller components that can be given throughout the school year.
  Most importantly, the Every Child Achieves Act removes test results 
as the primary indicator of a school's performance. In fact, it takes 
progress measurements out of the hands of the Federal Government 
entirely and gives them to the States. Under this bill, States, not the 
Federal Government, will be the ones developing accountability systems 
to measure schools' effectiveness. Instead of a one-size-fits-all 
Federal standard, each State will be able to identify the best ways to 
chart the progress of its schools and measure student performance.
  In addition, the Every Child Achieves Act removes the Federal 
Government's national teacher evaluation requirements and allows States 
to decide whether and how to measure the effectiveness of their 
teachers.
  I have offered several amendments to the Every Child Achieves Act, 
including two very important measures to address the tragic rash of 
student suicides that has beset Indian Country over the past several 
months. The first of these amendments would require the Secretary of 
Education to coordinate with the Secretary of the Interior and the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to report on their Federal 
response to these suicides, compile and analyze available Federal 
resources, and make recommendations for improving Federal programs. The 
second measure would strengthen the Project School Emergency Response 
to Violence Program--or Project SERV--to help schools prevent tragedies 
such as youth suicide. I am hopeful that the Senate will pass both of 
these measures.
  I am also pleased that the underlying bill contains important 
improvements that I championed to the Federal Impact Aid Program--a 
program that provides districts with revenue to make up for nontaxable 
Federal activity in school districts.
  The reforms contained in the Every Child Achieves Act have been a 
long time coming, and they have been greeted eagerly. This bill is 
supported by everyone from the school superintendents organization, to 
the National Governors Association, to Teach for America. And, of 
course, this legislation is strongly supported by both Republicans and 
Democrats in the Senate.
  One big reason a No Child Left Behind reauthorization has moved from 
legislation no Member of Congress wanted to touch to the bipartisan 
bill that is before us today is Republicans' commitment to restoring 
regular order to the Senate. We have restored the committee process and 
ensured that Members of both parties are able to make their voices 
heard through amendments. The result is legislation like the Every 
Child Achieves Act--a bill with strong bipartisan authorship and strong 
bipartisan support. I hope we will have many more achievements like 
this in the Republican-led Senate this year.
  We need to get control out of the hands of Washington bureaucrats--
people who have never been to South Dakota, much less a South Dakota 
school. They shouldn't be telling South Dakota teachers what to teach. 
The legislation before us today will help strengthen education in this 
country by putting decisionmaking about education where it belongs--in 
the hands of State and local school districts. I look forward to the 
Senate passing this bill later this week.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from South Dakota for 
highlighting the real benefits of doing away with No Child Left Behind, 
breaking down the national school board, and saying to States and 
localities across this country: We ought to put you in charge of K-
through-12 education.
  That is where the responsibility needs to be. That is where we will 
have decisions closer to students. And I don't think there is 
disagreement among Members of the Senate or Congress or Republicans or 
Democrats or people from the North or the South--we want to make sure 
K-through-12 education works. Every child should get across the goal 
line to graduation, and every child with a diploma should be marketable 
either to higher education or to a job with a skill that has a 
paycheck.
  I will say that the Federal Government's role is not to micromanage 
the education system; it is to be a financial partner to K-through-12 
education, to be a partner without strings, and to be a partner that 
provides equity across the board.
  So I am here to talk about the Full Education Opportunity Act of 
2015, which I hope will be an amendment to this bill. Title I-A is the 
Federal Government's central financial assistance to 21 million poor 
children in America. They attend school districts with high levels of 
poverty, and the kids come from low-income families. They define 
exactly what the Federal Government

[[Page S5052]]

should be focused on. It has served as the cornerstone of the Federal 
Government's education funding for K through 12 since elementary and 
secondary education was first signed into law in 1965. At the bill 
signing, President Lyndon Johnson said that the assistance provided 
under ESEA would serve to assist in the ``full educational 
opportunity'' of low-income students and to provide ``financial 
assistance to school districts serving areas with concentrations of 
children from low-income families.'' That summed it up in two 
sentences. That is what the Federal Government's funding source was 
designed to meet.
  So what has happened since 1965? Like every other funding formula in 
the Federal Government, as the population shifted somewhere else in the 
country, money never seemed to follow it.
  We had this debate several years ago on HIV-AIDS when we woke up one 
day and realized how much we were investing in the war against HIV-AIDS 
to keep people alive and find a cure, and we found towns like 
Washington that were getting a phenomenal amount of money but their 
HIV-AIDS population had gone down, and throughout rural America, we had 
an explosion of HIV-AIDS, primarily in African-American women. We 
worked and we worked and we worked, and we finally changed the 
legislation to reflect what the intent was so that the money followed 
the population it was intended to help. Today, there are individuals 
across this country in rural America who are now getting the drugs they 
need to either hold in check the disease or in hopes to slow its 
progression.
  Well, I am here today because in 1965 Lyndon Johnson said that is the 
Federal Government's role--to make sure we target low-income families, 
kids in poverty.
  Despite recognizing that these formula funds were not fully targeted 
at high-poverty areas, Congress has simply taken the easy route and 
added more formulas to title I-A in hopes that by putting more formulas 
out there, eventually it would help the people who were affected. Well, 
what it has done is it has compounded the problem.
  The inadequacies in how we target poverty today just aren't right. My 
amendment attempts to end this practice and creates a simple, highly 
targeted program toward poverty with a new formula.
  First, what does it do? It is important to make clear that this 
amendment only addresses title I formulas. It is not the overall 
funding--that is for appropriators to determine--but it is to structure 
the formula.
  I am a strong supporter of title I funding, and I believe, regardless 
of the amount at which title I is funded, it should be distributed 
fairly and targeted to its intended population, which is kids in 
poverty, low-income families. Simply adding more funds still allows the 
inequities in the formula to persist. That is why I am attempting to 
fix the formula once and for all.
  This amendment consolidates all of title I's formulas into one simple 
formula called equity grants. Let me say this. It simplifies I-A so 
that the calculation, put very simply, is equity grants equal the 
State's number of poor children times the national average of educating 
each child. It ends the policy that awards a wealthy State with title I 
money simply because they are able to spend more on education and 
therefore they get a higher allotment as a result. For decades, this 
has penalized poorer States that spend high shares of their tax revenue 
on education but don't spend as much in absolute terms as wealthier 
States. This change ensures that poor children born in a poor State 
aren't penalized because of their ZIP Code and for not living in a 
wealthy State elsewhere in the country.
  Why will equity grants work and where are they targeted? Very simply, 
this formula takes the number of low-income children in a State, 
multiplies that by how equitably a State spends its own money on 
helping low-income children, and then sends the amount to the school 
district in the State, while placing heavy weights on the school 
districts that exhibit the highest levels of poverty--embraced in the 
1965 initiative of President Johnson.
  Current law rewards States that spend a much higher amount of money 
on their students than poorer States that, despite spending large 
shares of their overall budget on education, cannot compete with 
wealthier States in absolute dollars. Essentially, as long as you are 
above the national average in spending, you get a very large title I 
bonus payment. For example, the national average per-pupil education 
spending in the country is $11,014. For States such as Pennsylvania, it 
is $13,864; Massachusetts, $14,515; and Connecticut, $16,631 per pupil. 
This has been a pretty good deal for them. For States such as 
Mississippi, it is $8,130; North Carolina, $8,090; and Utah spends 
$6,555--not so good a deal. Who gets cheated? The kids in poverty, kids 
from low-income families.
  Rewarding wealth over poverty is also contrary to the original 
purpose of title I-A funding. This has a real impact on how much a 
formula child will receive based upon the State in which he or she 
lives. For example, a child in Guilford County, NC, is only worth 
$1,128. A poor child in Albuquerque, NM, is only worth $1,158. A poor 
child in Seattle is only worth $1,240. On the other hand, a poor child 
in Philadelphia is worth $1,986. A poor child in New Jersey is worth 
$1,838. A poor child in Boston, MA, is worth $1,847. This is a highly 
inequitable and unfair formula to the poor children in most States. 
Because of the changes in this amendment, these disparities go away. 
They are almost completely eliminated.
  Eliminating this provision has been suggested by organizations like 
the Center for American Progress, the Formula Fairness Campaign, the 
Rural School and Community Trust, and others. These are not 
conservative groups. These are very left-of-center groups who said 
equity is important.
  No States should get a bonus payment just because they spend more or 
they are wealthy. The focus since 1965 was supposed to be kids in 
poverty. If you have more kids in poverty, you should receive a larger 
Federal share.
  This amendment also addresses the bonus that very large districts 
that might have small numbers of poverty have enjoyed. Under the 
current law, a district must meet a $6,500 formula child threshold to 
receive concentration grants. This has typically resulted in purely 
large and not necessarily high-concentration impoverished districts 
receiving large grant awards. This hurts smaller, mostly rural 
districts with large percentages of poverty but not necessarily high 
numbers. To fix this, we impart a 20-percent poverty test within the 
equity grant for large districts to show that they have a concentration 
of poverty.

  Now, this is a novel approach. We have a formula that is targeted to 
be a Federal partner in money, targeted at kids in poverty, and all of 
a sudden we are asking them: Show us that you have that population. 
Under the current law, districts also receive title I-A dollars for 
merely meeting a small threshold of 10 formula kids or just 2 percent 
of their overall population being poor.
  This has meant that schools in Loudoun County, VA--I am sure there 
are some in here who might have graduated from Loudoun County schools 
or have kids in Loudoun County schools--have only 3 percent poor 
children. It is one of the wealthiest counties in America. It receives 
about a $1 million as part of an overall nearly $1 billion budget. This 
is about half the entire spending of the State of South Dakota, which 
the previous speaker is from.
  Now, should he be cheated because they do not spend as much as 
Virginia, though he has kids in poverty, low-income families, 
individuals to whom in 1965 the Congress and the President said: This 
is who we should target--we the Federal Government on behalf of 
taxpayers. Well, this hurts smaller, rural districts with large 
percentages of poverty but not necessarily high numbers.
  Under current law, it is not going to change. We should do our best 
to send the money to districts in States that are truly in need by 
focusing the formula on poverty. Now, sometimes it is easier to see 
than it is to listen. This is the amendment--the Full Educational 
Opportunity Act. What do we do? It treats all low-income children the 
same. I think that is what the Federal Government is supposed to do--to 
target the poorest communities. That was the spirit of the 1965 law--to 
prioritize equity, meaning everybody should be

[[Page S5053]]

treated equal, that you should not disadvantage a poor child in one 
area to advantage a system in another area.
  Is it fair? A title I child versus a title I child? Denver, CO, 
$1,218; Boston, MA, $1,847; Miami, FL, $1,212; Philadelphia, PA, 
$1,986; Albuquerque, NM, $1,158; New Haven, CT, $1,717; Portland, OR, 
$1,292; Camden, NJ, $2,083; Seattle, WA, $1,240; New York City, 
$1,839--if I am over here, I think this funding formula is awfully good 
because we are getting rewarded whether we have poverty kids or not.
  Over here, who is being hurt? It is not the States. People have come 
down to the floor, and they have beaten me up on this amendment for the 
last few days. Oh, how could you do this? How could you take away 
something that we have already got? It is real simple. You don't have 
low-income poverty kids or at least you don't have as much as here. If 
you did you would qualify under the new formula.
  But it gets worse. Fair? Florida has the same number of low-income 
students, 690,000, as New York, 686,00. What is the distribution of 
title I funds? It is $774 million, $1.1 billion--the same population 
but New York receives $400 million more than the State of Florida. How 
can that be fair? Now, you can be greedy and say: We deserve it; that 
is what the formula said. You cannot punish us because this is not 
equitable.
  Well, maybe we can. But for once, Congress can do the right thing and 
fix the formula. That is all I am on the floor attempting to do with my 
amendment--to fix it. Since 1965 we have not had the backbone to do it 
when we figured out it was wrong. Well, when we see this, if it is 
targeted for low-income kids and they have the same numbers, they ought 
to get the same money. But no, some believe that $400 million is worth 
it because they have always gotten more.
  Here is New Mexico versus Massachusetts. There are 107,000 low-income 
students in New Mexico and 80,000 low-income students in Massachusetts. 
New Mexico receives $116 million. Massachusetts receives $116 million. 
It is the same amount of money, but there are 27,000 more low-income 
poverty kids in New Mexico. What do you say to a child in New Mexico 
that just happened to grow up in a poor family? You don't get to get as 
good an education. You should be have been born in Massachusetts. This 
is the Federal Government doing it with taxpayer money, and we don't 
have a problem with this.
  My God, this is at the heart of what the Federal Government is 
supposed to do. There are individuals who come down here and talk about 
equitable treatment all the time. This is the most unequal thing that 
can exist. Yet some would block this amendment from coming to the 
floor. Is this fair? This is title I-A allocation per poor child: 
Florida, $1,284; New York, $1,611; Minnesota, $1,189; Massachusetts, 
$1,453; Oregon, $1,149; Maryland, $1,585; Washington, $1,127; 
Connecticut, $1,447; New Mexico, $1,093; Pennsylvania, $1,517. It does 
not matter how you slice it. They get more. They get more if they do 
not have the population to support it.

  So who is getting more than their fair share? Boy, pictures speak 
louder than words. Look at that. The green States get more money. The 
white States, even though they have kids in poverty, they do not get an 
equitable distribution of Federal money through the title I-A program. 
It is embarrassing. It is embarrassing to Congress that we did not 
change this a long time ago.
  For poor children who lose under the current formula, this is the 
reverse. Now, it is the kids who live in the States that are red that 
get cheated. They get cheated based upon the 1965 initiative under 
Lyndon Johnson, signed into law after Congress passed it--the Early 
Childhood Program, elementary and secondary education. I do not think I 
have ever seen an issue that broadly affects America where there was 
this much disparity in equitable distribution of Federal dollars. As a 
matter of fact, I would say it could not happen. But not only did it 
happen, people argue that this is fair. Well, all I can say is that if 
you say this is fair, then you are not focused on what this formula was 
designed to do, and that is to target low-income kids in poverty.
  But you know it does not stop there. Let's go further. Let me take my 
State of North Carolina, with 391,000 low-income students. We get $417 
million in title I-A money. Pennsylvania has 357,000 low-income 
students. They get $542 million in title I money. So I have 34,000 more 
low-income children, but I am asked to be satisfied with $125 million 
less in money to target low-income kids in poverty.
  Now, I think I am being pretty diplomatic when I come down here and 
show things like this. This is what America hates. This is what makes 
them sick. This is what they think is a great example that we don't 
have a sense of reality. What do you say to a kid in North Carolina who 
struggles through K-through-12 education when you say: You are worth 
$125 million less if you are in poverty than the investment we are 
going to make in Pennsylvania.
  Well, it is only appropriate that the Presiding Officer would be from 
Colorado, which has 143,000 low-income students and receives $150 
million. Maryland has 124,000 low-income students and receives $196 
million. There are 19,000 more low-income students in Colorado, but you 
get $46 million less. I am sure the Presiding Officer has the same hard 
time I do going back to Colorado and saying: Don't worry; this is fair. 
This is fair because it has been this way for 25 years.
  The money is supposed to follow the population we are targeting to be 
invested in. In this particular case, it is the most at-risk in our 
country, from getting the tools they need to getting a job that has a 
paycheck. Fair?
  Nevada, the minority leader's State has 102,000 low-income students. 
They get $116 million. Connecticut has 80,000 low-income students. They 
get $116 million. Well, if I were from Nevada, I would be furious at 
this. You would think that if you get the same amount of money, you 
should at least have the same amount of kids in poverty, because that 
is what the formula was designed to do.
  But no, wealthy States have found ways to game it by getting bonus 
payments. Fair?
  Indiana, the State of the previous Presiding Officer before this one, 
has 235,000 low-income students. They get $256 million in Indiana. 
There are 228,000 low-income students in New Jersey. They get $331 
million--7,000 more low-income students in Indiana and somehow New 
Jersey gets $75 million more than Indiana. This is sort of 
embarrassing. Some find no shame in this: We are just out for as much 
money as our State can get.
  Let me say to my colleagues that I don't know what the outcome of 
this amendment is going to be. But let me ask you for 1 minute to put 
the windfall your State is getting aside and ask yourself this: Do we 
have an obligation, based upon how elementary and secondary education 
was perceived and conceived in 1965, to actually make sure that the 
money follows where kids in poverty are?
  If not, don't come down here and talk about equity on every other 
funding formula. Don't say that money should follow people, when you 
have the most at-risk population, kids in poverty, and we are talking 
educating them to where they can function in society, to where they can 
get a job and a paycheck and not be a ward of anybody, where they can 
be independent and enjoy every opportunity this country has to offer.
  Well, you cannot be for that and be against this amendment. You 
cannot be for those kids and not fund them where every State is red. It 
cannot happen. But over history, just like other things, this creates 
winners and a lot of losers. But let me suggest to you that you take 
these lines away, and you just see the United States of America. Who 
should be the winners? Every kid in poverty.
  Every kid born into a low-income family should be the recipient of 
title I-A money in an equal capacity because they should have as good 
an opportunity and a future--an economic future--regardless of the 
State they live in, regardless of the ZIP Code. Regardless of whether 
they are in rural America or urban America, there shouldn't be a 
discrepancy. This rights a very bad wrong. This makes it work for all 
kids in poverty--not some kids, not school districts that are wealthy, 
but all kids in poverty.
  Let me just say for my colleagues that it is not going to happen 
unless we

[[Page S5054]]

have a backbone that is strong enough to actually bring an amendment up 
and vote on it. I am willing to do that. I am willing to roll the dice.
  Look at the number of States that benefit from this--and I said that 
wrong. Look at the number of kids that benefit from this change. This 
is not about States, and it is not about parties. This is about kids. 
It is what this act was created for in 1965, and I can't find the 
reason as to why Congress didn't fix it before 2015. But the fact is 
that we are talking about reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. It happens about once every 10 years. We have an 
opportunity to fix this inequity now.
  I don't want to look back and say: I had an opportunity to fix it, 
but, you know, that was hard. It was difficult. It meant that there 
were winners and losers.
  Everybody cannot be a winner when some take advantage of the system 
like this has. Well, there is only one way to make everybody a winner, 
and that is to fix the formula. Regardless of how long it takes us to 
work out of it, we can fix it from this point forward.
  I urge my colleagues, if given the opportunity to vote on the Burr-
Bennet Full Educational Opportunity Act, to support it. I can't believe 
I am in the Senate saying ``if, if, if'' we are given an opportunity to 
actually bring up a germane, relevant amendment that affects every kid 
in poverty in the United States. I can't imagine the Senate is not 
willing to debate and vote on that amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am not sure what the intentions are 
of the chairman of the energy committee. As chairman, I would be 
delighted to yield to her if she is going to take some time on the 
floor, and I would need about 10 minutes for my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it was my understanding that I was next 
in the queue. If I am incorrect, I would be happy to get this squared 
away. I, too, have about 15 minutes.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am happy to yield. I thought we went 
back and forth from side to side ordinarily, but I am very happy to 
yield. I have a chairman who is a very busy person.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague from Rhode Island, and I thank 
him for the opportunity to speak directly to this bill this afternoon.
  Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly about the measure we have on 
the floor today, the Every Child Achieves Act, the bill where we have 
all been waiting for about 15 years to fix the flawed one-size-fits-all 
No Child Left Behind Act.
  I begin my comments by thanking Senator Alexander, who is the 
chairman, as well as Senator Murray, the ranking member, for how they 
have managed this legislation from the very beginning.
  I think we know there is a little bit of inside baseball that goes on 
around here that perhaps isn't interesting to many. But I think it is 
important to note that Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray 
have led this bill in a way that has fostered consensus building and, I 
think, very constructive negotiations.
  More importantly, in the process they allowed the voices of the 
American people--of Alaskans--to be heard. I think that was one of the 
reasons why we saw this legislation move unanimously through the HELP 
Committee in April, and I think that is one of the reasons that you are 
seeing us move through a series of amendments on issues that are 
considerable but in a very constructive manner and certainly respectful 
of one another. So I wish to acknowledge and recognize the masterful 
work they have done in guiding this bill forward.
  I also wish to recognize the work of my staff. Karen McCarthy on my 
staff has done yeoman's work in working with so many Alaskans, 
educators, administrators, and the like. That has been an effort that I 
think has yielded benefit to folks in my home State. But I also wish to 
recognize the work of those on both Senator Murray's staff as well as 
Senator Alexander's--very hard-working professional staff who are a 
credit to their Senators and their State.
  So why am I standing today before you in support of the Every Child 
Achieves Act?
  When Alaskans are visiting about the education bill that we know as 
No Child Left Behind, it is clear that to a number--whether you are an 
educator, whether it is students, parents, tribes; it didn't make any 
difference--nobody was happy. The one-size-fits-all mandate, poor 
tribal consultation, and the lack of State and local control over our 
children's education clearly were not working.
  I say that one of the first immersions into politics I had was when I 
was a PTA president at my son's elementary school. That, for me, was my 
first introduction to what the mandates meant that were coming out of 
No Child Left Behind when our school was deemed as a failure because we 
failed to meet AYP because of the 31 different ways to fail. We 
certainly made it by not having sufficient subgroups taking the test on 
the day that the test was required. Our neighborhood school was a 
failure. It didn't seem to me that it made sense and still does not.
  So I make sure to take that experience as a mom, as a PTA president, 
and as one for whom No Child Left Behind was not just some theoretical 
exercise. It was Federal law imposed in my town and in my schools, 
which had a negative and a direct impact on those who were part of our 
school.
  So my top priority was to make sure that any rewrite of No Child Left 
Behind gave more power to make decisions about Alaska's schools to 
Alaska and to our local communities.
  The failed experiment of adequate yearly progress had to go. Under 
the Every Child Achieves Act, that is done.
  The failed highly qualified teacher mandates that made little sense 
and also did not work had to go, and they are gone. States will again 
be able to decide what qualifications and skills to demand of teachers 
and principals, whether to have a statewide evaluation system, and, if 
so, whether those evaluations consider growth in student proficiency.
  Now, I am very aware that some across the country--in fact, I have 
heard from some in Alaska--are concerned that the Every Child Achieves 
Act does not do enough to return local control to schools, that it 
perpetuates, somehow, the common core standards. In fact, the Every 
Child Achieves Act specifically and expressly prohibits the Secretary 
from having any authority to ``mandate, direct, control, coerce, or 
exercise any direction or supervision over any of the challenging State 
academic standards adopted or implemented by a State.''
  Now I have also heard that some are concerned that the bill maintains 
secretarial approval of State plans, with the implication then that the 
Secretary will be able to change or deny elements of State plans, 
whether it is State standards, assessments or accountability systems, 
as somehow a condition of approval. But the Every Child Achieves Act 
also places a number of limitations on the Secretary's authority over 
the State's plans.
  The act prohibits the Secretary from requiring a State to include or 
delete any element of its State standards from the State plans, use 
specific assessment instruments or items, set goals, timelines, weights 
or significance to any indicators of student proficiency, include or 
delete from the plan standards, measures, assessment, student growth 
benchmarks or goals of student achievement for school accountability, 
as well as any aspect of teacher or principal quality, effectiveness or 
evaluations systems, or require any data collection beyond current 
reporting requirements. There are similar prohibitions that are 
scattered throughout the Every Child Achieves Act.
  In short, I am confident that the act returns control of State 
standards, curriculum, instruction, assessments, educator 
qualifications, and school accountability to the State of Alaska, and 
that is where I want it to be.
  I also have other reasons for supporting the act that will directly 
impact students, parents, educators, and communities across Alaska in a 
positive way and with provisions that Alaskans ask for most 
specifically.
  I acknowledge the work that I was able to do with Senator Boxer. 
Together we worked to craft the support

[[Page S5055]]

for the Afterschool for America's Children Act. She and I worked on 
this bill to update and strengthen the 21st Community Learning Centers 
afterschool program across the country. We worked with a number of 
other Members in the Senate to make sure that this important program--
the program that keeps our children safe and engaged after school and 
during the summer--works for all of our States.
  We worked with the chairman and ranking member, and after a lot of 
good negotiation, the Afterschool for America's Children Act, with some 
amendment, was included in the Every Child Achieves Act, and this was 
done by unanimous consent in the HELP Committee, which I appreciate.
  On the issue of how we ensure that our Native children are cared for 
and addressed in a real and meaningful way, there were several 
provisions that we were able to include in the act to better meet the 
needs of Native children.
  At my request, the act requires the States and school districts, 
where applicable, to consult and engage with the American Indian, 
Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian tribes and parents in creating State 
and local plans and in implementing Federal education programs that 
serve Native students in order to meet their cultural language and 
education needs. These are our Nation's first peoples, with whom the 
United States has a constitutionally mandated responsibility to 
interact with on a government-to-government basis. So I think it is 
time that our tribes and our Native organizations throughout the 
country were part of designing the plans and shaping the programs used 
to improve schools that serve our Native students.
  Senator Franken and I, working with Senator Tester, were able to 
include a new program in the Every Child Achieves Act to help our 
Nation's first peoples maintain and revitalize their Native languages 
through the schools. This is a new grant program that will support the 
creation, the improvement, and the expansion of Native language 
immersion schools in which Alaska Native, American Indian, and Native 
Hawaiian students learn their lessons through ancestral languages. This 
opportunity will help preserve the fast-vanishing Native languages of 
our first peoples.
  So what we worked to do within the program was that the Native 
Alaskan language immersion schools and programs will help Native 
language immersion schools develop curriculum and assessments, provide 
professional development to teachers and other staff, and carry out 
activities that will promote the maintenance and revitalization of 
these endangered languages.
  This is a provision where I really am quite proud of what we have 
been able to do, working with our colleagues to make sure that we do 
not lose that focus in this important act.
  We also eliminate some technical redtape that makes it nearly 
impossible for Alaska's rural school districts to claim impact aid 
dollars to which they are entitled just because NCLB and the Alaska 
Native Claims Settlement Act didn't play well together. While it is 
more complicated to explain, I just leave it by saying that many rural 
Alaskan school districts are no longer going to have to bang their 
heads against a brick wall of illogical and contradictory Federal rules 
after this provision is enacted. And that is always a good thing.
  I would point out that fixing this problem started because a handful 
of schools, business officials, and superintendents took the time to 
reach out to me to let me know: We have a problem here. This is really 
one of those examples where working together we are all building 
legislation.
  I am also quite proud to have helped move strong improvements to the 
Alaska Native Education Equity Program. We call it ANEP in this 
legislation. For some years now, Alaska Native leaders have asked: Why 
do schools get all of the title VII Indian education money and most of 
the ANEP funding. They explained that they are more than ready to take 
on responsibility to help their children achieve in school. Alaska 
Native leaders have a valuable and, indeed, indispensable role to play 
in designing and implementing programs to help our children succeed. 
These are sound arguments.

  While Alaska receives no funding from the Bureau of Indian Education, 
and our schools receive the title VII, part A funding, the government-
to-government relationship between the Federal Government and Alaska 
tribes and Native organizations has not been fully honored under ANEP.
  Under the amendments we include in the act, ANEP funds will either go 
directly to tribes and Native organizations that have expertise running 
education programs or the funds will go to tribes and Native 
organizations without such experience that partner with school 
districts. In addition, tribes and tribal organizations may partner 
with the university and other Non-Native entities if they so choose. 
This will not only honor our constitutional relationship to Alaska 
Natives but ensure that they can take on more responsibility for 
helping their children succeed, which, again, is the right thing to do.
  In closing, I wish to say that the Every Child Achieves Act is a good 
piece of legislation, and it is getting better with each day as we 
consider additional amendments. It is far better than what we ever had 
with No Child Left Behind.
  While I am positive that each of us will have more thoughts about how 
this could be a better bill, be a more perfect piece of legislation if 
only one or two more changes were made, on the whole this is a sound 
improvement over the current, failed law. I certainly intend to be 
supportive as we move through the end of this process.
  With that, I appreciate the courtesy of my colleague from Rhode 
Island in deferring, and know that when I have a similar opportunity to 
yield to the Senator, I shall do so.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I wish to join Chairman Murkowski in 
expressing my satisfaction and pleasure with this bill we are on and 
join her in commending the leadership of Ranking Member Patty Murray 
and Chairman Lamar Alexander. As a result of their work, we have a 
significant piece of legislation before us. It received bipartisan 
support in the committee, and I think the secret of their success was 
that they knew how to let Senators be Senators and work on a bill, 
really on the merits of it, without a lot of partisan gunslinging. As a 
result, the legislation before us creates a tremendous improvement in 
K-2 education over the failed No Child Left Behind Act. The process 
that led to this was bipartisan, substantive, and thorough. They really 
listened to a wide array of viewpoints. The result is this strong 
bipartisan proposal. As one of my senior colleagues on the committee 
said, this is what happens when you have committee leaders who really 
know what they are doing.
  By now, most Americans--certainly my constituents--are familiar with 
the failures of No Child Left Behind. It overemphasized a peculiar form 
of testing, a form of testing in which the student took the test but 
wasn't graded on it. The subject of the test really was the performance 
of the school itself. Schools became frantic to heap up student 
performance to protect themselves. As a result, there was a lot of 
drama in the schools around these tests. If you did not do well, that 
pitched you into a narrow, one-size-fits-all approach to fixing the 
low-performing school. That combination served neither students nor 
communities well.
  The Every Child Achieves Act is based on a very simple idea that I 
think has broad support in the Senate: Less classroom time spent on 
this frantic test preparation for the high-stakes exams means more time 
actually learning. The Every Child Achieves Act allows States to take a 
whole range of factors into account to gauge how students are doing and 
how the schools are doing, not just one test. I call that the data 
dashboard. It can include things such as graduation rates, college 
performance rates afterwards, how many students are taking AP classes 
and SAT tests, incidents of violence or bullying, and even working 
conditions for teachers. It is something we have worked on in Rhode 
Island through something called the InfoWorks Program. It is a 
commonsense way of understanding school and student performance without 
creating this massive distraction and drama.
  Less emphasis on this peculiar high-stakes testing regime means more 
time for teachers to teach a more balanced,

[[Page S5056]]

well-rounded curriculum, giving attention to important subjects such as 
history and the arts, which, because they weren't covered under these 
high-pressure standardized tests, fell out of the curriculum. So what 
parents ought to see after we pass this bill is a much richer 
curriculum for their kids and one that some kids simply need in order 
to stay interested in school. If arts are your passion as a child and 
if that has fallen out because of this testing regime, you really have 
been hurt. If history and the stories of what happened in the olden 
days are what really gets you excited about education and if that gets 
squeezed out so you can do the math and the reading test better, you 
really have been hurt as a student. So that has changed. I am glad we 
have language in this bill that supports civics and American history 
education so that beyond reading and math--the tested subjects--
students who graduate from public education have a real understanding 
of what it means to be an American citizen. It means something to be an 
American citizen. They need to understand the trajectory of this 
country so that they can fill that role as American citizens better.
  The bill supports school libraries, which is an issue my senior 
Senator, Jack Reed, has long championed and which I was proud to 
support in committee.
  It includes an initiative I supported that was led by Senator 
Mikulski to provide support for gifted and talented students, 
particularly those who are in high-poverty schools. It can be hard to 
keep a high-ability child engaged and motivated if they are not 
challenged. I believe Senator Mikulski's language will be a big help to 
these kids, their teachers, and their parents.
  When a school does fall short, the Every Child Achieves Act rejects 
the overly punitive interventions of the No Child Left Behind Act. 
Instead, it allows communities, parents, and teachers to work together 
to improve their school in ways that make sense for the students and 
give them the tools to succeed.
  In my experience, I have learned that the greatest unmet area--at 
least in Rhode Island--is in middle schools. When I talk to people from 
other States, they see the same thing. Those middle grades are a 
tipping point in the lives of many students, especially those at risk 
of dropping out.
  When I was Rhode Island's attorney general, I saw hundreds of 
juvenile cases that had a common thread, which was catastrophic levels 
of middle school truancy. In order to get a better handle on what was 
happening in the middle schools, I adopted one--the Oliver Hazard Perry 
Middle School in Providence. We worked hard to create a real 
relationship between the police department and the school. We helped 
get truant kids back in classrooms. We began a mentoring program 
between students and the attorneys in my office. We brought in 
community groups to start afterschool programs. We did a lot of 
different things.
  Those years of working with middle school stakeholders helped me 
realize how much the middle grades bear on a child's future. It is an 
age when the child is beginning to make his or her own decisions, which 
can be dangerously bad ones at that time. But they can still be 
influenced by positive adults and by enriching experiences in their 
lives.
  Many students who fail in high school showed the warning signs in 
middle school. We need to be reaching back into middle school to help 
them stay on track. That is why I am so glad to have partnered with our 
friend Senator Baldwin on a measure that requires States to identify 
and support students at risk of dropping out in middle school and not 
wait until they are in serious trouble in high school.
  I am also proud that the bill includes key elements of the Community 
Partnerships in Education Act, the House version of which was 
championed by my House colleague Congressman David Cicilline.
  The outstanding success in Rhode Island of the Providence After 
School Alliance shows that schools and their students can thrive with 
help from strong community partners focused on sustainable and 
coordinated afterschool learning opportunities. PASA is really a model. 
Community-based afterschool has long been underappreciated, and I am 
glad it is on an even basis in this bill with school-based afterschool.
  The Every Child Achieves Act also makes progress in educating 
students who have become involved in the criminal justice system. As 
with the juvenile justice reauthorization that I am working on with 
Chairman Grassley in the Judiciary Committee, this bill tries to break 
the cycle of troubled kids who enter the juvenile justice system, who 
get marginalized, who fall further behind in their education, leading 
to more trouble and ultimately to crime. This phenomenon is referred to 
as the school-to-prison-pipeline, and it is tragic and it needs to end.
  I have also seen and heard how Federal, State, and local regulations 
can get in the way of innovative reforms. Over the last 2 years, I have 
worked closely with Rhode Island educators, who have told me time and 
time again that they could achieve much better results if not for the 
layers of professional education bureaucracy stifling innovation at 
multiple levels.
  I am working to include an amendment to establish an innovation 
schools demonstration, giving teachers, parents, and school leaders, 
who have a unique understanding of the students and communities they 
serve, the flexibility to turn those ideas into action.
  In Rhode Island, I have heard from school leaders who would like to 
extend the school day for struggling students, reboot their curriculum, 
take ownership over their school's budgeting and financing, or better 
manage their school's human resources. But they can't because existing 
rules and regulations get in the way. They are often daunting because 
if you try to get after the local regulations, you still have the State 
regulations. If you try to go after the local and the State 
regulations, you still have the Federal regulations. So they give up.
  My amendment establishes a fast-track process to give public schools 
relief from barriers to school-level innovation--relief from local, 
State, and Federal regulations.
  Here is what Victor Capellan, superintendent of the Central Falls, 
RI, School District, told me: ``As a leader, having more flexibility to 
design the learning around the needs of my students and teachers and 
within the local context that exists--and not based on old and fixed 
conditions--makes all the sense in the world to me.''
  Overall, the Every Child Achieves Act returns more decisionmaking 
authority to public schools, gives them tools to help every student 
succeed, and promotes greater flexibility in achieving high standards.
  As I prepared at home for this bill, I worked with a lot of Rhode 
Islanders to learn what was needed. I am grateful to the groups who 
gave me so much time. Many of us met over and over to work through 
these issues and lay the foundation, particularly for the middle school 
part of the bill and for the innovation schools part of the bill. There 
was a lot of good Rhode Island work that went into those, and I 
appreciate it.
  I believe this bill responds to the needs and concerns of the many 
Rhode Island teachers, reformers, students, school administrators, and 
union officials I worked with. I am proud to support it.
  I will close by saying one last thing. There are many issues we deal 
with where we experience a lot of confrontation. Often we come into a 
situation thinking we know what the confrontation is. Before we even 
get to it, we anticipate the confrontation. What I learned from sitting 
down and spending real time with teachers who are in teachers unions, 
with reformers who are determined to make schools better and able to 
innovate, administrators who work in public schools and the 
administrators who work in charter schools, you put them all together 
and they agree on so much of what is in this bill. If you treat people 
involved in this system with the respect they deserve individually, and 
if you listen to them, the agreement is far greater than the 
disagreement.

  I will close where I began. What Chairman Alexander and Ranking 
Member Murray did was to create a process where we could be Senators, 
and as a Senator I was able to bring those voices from Rhode Island 
into this process in a meaningful way. My ability to bring that voice 
in a meaningful way empowered me to be able to

[[Page S5057]]

bring those voices together back in Rhode Island and find the kind of 
agreement that has enabled these successes, so I am very grateful to 
them as well.
  With that comment, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________