Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 110 (Wednesday, July 15, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 15, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5092-S5124]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EVERY CHILD ACHIEVES ACT OF 2015

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 1177, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1177) to reauthorize the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to ensure that every child
achieves.

Pending:

[[Page S5093]]

Alexander/Murray amendment No. 2089, in the nature of a
substitute.
Murray (for Peters) amendment No. 2095 (to amendment No.
2089), to allow local educational agencies to use parent and
family engagement funds for financial literacy activities.
Murray (for Warren/Gardner) amendment No. 2120 (to
amendment No. 2089), to amend section 1111(d) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 regarding the
cross-tabulation of student data.
Alexander (for Kirk) amendment No. 2161 (to amendment No.
2089), to ensure that States measure and report on indicators
of student access to critical educational resources and
identify disparities in such resources.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 10:30
a.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, is the time under this quorum call we will
be in equally divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is not equally divided.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be
equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to address an amendment I am
proposing to the bill, the Every Child Achieves Act. I am not going to
ask to call up the amendment at this time, but I certainly would like
to do so at a later point in the day. I hope this amendment will be
part of any effort to wrap-up debate on this bill because it addresses
an important component that is being left out of discussion on the
Every Child Achieves Act.
The Every Child Achieves Act is the authorization act, but it leaves
out the vision for school policy. This is a bipartisan bill. It is a
bill that would give a lot more flexibility to our States, and it has
been an important effort to address many shortcomings in the former
act, the No Child Left Behind Act, that in fact left a lot of children
behind. In my discussions with educators throughout the State of
Oregon, with parents, administrators, and teachers, they found a great
number of difficulties and problems with an act that was undermining
the success of our public schools, leaving a huge number of children
behind, and focusing on what these educators referred to as ``the
bubble''--that is, those children who are close enough to the testing
line to get them over the top, while decreasing attention paid to those
children who could already meet the testing line or those they think
were not able to get to that line. That is not a holistic,
comprehensive education system addressing the needs of all our
children. So I am delighted to see this reform on the floor of the
Senate. The focus on assisting every child in achieving is appropriate.
But we cannot achieve a world-class education system that responds to
a world knowledge economy, preparing our children to be fully
successful members of that world knowledge economy, if we do not
provide the resources necessary for our schools to thrive. It strikes
me as a real failure of our legislative process that a generation after
I went through elementary and secondary education, we are a far richer
nation, but our schools have far fewer resources.
My children have been attending public schools in the same blue-
collar school district I grew up in. I have a firsthand view of the
difference between what the school provided when I was there and what
has been provided while my children are there. The short conclusion is
that our classrooms are more crowded and our schools are unable to
provide the same range of options that benefited my generation.
How is it that we are a much richer nation, but we are undervaluing
and underfunding our elementary and secondary education system in this
Nation? Well, we can tie that back to a lot that has transpired,
including a huge growth in inequality in our Nation. But here is the
key point: While we sit here on the floor debating better education
policy, shouldn't we also be recognizing explicitly this huge failure
to provide basic resources to the elementary and secondary education
system?
The funding cuts that are currently anticipated under the sequester
would bring Federal investments and programs under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act to their lowest levels since fiscal year
2002. Let me repeat that: the lowest level since fiscal year 2002. Of
the lowest achieving 5 percent of schools that receive funds under part
A of title I of such act, about two-thirds of students are not meeting
their grade-level standards. It is certainly a more difficult task for
teachers to enable students to meet those standards when our classrooms
are more crowded.

The proposed appropriations act cuts funding for part A of title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by $850 million as
compared to the President's budget and the Democratic funding
alternative.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time for debate has expired.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend the
time allotted to complete my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, research shows that high-quality early
education is critical to the educational development of every child.
There, too, we are underfunding the effort. The proposed appropriations
act provides no funding for preschool development grants and a cut of
$750 million as compared to the President's budget and the Democratic
alternative.
Now, this is happening--this underfunding of education--within the
construct known as the sequester. The sequester was partially
alleviated 2 years ago by a budget deal known as Ryan-Murray. That
Ryan-Murray agreement led to saying that according to the sequester
principle defense spending and nondefense spending would be treated
equally. If one is capped, the other is capped. If one is raised, the
other is raised.
That fundamental understanding led to an improvement over the last 2
years. But that improvement is gone. So at the very moment, we are
talking about better education policy, and we are talking about worse
education funding. That is simply wrong--wrong for our children, wrong
for the next generation and the success of America. So let's embrace
that second half of the conversation and through my amendment--
amendment No. 2203--call for an intense negotiation to occur,
essentially to restore appropriate funding on the nondefense programs.
This is a rational counterpart to the debate over the bill that we
have before us right now. It is certainly important for America to
recognize that you cannot, on the one hand, call for better education
policy and on the other hand devastate the funding for early childhood
education and devastate the funding for K-12 education and feel like
you have done something to make American education work better, because
you have not.
If you have underfunded education, you have undervalued our children,
and you have undermined the future success of our Nation. I hope that
amendment No. 2203, which calls upon the House and Senate to come
together and address this failure of funding, will be a significant
part of our conversation as we work to wrap up debate on the Every
Child Achieves Act.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senator from Maine be allowed to speak for 5 minutes following my
comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. For the information of Senators, within a few minutes
we hope to have a cloture vote. We are still working out an agreement,
but we hope to have that done within a very few minutes and may begin
to move on

[[Page S5094]]

that shortly after the Senator from Maine finishes his remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. KING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate as in morning business for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Nuclear Agreement With Iran

Mr. KING. ``Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this
Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of
ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one
or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us
down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.'' That was
Abraham Lincoln in a message to Congress on December 1, 1862. I think
his words echo today as we talk about the serious and solemn issues
before us and the one that will be coming up within 60 days, the
consideration of the agreement with Iran.
We are embarked on a historic process, a process that will result in
one of the most important votes that any of us will ever take in this
body, a vote that entails risks of war and peace, of life and death, of
relationships in the Middle East and throughout the world.
I have been thinking in the last 24 hours about how to approach this
decision, and I would like to share that today. This is a solemn
responsibility. The first step for this Senator is to read the
agreement word for word and to note in the margins the questions, data,
and analysis that we think we need in order to make this decision. That
is No. 1.
No. 2 is to seek expertise, to reach outside of this body to people
in the nuclear field--one literally needs to be a nuclear physicist to
understand some parts of this agreement--to arms inspection people, to
economists, to foreign policy experts. I hope and expect this will
happen in hearings before the Foreign Relations Committee and other
committees of this Senate, but it is also incumbent upon us as
individuals to reach out and to try to gain as much knowledge and
expertise in the facts of this agreement as we possibly can.
Then I think we need to debate--to really debate with the Senators
here in the Chamber, face to face. Our legal system is based upon the
principle of an adversarial system where truth emerges from the fire of
argument. And I believe that is something we owe the American people,
not the strange debate we have where one person comes and speaks to an
empty Chamber and then another person comes and speaks to an empty
Chamber. I think this is an occasion where Senators should confront one
another with their best arguments, their best facts, and listen to one
another and make their decisions based upon what they learn and what
they hear.
Of course, the context of the decision is important. We must consider
the alternatives. What happens if we don't accept this agreement? What
happens if we do? No agreement like this can be judged solely in
isolation; it has to be viewed in terms of what are the alternatives.
What if nothing happens? What does Iran do then? What are the
relationships in the Middle East? What is Iran's path to a bomb if this
agreement is not approved?
Mr. President, I did not plan to come to the floor today, but I am
here because I have been shocked and, frankly, surprised at the
outpouring of reaction from people who haven't read the agreement, who
haven't studied the implications, who haven't gained the facts. To
denounce an agreement or a deal before the ink is even dry strikes me
as an abdication of our responsibility.
My message today is, let's slow down and take a deep breath. Let's
listen to one another. Let's gain the facts.
I have not yet made my decision. And I commend that position to my
colleagues. This is too important to become just another political
issue. Even though we are headed into a Presidential year, even though
there are partisan differences, even though there are differences with
this President, this is a historic vote and it is a solemn
responsibility. We owe our constituents, we owe the people of our
States and America a close reading of the facts, a balanced weighing of
the alternatives, and our best judgment. That is what the people of
Maine expect of this Senator, and I believe that is what the people of
America expect of us.
The Senate has an extraordinary opportunity to regain its place in
this country as the world's greatest deliberative body, and that means
we have to deliberate and listen and learn the facts, and that is how
we should approach this momentous decision.
History will judge us. History will judge us not only on our ultimate
decision but how we reached it, how we wrestled with the facts and the
alternatives and the consequences, and how we made this decision that
will have long-term implications for this country, for the Middle East,
for our allies, and for the world.
Mr. President, I have confidence in this institution. I have
confidence that we can make this decision in a thoughtful,
deliberative, and consciously deliberate way to reach a conclusion that
is in the best interests of the people of America.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that,
notwithstanding rule XXII, there be 10 minutes of debate equally
divided before the vote to invoke cloture on the Alexander-Murray
substitute amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, for the information of Senators, we
have an agreement on the amendments to our legislation to fix No Child
Left Behind.
The agreement represents all of the amendments that we will be
dealing with. The exact time of the final passage will be determined by
the Republican and Democratic leaders.
This is how we will proceed. First, we will propose and hopefully
adopt by consent a managers' package of 21 amendments. Second, we will
lock in an agreement by consent to vote on 24 more amendments. That
voting will begin this afternoon, perhaps, at 2:30 p.m. or 3 p.m. There
are slightly more Democratic amendments than Republican amendments in
that group of 45 amendments.
Following the reading of that, Senator Murray and I will each have 3
or 4 minutes of remarks that we would like to make, and then we will
have a cloture vote, and that will be all we will do before lunch.
Following lunch, as I said, at about 2:30 p.m. or 3 p.m., we will
move to vote.
I am now going to move to the managers' package, a list of 21
amendments that have been cleared by both the Republican and Democratic
sides.

Amendments Nos. 2111; 2141; 2145; 2149; 2150; 2151, as Modified; 2154;
2155; 2157; 2234; 2170; 2178; 2181; 2185; 2195; 2216; 2199; 2201; 2225;
2224; and 2227 to Amendment No. 2089

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments be called up and agreed to en bloc: McCain-Reid No. 2111;
Bennet-Ayotte No. 2141; Ayotte No. 2145; Udall No. 2149; Feinstein-
Cornyn-Gardner No. 2150; Carper-Ayotte No. 2151, as modified with the
changes at the desk; King-Capito No. 2154; Thune No. 2155; Flake No.
2157; Lee No. 2234; Booker No. 2170; Coons-Reed-Blunt No. 2178; McCain
No. 2181; Whitehouse No. 2185; Blunt-Cardin-Mikulski-Collins No. 2195;
Gillibrand No. 2216; Graham No. 2199; Alexander No. 2201; Bennet No.
2225; Booker No. 2224; and Cornyn No. 2227.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 2111; 2141; 2145; 2149; 2150; 2151, as Modified;
2154; 2155; 2157; 2234; 2170; 2178; 2181; 2185; 2195; 2216; 2199; 2201;
2225; 2224; and 2227) proposed and agreed to are as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 2111

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that John Arthur ``Jack''
Johnson should receive a posthumous pardon for the racially-motivated
conviction in 1913 that diminished the athletic, cultural, and
historical significance of Jack Johnson and unduly tarnished his
reputation)

At the end of part B of title X, add the following:

[[Page S5095]]

SEC. _____. POSTHUMOUS PARDON.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) John Arthur ``Jack'' Johnson was a flamboyant, defiant,
and controversial figure in the history of the United States
who challenged racial biases.
(2) Jack Johnson was born in Galveston, Texas, in 1878 to
parents who were former slaves.
(3) Jack Johnson became a professional boxer and traveled
throughout the United States, fighting White and African-
American heavyweights.
(4) After being denied (on purely racial grounds) the
opportunity to fight 2 White champions, in 1908, Jack Johnson
was granted an opportunity by an Australian promoter to fight
the reigning White title-holder, Tommy Burns.
(5) Jack Johnson defeated Tommy Burns to become the first
African-American to hold the title of Heavyweight Champion of
the World.
(6) The victory by Jack Johnson over Tommy Burns prompted a
search for a White boxer who could beat Jack Johnson, a
recruitment effort that was dubbed the search for the ``great
white hope''.
(7) In 1910, a White former champion named Jim Jeffries
left retirement to fight Jack Johnson in Reno, Nevada.
(8) Jim Jeffries lost to Jack Johnson in what was deemed
the ``Battle of the Century''.
(9) The defeat of Jim Jeffries by Jack Johnson led to
rioting, aggression against African-Americans, and the
racially-motivated murder of African-Americans throughout the
United States.
(10) The relationships of Jack Johnson with White women
compounded the resentment felt toward him by many Whites.
(11) Between 1901 and 1910, 754 African-Americans were
lynched, some simply for being ``too familiar'' with White
women.
(12) In 1910, Congress passed the Act of June 25, 1910
(commonly known as the ``White Slave Traffic Act'' or the
``Mann Act'') (18 U.S.C. 2421 et seq.), which outlawed the
transportation of women in interstate or foreign commerce
``for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any
other immoral purpose''.
(13) In October 1912, Jack Johnson became involved with a
White woman whose mother disapproved of their relationship
and sought action from the Department of Justice, claiming
that Jack Johnson had abducted her daughter.
(14) Jack Johnson was arrested by Federal marshals on
October 18, 1912, for transporting the woman across State
lines for an ``immoral purpose'' in violation of the Mann
Act.
(15) The Mann Act charges against Jack Johnson were dropped
when the woman refused to cooperate with Federal authorities,
and then married Jack Johnson.
(16) Federal authorities persisted and summoned a White
woman named Belle Schreiber, who testified that Jack Johnson
had transported her across States lines for the purpose of
``prostitution and debauchery''.
(17) In 1913, Jack Johnson was convicted of violating the
Mann Act and sentenced to 1 year and 1 day in Federal prison.
(18) Jack Johnson fled the United States to Canada and
various European and South American countries.
(19) Jack Johnson lost the Heavyweight Championship title
to Jess Willard in Cuba in 1915.
(20) Jack Johnson returned to the United States in July
1920, surrendered to authorities, and served nearly a year in
the Federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas.
(21) Jack Johnson subsequently fought in boxing matches,
but never regained the Heavyweight Championship title.
(22) Jack Johnson served the United States during World War
II by encouraging citizens to buy war bonds and participating
in exhibition boxing matches to promote the war bond cause.
(23) Jack Johnson died in an automobile accident in 1946.
(24) In 1954, Jack Johnson was inducted into the Boxing
Hall of Fame.
(25) Senate Concurrent Resolution 29, 111th Congress,
agreed to July 29, 2009, expressed the sense of the 111th
Congress that Jack Johnson should receive a posthumous pardon
for his racially-motivated 1913 conviction.
(b) Recommendations.--It remains the sense of Congress that
Jack Johnson should receive a posthumous pardon--
(1) to expunge a racially-motivated abuse of the
prosecutorial authority of the Federal Government from the
annals of criminal justice in the United States; and
(2) in recognition of the athletic and cultural
contributions of Jack Johnson to society.

AMENDMENT NO. 2141

(Purpose: To provide for shared services strategies and models)

On page 622, line 18, insert ``such as through entities
administering shared services,'' after ``strategies,''.
On page 624, line 9, insert ``which may include the use of
shared services models'' after ``time in program''.

AMENDMENT NO. 2145

(Purpose: To allow States to use State activity funds provided under
part A of title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 for certain evidence-based mental health awareness programs)

On page 430, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
``(ix) designing and implementing evidence-based mental
health awareness training programs for the purposes of--

``(I) recognizing the signs and symptoms of mental illness;
``(II) providing education to school personnel regarding
resources available in the community for students with mental
illnesses and other relevant resources relating to mental
health; or
``(III) providing education to school personal regarding
the safe de-escalation of crisis situations involving a
student with a mental illness; and

AMENDMENT NO. 2149

(Purpose: To allow the Bureau of Indian Education to apply for certain
competitive grants under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965)

On page 799, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

SEC. 9114A. APPLICATION FOR COMPETITIVE GRANTS FROM THE
BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION.

Subpart 2 of part F of title IX (20 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.),
as amended by sections 4001(3) and 9114 and redesignated by
section 9106(1), is further amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 9539. APPLICATION FOR COMPETITIVE GRANTS FROM THE
BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION.

``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act and subject to subsection (b), the Bureau of Indian
Education may apply for, and carry out, any grant program
awarded on a competitive basis under this Act, as
appropriate, on behalf of the schools and the Indian children
that the Bureau serves, and shall not be subject to any
provision of the program that requires grant recipients to
contribute funds toward the costs of the grant program.
``(b) Limitation.--In the case of any competitive grant
program described in subsection (a) that also provides a
reservation of funds to the Bureau of Indian Education, the
Bureau shall not, for any fiscal year, receive both a grant
and a reservation under the competitive grant program.''.

amendment no. 2150

(Purpose: To allow eligible entities to use funds provided under part A
of title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 for
bilingual paraprofessionals and linguistically responsive materials)

On page 403, strike line 15 and insert the following:
``(B) intensified instruction, which may include
linguistically responsive materials; and
``(C) bilingual paraprofessionals, which may include
interpreters and translators.

amendment no. 2151, as modified

(Purpose: To amend part A of title II of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to improve preparation programs and strengthen
support for principals and other school leaders)

On page 287, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
``(J) A description of actions the State may take to
improve preparation programs and strengthen support for
principals and other school leaders based on the needs of the
State, as identified by the State educational agency.

amendment no. 2154

(Purpose: To authorize the Institute of Education Sciences to conduct a
study on student access to digital learning resources outside of the
school day)

On page 264, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

SEC. 1018. REPORT ON STUDENT HOME ACCESS TO DIGITAL LEARNING
RESOURCES.

(a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Institute of
Education Sciences, in consultation with relevant Federal
agencies, shall complete a national study on the educational
trends and behaviors associated with access to digital
learning resources outside of the classroom, which shall
include analysis of extant data and new surveys about
students and teachers that provide--
(1) a description of the various locations from which
students access the Internet and digital learning resources
outside of the classroom, including through an after-school
or summer program, a library, and at home;
(2) a description of the various devices and technology
through which students access the Internet and digital
learning resources outside of the classroom, including
through a computer or mobile device;
(3) data associated with the number of students who lack
home Internet access, disaggregated by--
(A) each of the categories of students, as defined in
section 1111(b)(3)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965;
(B) homeless students and children or youth in foster care;
and
(C) students in geographically diverse areas, including
urban, suburban, and rural areas;
(4) data associated with the barriers to students acquiring
home Internet access;
(5) data associated with the proportion of educators who
assign homework or implement innovative learning models that
require or are substantially augmented by a student having
home Internet access and the frequency of the need for such
access;

[[Page S5096]]

(6) a description of the learning behaviors associated with
students who lack home Internet access, including--
(A) student participation in the classroom, including the
ability to complete homework and participate in innovative
learning models;
(B) student engagement, through such measures as attendance
rates and chronic absenteeism; and
(C) a student's ability to apply for employment,
postsecondary education, and financial aid programs;
(7) an analysis of the how a student's lack of home
Internet access impacts the instructional practice of
educators, including--
(A) the extent to which educators alter instructional
methods, resources, homework assignments, and curriculum in
order to accommodate differing levels of home Internet
access; and
(B) strategies employed by educators, school leaders, and
administrators to address the differing levels of home
Internet access among students; and
(8) a description of the ways in which State educational
agencies, local educational agencies, schools, and other
entities, including through partnerships, have developed
effective means to provide students with Internet access
outside of the school day.
(b) Public Dissemination.--The Director of the Institute of
Education Sciences shall widely disseminate the findings of
the study under this section--
(1) in a timely fashion;
(2) in a form that is understandable, easily accessible,
and publicly available and usable, or adaptable for use in,
the improvement of educational practice;
(3) through electronic transfer and other means, such as
posting, as available, to the website of the Institute of
Education Sciences, or the Department of Education; and
(4) to all State educational agencies and other recipients
of funds under part D of title IV of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965.
(c) Definition of Digital Learning.--In this section, the
term ``digital learning''--
(1) has the meaning given the term in section 5702 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; and
(2) includes an educational practice that effectively uses
technology to strengthen a student's learning experience
within and outside of the classroom and at home, which may
include the use of digital learning content, video, software,
and other resources that may be developed, as the Secretary
of Education may determine.

amendment no. 2155

(Purpose: To require a report on responses to Indian student suicides)

At the end of title VII, insert the following:

SEC. 7006. REPORT ON RESPONSES TO INDIAN STUDENT SUICIDES.

(a) Preparation.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Education, in
coordination with the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall prepare a
report on efforts to address outbreaks of suicides among
elementary school and secondary school students (referred to
in this section as ``student suicides'') that occurred within
1 year prior to the date of enactment of this Act in Indian
country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18, United
States Code).
(2) Contents.--The report shall include information on--
(A) the Federal response to the occurrence of high numbers
of student suicides in Indian country (as so defined);
(B) a list of Federal resources available to prevent and
respond to outbreaks of student suicides, including the
availability and use of tele-behavioral health care;
(C) any barriers to timely implementation of programs or
interagency collaboration regarding student suicides;
(D) interagency collaboration efforts to streamline access
to programs regarding student suicides, including information
on how the Department of Education, the Department of the
Interior, and the Department of Health and Human Services
work together on administration of such programs;
(E) recommendations to improve or consolidate resources or
programs described in subparagraph (B) or (D); and
(F) feedback from Indian tribes to the Federal response
described in subparagraph (A).
(b) Submission.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Education shall
submit the report described in subsection (a) to the
appropriate committees of Congress.

amendment no. 2157

(Purpose: To reserve funds for an evaluation of early learning
alignment and improvement grants)

On page 615, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
``(3) Reservation for evaluation.--From the amounts
appropriated under section 5903 for a fiscal year, the
Secretary shall reserve one-half of 1 percent to conduct, in
consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
an evaluation to determine whether grants under this part
are--
(A) improving efficiency in the use of Federal funds for
early childhood education programs;
(B) improving coordination across Federal early childhood
education programs; and
(C) increasing the availability of, and access to, high-
quality early childhood education programs for eligible
children.

amendment no. 2234

(Purpose: To establish a rule of construction regarding travel to and
from school)

After section 9115, insert the following:

SEC. 9116. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING TRAVEL TO AND FROM
SCHOOL.

Subpart 2 of part F of title IX (20 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.),
as amended by sections, 9114 and 9115, and redesignated by
section 9601, is further amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 9539A. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING TRAVEL TO AND
FROM SCHOOL.

``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), nothing in
this Act shall authorize the Secretary to, or shall be
construed to--
``(1) prohibit a child from traveling to and from school on
foot or by car, bus, or bike when the parents of the child
have given permission; or
``(2) expose parents to civil or criminal charges for
allowing their child to responsibly and safely travel to and
from school by a means the parents believe is age
appropriate.
``(b) No Preemption of State or Local Laws.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a), nothing in this section shall
be construed to preempt State or local laws.''.

amendment no. 2170

(Purpose: To amend the early learning alignment and improvement grant
program under part I of title V of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to ensure that States support early childhood
education programs that maintain disciplinary policies that do not
include expulsion or suspension of participating children)

On page 623, strike line 8 and insert the following:
``(14) a description of how the State will support, through
the use of professional development, early childhood
education programs that maintain disciplinary policies that
do not include expulsion or suspension of participating
children, except as a last resort in extraordinary
circumstances where--
``(A) there is a determination of a serious safety threat;
and
``(B) policies are in place to provide appropriate
alternative early educational services to expelled or
suspended children while they are out of school; and''.

amendment no. 2178

(Purpose: To encourage increasing the amount of funds available for
parent and family engagement)

On page 170, strike lines 20 through 25, and insert the
following:
``(A) In general.--Each local educational agency shall
reserve at least 1 percent of its allocation under subpart 2
to assist schools to carry out the activities described in
this section, except that this subparagraph shall not apply
if 1 percent of such agency's allocation under subpart 2 for
the fiscal year for which the determination is made is $5,000
or less. Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to
limit local educational agencies from reserving more than the
1 percent of its allocation under subpart 2 to assist schools
to carry out activities described in this section.'';

Amendment No. 2181

(Purpose: To allow States to use funding under part A of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to replicate and expand
successful practices from high-performing public schools)

On page 70, line 3, strike the period and insert the
following: ``; and
``(iii) use funds under this part to support efforts to
expand and replicate successful practices from high-
performing charter schools, magnet schools, and traditional
public schools.

Amendment No. 2185

(Purpose: To support innovation schools)

(The amendment is printed in the Record of July 9, 2015, under ``Text
of Amendments.'')

Amendment No. 2195

(Purpose: To amend section 1113(c) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to allow local educational agencies to address
the needs of children in schools served by schoolwide programs by
providing school-based mental health programs)

On page 132, line 1, insert ``school-based mental health
programs,'' after ``counseling,''.

Amendment No. 2216

(Purpose: To require a report on cybersecurity education)

On page 385, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

``SEC. 2508. REPORT ON CYBERSECURITY EDUCATION.

``Not later than June 1, 2016, the Secretary, acting
through the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences,
shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services and the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the
Senate and the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee
on Education and the Workforce of the House of
Representatives, a report describing whether secondary and
postsecondary education programs are meeting the need of
public and private sectors for cyberdefense. Such report
shall include--
``(1) an assessment of the shortfalls in current secondary
and postsecondary education needed to develop cybersecurity
professionals, and recommendations to address such
shortfalls;

[[Page S5097]]

``(2) an assessment of successful secondary and
postsecondary programs that produce competent cybersecurity
professionals; and
``(3) recommendations of subjects to be covered by
elementary schools and secondary schools to better prepare
students for postsecondary cybersecurity education.''.

Amendment No. 2199

(Purpose: To include entrepreneurship as a local educational agency
allowable use of funds under title II)

On page 306, after line 23, insert the following:
``(V) providing educator training to increase students'
entrepreneurship skills; and

Amendment No. 2201

(Purpose: To provide that State assessments not evaluate or assess
personal or family beliefs and attitudes, or publicly disclose
personally identifiable information)

Beginning on page 37, strike line 24 and all that follows
through page 38, line 4, and insert the following:
``(iii) be used for purposes for which such assessments are
valid and reliable, consistent with relevant, nationally
recognized professional and technical testing standards,
objectively measure academic achievement, knowledge, and
skills, and be tests that do not evaluate or assess personal
or family beliefs and attitudes, or publicly disclose
personally identifiable information;

Amendment No. 2225

(Purpose: To improve title I by including information about assessments
in the categories of information that parents have a right to know
about)

On page 111, between lines 24 and 25, insert the following:
``(2) Testing transparency.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), each local
educational agency that receives funds under this part shall
make widely available through public means (including by
posting in a clear and easily accessible manner on the local
educational agency's website and, where practicable, on the
website of each school served by the local educational
agency) for each grade served by the local educational
agency, information on each assessment required by the State
to comply with section 1111, other assessments required by
the State, and where such information is available and
feasible to report, assessments required districtwide by the
local educational agency, including--
``(i) the subject matter assessed;
``(ii) the purpose for which the assessment is designed and
used;
``(iii) the source of the requirement for the assessment;
and
``(iv) where such information is available--

``(I) the amount of time students will spend taking the
assessment, and the schedule and calendar for the assessment;
and
``(II) the time and format for disseminating results.

``(B) Local educational agency that does not operate a
website.--In the case of a local educational agency that does
not operate a website, such local educational agency shall
determine how to make the information described in
subparagraph (A) widely available, such as through
distribution of that information to the media, through public
agencies, or directly to parents.

Amendment No. 2224

(Purpose: To assess and improve educator support and working
conditions)

On page 306, after line 23, add the following:
``(V) regularly conducting, and publicly reporting the
results of, an assessment and a plan to address such results,
of educator support and working conditions that--
``(i) evaluates supports for teachers, leaders, and other
school personnel, such as--

``(I) teacher and principal perceptions of availability of
high-quality professional development and instructional
materials;
``(II) timely availability of data on student academic
achievement and growth;
``(III) the presence of high-quality instructional
leadership; and
``(IV) opportunities for professional growth, such as
career ladders and mentoring and induction programs;

``(ii) evaluates working conditions for teachers, leaders
and other school personnel, such as--

``(I) school safety and climate;
``(II) availability and use of common planning time and
opportunities to collaborate; and
``(III) community engagement; and

``(iii) is developed with teachers, leaders, other school
personnel, parents, students, and the community; and

Amendment No. 2227

(Purpose: To reauthorize the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of
1999)

(The amendment is printed in the Record of July 13, 2015, under
``Text of Amendments.'')

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent,
notwithstanding rule XXII, on behalf of myself and Senator Murray, that
if cloture is invoked on the Alexander amendment No. 2089, the
following amendments be made pending en bloc: Coons No. 2243; Cruz No.
2180; Heitkamp No. 2171; Hatch No. 2082; Warren No. 2106; Burr No.
2247, as modified with the changes at the desk; Murphy No. 2186; Brown
No. 2100; Wicker No. 2144; Markey No. 2176; Murphy No. 2241; Sanders
No. 2177; Casey No. 2242; Schatz No. 2130; Nelson No. 2215, as modified
with the changes at the desk; Manchin No. 2222; Boozman No. 2231;
Baldwin No. 2188; Capito No. 2156; Thune No. 2232; King No. 2256;
Schatz No. 2240; and Warren No. 2249.
Following that, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in
consultation with the Democratic leader either today or tomorrow, the
Senate vote in relation to the following amendments: Brown No. 2100;
Heitkamp No. 2171, 60-vote threshold; Coons No. 2243, 60-vote
threshold; Kirk No. 2161, 60-vote threshold; Burr No. 2247, as modified
with the changes at the desk; Hatch No. 2082; Warren No. 2106; Wicker
No. 2144, 60-vote threshold; Markey No. 2176, 60-vote threshold; Murphy
No. 2241, 60-vote threshold; Sanders No. 2177, 60-vote threshold; Casey
No. 2242, 60-vote threshold; Cruz No. 2180; Schatz No. 2130; Murphy No.
2186; Nelson No. 2215, as modified with the changes at the desk;
Manchin No. 2222; Boozman No. 2231; Baldwin No. 2188; Capito No. 2156;
Thune No. 2232; King No. 2256; Schatz No. 2240; and Warren No. 2249,
with no second-degree amendments in order to any of the amendments
prior to the votes, that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to
each vote; and that all after the first vote in each series be 10
minutes in length; also that the Warren amendment No. 2120 be withdrawn
and that the following amendments in this agreement be subject to a 60-
affirmative-vote threshold for adoption: Coons No. 2243, Heitkamp No.
2171, Kirk No. 2161, Wicker No. 2144, Markey No. 2176, Murphy No. 2241,
Sanders No. 2177, and Casey No. 2242.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, in just a few minutes, after brief
comments by Senator Murray and me, we will proceed to a cloture vote
and then our next votes will be at 2:30.
I think, from the reading of the amendments, that the Senators can
see that we have had a fair and open amendment process. Just to give
you an example, in our committee consideration to fix No Child Left
Behind, we adopted 29 amendments, and the committee was pleased enough
with the process that they reported the bill unanimously.
The substitute amendment, one of the amendments I just listed, adopts
the priorities of 52 Members into that substitute amendment.
On the Senate floor already since last week, we have adopted 27
amendments, and I just read the two consent requests. The manager's
package has 21 amendments in it, and those have been adopted. Then
there are the 21 more votes that we just secured approval to vote on
either by voice or in fact.
So the vote we are about to have is a vote on whether to end debate
on our bill to fix No Child Left Behind. I think the question before
the Senators is this: Do you think there has been a fair process? Do
you think it is open enough? Do you think the bill is worthy of having
these votes and going toward final passage? I hope every single Senator
will agree that yes, it has been.
This is the way the Senate is supposed to work. Basically, we are
concluding the bill by a unanimous consent agreement, which is to say
that virtually every Senator who wants an amendment has had that
amendment considered, and we are going to dispose of it one way or
another. We are going to adopt it or vote on it, whatever the Senate
likes.
That is important for the country to see. This a bill that Newsweek
magazine said is the education bill everyone wants fixed.
There is a remarkable consensus that we need to do it. After 7 years,
this bill is overdue and a ``yes'' vote today on cloture says: We
recognize that Governors, teachers, school board members, and school
superintendents have united in a remarkable coalition to support the
way we propose to fix it. So we have a consensus that it needs to be
fixed, and we have a consensus on how to fix it. This is a vote about
whether we are ready to do that--to do our job.
I thank Senator Murray principally for her leadership in this
respect, making it possible to create this environment in which we have
been able to have such a good process.

[[Page S5098]]

I thank the majority leader for putting the bill on the floor and
giving us a week of time--more than a week--to deal with it.
I thank the majority whip for his efforts, especially in helping to
bring this to a conclusion.
I thank the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, as well as Senators
Schumer, Durbin and Patty Murray, who is also part of that leadership,
for creating the kind of working environment to give Senators on both
sides of the aisle a chance to go home and say: We fixed No Child Left
Behind. I had my say in it, and we are going to restore responsibility.
We are going to keep the important measurements of student achievement,
but restore to the classroom teachers, the Governors, the legislatures,
the school boards, and to the parents the responsibility for student
achievement.
I thank the Chair, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on cloture so
we can move toward these remaining 21 amendments on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise again to encourage all of our
colleagues to support this vote to move us to a negotiated conclusion
to this very important bill.
I thank the senior Senator from Tennessee, as well as the majority
leader, for working with us to get this agreement so we can continue
moving forward in a bipartisan way to get this done.
Across the country, students, parents, teachers, and communities are
really counting on us to fix No Child Left Behind. I have been very
pleased to work with Chairman Alexander on this bipartisan bill called
the Every Child Achieves Act.
This bill will give our States more flexibility, but it will also
include some Federal guardrails to make sure all of our students do
have access to quality education. It passed through our committee
unanimously and, for the past week or so, we have made good progress on
the Senate floor.
There is still some work to be done. There are a number of amendments
that we will be voting on this afternoon and into tomorrow. The senior
Senator from Pennsylvania is offering a very important amendment I
support to expand high-quality early childhood education.
We have an amendment that we will be voting on to strengthen the
Federal guardrails. It is the accountability amendment from Senators
Murphy, Booker, Warren, and Coons to help make sure all of our kids,
especially our most vulnerable students, have what they need.
There are many more amendments, as you know, from Democrats and
Republicans, to finish this bill, but I urge our colleagues to vote yes
on cloture. We are finishing this bill and working to make sure that we
can fix a broken law.
I will have more to say about the amendments as we go through the
process. But at this moment, I urge all of our colleagues to support
this vote, continue this bipartisan process, and let's work to get this
bill done.
I yield the floor.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my
time.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The bill clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Alexander
amendment No. 2089 to S. 1177, an original bill to
reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 to ensure that every child achieves.
Mitch McConnell, Orrin G. Hatch, Lamar Alexander, Cory
Gardner, Steve Daines, Pat Roberts, Johnny Isakson,
Susan M. Collins, Michael B. Enzi, Kelly Ayotte, John
Cornyn, Lisa Murkowski, Tim Scott, Richard Burr, Thom
Tillis, Lindsey Graham, John Hoeven.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
Alexander amendment No. 2089, offered by the Senator from Tennessee,
Mr. Alexander, to S. 1177, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 86, nays 12, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 237 Leg.]

YEAS--86

Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
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
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rounds
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--12

Blunt
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Lee
Moran
Paul
Risch
Rubio
Sasse
Shelby
Vitter

NOT VOTING--2

Graham
Nelson
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 86, the nays are
12.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2243; 2180; 2171; 2082; 2106; 2247, as Modified; 2186;
2100; 2144; 2176; 2241; 2177; 2242; 2130; 2215, as Modified; 2222;
2231; 2188; 2156; 2232; 2256; 2240; 2249 to Amendment No. 2089

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Cloture having been invoked, under the
previous order, the 23 amendments enumerated earlier are now pending en
bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 2243; 2180; 2171; 2082; 2106; 2247, as modified;
2186; 2100; 2144; 2176; 2241; 2177; 2242; 2130; 2215, as modified;
2222; 2231; 2188; 2156; 2232; 2256; 2240; 2249) are proposed, as
follows:

Amendment No. 2243

(Purpose: To authorize the establishment of American Dream Accounts)

(The amendment is printed in the Record of July 14, 2015, under
``Text of Amendments.'')

Amendment No. 2180

(Purpose: To provide for State-determined assessment and accountability
systems, and for other purposes)

On page 28, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
``(vi) include in the plan a description of assessments
referred to in paragraph (2), or an accountability system
referred to in paragraph (3), of subsection (b), nor may the
Secretary require inclusion of a description of such
assessments or system in a plan or application, or use
inclusion of such assessments or system as a factor in
awarding Federal funding, under any other provision of this
Act; or
On page 28, line 7, strike ``(vi)'' and insert ``(vii)''.
On page 36, strike line 18 and all that follows through
line 25 on page 58, and insert the following:
``(2) Assessments.--A State may include in the State plan a
description of, and may implement, a set of high-quality
statewide academic assessments.
``(3) Accountability.--A State may include in the State
plan a description of, and may implement, an accountability
system.
On page 146, strike line 1 and all that follows through
line 23, on page 166.
On page 183, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following

SEC. 1008A. STATE-DETERMINED ASSESSMENTS AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

After section 1118, as redesignated by section 1004(3),
insert the following:

``SEC. 1119. STATE-DETERMINED ASSESSMENTS AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any
other provision of this Act, wherever in this Act a reference
is made to assessments or accountability under this part,
including a reference to a provision under paragraphs (2) or
(3) of section 1111(b)--

[[Page S5099]]

``(1) in the case of a State that elects to implement
assessments referred to in section 1111(b)(2), a reference to
assessments under this part shall be deemed to be a reference
to those assessments and shall be carried out to the extent
practicable based on the State-determined assessments;
``(2) in the case of a State that elects to implement an
accountability system referred to in section 1111(b)(3), a
reference to accountability under this part shall be deemed
to be a reference to accountability under that system, and
shall be carried out to the extent practicable based on the
State-determined accountability system; and
``(3) in the case of any State not described in paragraph
(1) or (2), the reference shall have no effect.''.
On page 185, strike line 19 and all that follows through
line 2 on page 228 and insert the following:

SEC. 1012. REPEAL.

Part B of title I (20 U.S.C. 6361 et seq.) is repealed.

Amendment No. 2171

(Purpose: To reinstate grants to improve the mental health of children)

On page 492, after line 22, insert the following:

SEC. 4006. GRANTS FOR THE INTEGRATION OF SCHOOLS AND MENTAL
HEALTH SYSTEMS.

Title IV (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), as amended by sections
4001, 4004, and 4005, is further amended by adding at the end
the following:

``PART E--GRANTS TO IMPROVE THE MENTAL HEALTH OF CHILDREN

``SEC. 4501. GRANTS FOR THE INTEGRATION OF SCHOOLS AND MENTAL
HEALTH SYSTEMS.

``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary is authorized to award
grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements
with, State educational agencies, local educational agencies,
Indian tribes or their tribal education agency, a school
operated by the Bureau of Indian Education, or a Regional
Corporation (as defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602)) for the purpose of
increasing student access to quality mental health care and
support by developing innovative programs to link local
school systems with local mental health systems, such as
those under the Indian Health Service.
``(b) Duration.--With respect to a grant, contract, or
cooperative agreement awarded or entered into under this
section, the period during which payments under such grant,
contract or agreement are made to the recipient may not
exceed 5 years.
``(c) Use of Funds.--An entity that receives a grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement under this section shall
use amounts made available through such grant, contract, or
cooperative agreement for the following:
``(1) To enhance, improve, or develop collaborative efforts
between school-based service systems and mental health
service systems to provide, enhance, or improve prevention,
diagnosis, and treatment services to students.
``(2) To enhance the availability of crisis intervention
services and conflict resolution practices, such as those
focused on decreasing rates of bullying, teen dating
violence, suicide, trauma, and human trafficking (defined as
an act or practice described in paragraph (9) or (10) of
section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000
(22 U.S.C. 7102)), as well as provide appropriate referrals
for students potentially in need of mental health services,
and ongoing mental health services.
``(3) To provide training and professional development for
the school personnel and mental health professionals who will
participate in the program carried out under this section.
``(4) To provide technical assistance and consultation to
school systems and mental health agencies as well as to
families participating in the program carried out under this
section.
``(5) To provide linguistically appropriate and culturally
competent services.
``(6) To evaluate the effectiveness of the program carried
out under this section in increasing student access to
quality mental health services, and make recommendations to
the Secretary about the sustainability of the program.
``(7) To engage and utilize expertise provided by
institutions of higher education, such as a Tribal College or
University, as defined in section 316(b) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965.
``(d) Applications.--To be eligible to receive a grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement under this section, an
entity described in subsection (a) shall submit an
application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner,
and containing such information as the Secretary may
reasonably require, such as the following:
``(1) A description of the program to be funded under the
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement.
``(2) A description of how such program will increase
access to quality mental health services for students.
``(3) A description of how the applicant will establish a
crisis intervention program or conflict resolution practices,
or both, that provide immediate mental health services to the
school community as necessary.
``(4) An assurance that--
``(A) persons providing services under the grant, contract,
or cooperative agreement are adequately trained to provide
such services;
``(B) the services will be provided in accordance with
subsection (c);
``(C) teachers, administrators, parents or guardians,
representatives of local Indian tribes, and other school
personnel are aware of the program; and
``(D) parents or guardians of students participating in
services under this section will be engaged and involved in
the design and implementation of the services.
``(5) An assurance that the applicant will support and
integrate existing school-based services with the program in
order to provide appropriate mental health services for
students.
``(6) An assurance that the applicant will establish a
program that will support students and the school in
improving the school climate in order to support an
environment conducive to learning.
``(e) Interagency Agreements.--
``(1) Designation of lead agency.--A recipient of a grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement under this section shall
designate a lead agency to direct the establishment of an
interagency agreement among local educational agencies,
juvenile justice authorities, mental health agencies, and
other relevant entities in the State, in collaboration with
local entities, such as Indian tribes.
``(2) Contents.--The interagency agreement shall ensure the
provision of the services described in subsection (c),
specifying with respect to each agency, authority, or
entity--
``(A) the financial responsibility for the services;
``(B) the conditions and terms of responsibility for the
services, including quality, accountability, and coordination
of the services; and
``(C) the conditions and terms of reimbursement among the
agencies, authorities, or entities that are parties to the
interagency agreement, including procedures for dispute
resolution.
``(f) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall evaluate each
program carried out under this section and shall disseminate
the findings with respect to each such evaluation to
appropriate public, tribal, and private entities.
``(g) Distribution of Awards.--The Secretary shall ensure
that grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements awarded or
entered into under this section are equitably distributed
among the geographical regions of the United States and among
tribal, urban, suburban, and rural populations.
``(h) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed--
``(1) to prohibit an entity involved with a program carried
out under this section from reporting a crime that is
committed by a student to appropriate authorities; or
``(2) to prevent State and tribal law enforcement and
judicial authorities from exercising their responsibilities
with regard to the application of Federal, tribal, and State
law to crimes committed by a student.
``(i) Supplement, Not Supplant.--Any services provided
through programs carried out under this section shall
supplement, and not supplant, existing mental health
services, including any services required to be provided
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
``(j) Consultation With Indian Tribes.--In carrying out
subsection (a), the Secretary shall, in a timely manner,
meaningfully consult, engage, and cooperate with Indian
tribes and their representatives to ensure notice of
eligibility.
``(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such
sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2016 through
2021.''.

Amendment No. 2082

(Purpose: To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
relating to early learning)

On page 627, line 8, strike ``State.'' and insert ``State,
such as pay for success initiatives that promote coordination
among existing programs and meet the purposes of this
part.''.

Amendment No. 2106

(Purpose: To amend title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 to include specialized instructional support personnel in
the literacy development of children)

On page 361, line 3, strike ``school leaders, and'' and
insert ``school leaders, specialized instructional support
personnel (as appropriate), and''.
On page 362, line 19, insert ``specialized instructional
support personnel (as appropriate),'' after ``other school
leaders,''.
On page 364, line 20, strike ``and school personnel'' and
insert ``school personnel, and specialized instructional
support personnel (as appropriate)''.
On page 366, line 5, strike ``and school personnel'' and
insert ``specialized instructional support personnel (as
appropriate), and school personnel''.
On page 367, line 2, insert ``or specialized instructional
support personnel'' after ``librarians''.

AMENDMENT NO. 2247, as modified

(Purpose: To amend the allocation of funds under subpart 2 of part A of
title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965)

Strike sections 1009, 1010, and 1011 and insert the
following:

SEC. 1009. GRANTS FOR THE OUTLYING AREAS AND THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR.

Section 1121 (20 U.S.C. 6331) is amended--

[[Page S5100]]

(1) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``and 1125A(f)''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(3)(C)(ii), by striking ``challenging
State academic content standards'' and inserting
``challenging State academic standards''.

SEC. 1010. ALLOCATIONS TO STATES.

Section 1122 (20 U.S.C. 6332) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Allocation Formula.--
``(1) Initial allocation.--For each of fiscal years 2016
through 2021 (referred to in this subsection as the `current
fiscal year'), the Secretary shall allocate $17,000,000,000
of the amount appropriated under section 1002(a) to carry out
this part (or, if the total amount appropriated for this part
is equal to or less than $17,000,000,000, all of such amount)
in accordance with the following:
``(A) An amount equal to the amount made available to carry
out section 1124 for fiscal year 2015 shall be allocated in
accordance with section 1124.
``(B) An amount equal to the amount made available to carry
out section 1124A for fiscal year 2015 shall be allocated in
accordance with section 1124A.
``(C) An amount equal to 100 percent of the amount, if any,
by which the amount made available under this paragraph for
the current fiscal year for which the determination is made
exceeds the amount available to carry out sections 1124 and
1124A for fiscal year 2001 shall be allocated in accordance
with section 1125 and 1125A.
``(2) Allocations in excess of $17,000,000,000.--For each
of the current fiscal years for which the amounts
appropriated under section 1002(a) to carry out this part
exceed $17,000,000,000, an amount equal to such excess amount
shall be allocated in accordance with section 1123.'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``under this subpart'' and inserting
``under subsection (a)(1) for sections 1124, 1124A, 1125, and
1125A''; and
(ii) by striking ``and 1125'' and inserting ``1125, and
1125A''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by inserting ``under subsection (a)(1)'' after ``become
available''; and
(ii) by striking ``and 1125'' and inserting ``1125, and
1125A'';
(3) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``and to the extent
amounts under subsection (a)(1) are available'' after ``For
each fiscal year''; and
(4) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``under this
subpart'' and inserting ``under subsection (a)(1) for
sections 1124, 1124A, 1125, and 1125A''.

SEC. 1011. EQUITY GRANTS.

Subpart 2 of part A of title I (20 U.S.C. 6331 et se.) is
amended by inserting after section 1122 the following:

``SEC. 1123. EQUITY GRANTS.

``(a) Authorization.--From funds appropriated under section
1002(a) for a fiscal year and available for allocation
pursuant to section 1122(a)(2), the Secretary is authorized
to make grants to States, from allotments under subsection
(b), to carry out the programs and activities of this part.
``(b) Distribution Based Upon Concentrations of Poverty.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B)
and (C), funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) for a
fiscal year shall be allotted to each State based upon the
number of children counted under section 1124(c) in such
State multiplied by the product of--
``(i) 40 percent of the average per-pupil expenditure in
the United States (other than the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico); multiplied by
``(ii) 1.30 minus such State's equity factor described in
paragraph (2).
``(B) Puerto rico.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary
shall allot to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico an amount of
the funds appropriated under subsection (a) that bears the
same relation to the total amount of funds appropriated under
such subsection as the amount that the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico received under this subpart for fiscal year 2015 bears
to the total amount received by all States for such fiscal
year.
``(C) State minimum.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this section except for subparagraph (B), from the total
amount available for any fiscal year to carry out this
section, each State shall be allotted at least the lesser
of--
``(i) 0.35 percent of the total amount available to carry
out this section for such fiscal year; or
``(ii) the average of--

``(I) 0.35 percent of such total amount for such fiscal
year; and
``(II) 150 percent of the national average grant under this
section per child described in section 1124(c), without
application of a weighting factor, multiplied by the State's
total number of children described in section 1124(c),
without application of a weighting factor.

``(2) Equity factor.--
``(A) Determination.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Secretary shall determine the equity factor under this
section for each State in accordance with clause (ii).
``(ii) Computation.--

``(I) In general.--For each State, the Secretary shall
compute a weighted coefficient of variation for the per-pupil
expenditures of local educational agencies in accordance with
subclauses (II), (III), and (IV).
``(II) Variation.--In computing coefficients of variation,
the Secretary shall weigh the variation between per-pupil
expenditures in each local educational agency and the average
per-pupil expenditures in the State according to the number
of pupils served by the local educational agency.
``(III) Number of pupils.--In determining the number of
pupils under this paragraph served by each local educational
agency and in each State, the Secretary shall multiply the
number of children counted under section 1124(c) by a factor
of 1.4.
``(IV) Enrollment requirement.--In computing coefficients
of variation, the Secretary shall include only those local
educational agencies with an enrollment of more than 200
students.

``(B) Special rule.--The equity factor for a State that
meets the disparity standard described in section 222.162 of
title 34, Code of Federal Regulations (as such section was in
effect on the day preceding the date of enactment of the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001) or a State with only one local
educational agency shall be not greater than 0.10.
``(c) Use of Funds; Eligibility of Local Educational
Agencies.--All funds awarded to each State under this section
shall be allocated to local educational agencies under the
following provisions:
``(1) Distribution within local educational agencies.--
Within local educational agencies, funds allocated under this
section shall be distributed to schools on a basis consistent
with section 1113, and may only be used to carry out
activities under this part.
``(2) Eligibility for grant.--A local educational agency in
a State is eligible to receive a grant under this section for
any fiscal year if--
``(A) the number of children in the local educational
agency counted under section 1124(c), before application of
the weighted child count described in subsection (d), is at
least 10; and
``(B) if the number of children counted for grants under
section 1124(c), before application of the weighted child
count described in subsection (d), is at least 5 percent of
the total number of children aged 5 to 17 years, inclusive,
in the school district of the local educational agency.
``(d) Allocation of Funds to Eligible Local Educational
Agencies.--
``(1) In general.--Funds received by States under this
section for a fiscal year shall be allocated within States to
eligible local educational agencies on the basis of weighted
child counts calculated in accordance with paragraph (2),
(3), or (4), as appropriate for each State.
``(2) States with an equity factor less than .10.--
``(A) In general.--In States with an equity factor less
than .10, the weighted child counts referred to in paragraph
(1) for a fiscal year shall be the larger of the 2 amounts
determined under subparagraphs (B) and (C).
``(B) By percentage of children.--The amount referred to in
subparagraph (A) is determined by adding--
``(i) the number of children determined under section
1124(c) for that local educational agency who constitute not
more than 17.27 percent, inclusive, of the agency's total
population aged 5 to 17, inclusive, multiplied by 1.0;
``(ii) the number of such children who constitute more than
17.27 percent, but not more than 23.48 percent, of such
population, multiplied by 1.75;
``(iii) the number of such children who constitute more
than 23.48 percent, but not more than 29.11 percent, of such
population, multiplied by 2.5;
``(iv) the number of such children who constitute more than
29.11 percent, but not more than 36.10 percent, of such
population, multiplied by 3.25; and
``(v) the number of such children who constitute more than
36.10 percent of such population, multiplied by 4.0.
``(C) By number of children.--The amount referred to in
subparagraph (A) is determined by adding--
``(i) the number of children determined under section
1124(c) who constitute not more than 834, inclusive, of the
agency's total population aged 5 to 17, inclusive, multiplied
by 1.0;
``(ii) the number of such children between 835 and 2,629,
inclusive, in such population, multiplied by 1.5;
``(iii) the number of such children between 2,630 and
7,668, inclusive, in such population, multiplied by 2.0; and
``(iv)(I) in the case of an agency that is not a high
poverty percentage local educational agency, the number of
such children in excess of 7,668 in such population,
multiplied by 2.0; or
``(II) in the case of a high poverty percentage local
educational agency--

``(aa) the number of such children between 7,669 and
26,412, inclusive, in such population, multiplied by 2.5; and
``(bb) the number of such children in excess of 26,412 in
such population, multiplied by 3.0.

``(3) States with an equity factor greater than or equal to
.10 and less than .20.--
``(A) In general.--In States with an equity factor greater
than or equal to .10 and less than .20, the weighted child
counts referred to in paragraph (1) for a fiscal year shall
be the larger of the 2 amounts determined under subparagraphs
(B) and (C).

[[Page S5101]]

``(B) By percentage of children.--The amount referred to in
subparagraph (A) is determined by adding--
``(i) the number of children determined under section
1124(c) for that local educational agency who constitute not
more than 17.27 percent, inclusive, of the agency's total
population aged 5 to 17, inclusive, multiplied by 1.0;
``(ii) the number of such children who constitute more than
17.27 percent, but not more than 23.48 percent, of such
population, multiplied by 1.5;
``(iii) the number of such children who constitute more
than 23.48 percent, but not more than 29.11 percent, of such
population, multiplied by 3.0;
``(iv) the number of such children who constitute more than
29.11 percent, but not more than 36.10 percent, of such
population, multiplied by 4.5; and
``(v) the number of such children who constitute more than
36.10 percent of such population, multiplied by 6.0.
``(C) By number of children.--The amount referred to in
subparagraph (A) is determined by adding--
``(i) the number of children determined under section
1124(c) who constitute not more than 834, inclusive, of the
agency's total population aged 5 to 17, inclusive, multiplied
by 1.0;
``(ii) the number of such children between 835 and 2,629,
inclusive, in such population, multiplied by 1.5;
``(iii) the number of such children between 2,630 and
7,668, inclusive, in such population, multiplied by 2.25; and
``(iv)(I) in the case of an agency that is not a high
poverty percentage local educational agency, the number of
such children in excess of 7,668 in such population,
multiplied by 2.25; or
``(II) in the case of a high poverty percentage local
educational agency--

``(aa) the number of such children between 7,669 and
26,412, inclusive, in such population, multiplied by 3.375;
and
``(bb) the number of such children in excess of 26,412 in
such population, multiplied by 4.5.

``(4) States with an equity factor greater than or equal to
.20.--
``(A) In general.--In States with an equity factor greater
than or equal to .20, the weighted child counts referred to
in paragraph (1) for a fiscal year shall be the larger of the
2 amounts determined under subparagraphs (B) and (C).
``(B) By percentage of children.--The amount referred to in
subparagraph (A) is determined by adding--
``(i) the number of children determined under section
1124(c) for that local educational agency who constitute not
more than 17.27 percent, inclusive, of the agency's total
population aged 5 to 17, inclusive, multiplied by 1.0;
``(ii) the number of such children who constitute more than
17.27 percent, but not more than 23.48 percent, of such
population, multiplied by 2.0;
``(iii) the number of such children who constitute more
than 23.48 percent, but not more than 29.11 percent, of such
population, multiplied by 4.0;
``(iv) the number of such children who constitute more than
29.11 percent, but not more than 36.10 percent, of such
population, multiplied by 6.0; and
``(v) the number of such children who constitute more than
36.10 percent of such population, multiplied by 8.0.
``(C) By number of children.--The amount referred to in
subparagraph (A) is determined by adding--
``(i) the number of children determined under section
1124(c) who constitute not more than 834, inclusive, of the
agency's total population aged 5 to 17, inclusive, multiplied
by 1.0;
``(ii) the number of such children between 835 and 2,629,
inclusive, in such population, multiplied by 2.0;
``(iii) the number of such children between 2,630 and
7,668, inclusive, in such population, multiplied by 3.0; and
``(iv)(I) in the case of an agency that is not a high
poverty percentage local educational agency, the number of
such children in excess of 7,668 in such population,
multiplied by 3.0; or
``(II) in the case of a high poverty percentage local
educational agency--

``(aa) the number of such children between 7,669 and
26,412, inclusive, in such population, multiplied by 4.5; and
``(bb) the number of such children in excess of 26,412 in
such population, multiplied by 6.0.

``(e) Maintenance of Effort.--
``(1) In general.--A State is entitled to receive its full
allotment of funds under this section for any fiscal year if
the Secretary finds that the State's fiscal effort per
student or the aggregate expenditures of the State with
respect to the provision of free public education by the
State for the preceding fiscal year was not less than 90
percent of the fiscal effort or aggregate expenditures for
the second preceding fiscal year, subject to the requirements
of paragraph (2).
``(2) Reduction in case of failure to meet.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall reduce the amount of
the allotment of funds under this section in any fiscal year
in the exact proportion by which a State fails to meet the
requirement of paragraph (1) by falling below 90 percent of
both the fiscal effort per student and aggregate expenditures
(using the measure most favorable to the State), if such
State has also failed to meet such requirement (as determined
using the measure most favorable to the State) for 1 or more
of the 5 immediately preceding fiscal years.
``(B) Special rule.--No such lesser amount shall be used
for computing the effort required under paragraph (1) for
subsequent years.
``(3) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the requirements of
this subsection if the Secretary determines that a waiver
would be equitable due to--
``(A) exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances, such as
a natural disaster or a change in the organizational
structure of the State; or
``(B) a precipitous decline in the financial resources of
the State.
``(f) Adjustments Where Necessitated by Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--If the sums available under this section
for any fiscal year are insufficient to pay the full amounts
that all local educational agencies in States are eligible to
receive under this section for such year, the Secretary shall
ratably reduce the allocations to such local educational
agencies, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3).
``(2) Additional funds.--If additional funds become
available for making payments under this section for such
fiscal year, allocations that were reduced under paragraph
(1) shall be increased on the same basis as they were
reduced.
``(3) Hold harmless amounts.--Beginning with the second
fiscal year for which amounts are appropriated to carry out
this section, and if sufficient funds are available, the
amount made available to each local educational agency under
this section for a fiscal year shall be--
``(A) not less than 95 percent of the amount made available
for the preceding fiscal year if the number of children
counted under section 1124(c) is equal to or more than 30
percent of the total number of children aged 5 to 17 years,
inclusive, in the local educational agency;
``(B) not less than 90 percent of the amount made available
for the preceding fiscal year if the percentage described in
subparagraph (A) is less than 30 percent and equal to or more
than 15 percent; and
``(C) not less than 85 percent of the amount made available
for the preceding fiscal year if the percentage described in
subparagraph (A) is less than 15 percent.
``(4) Applicability.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Secretary shall not take into consideration the
hold-harmless provisions of this subsection for any fiscal
year for purposes of calculating State or local allocations
for the fiscal year under any program administered by the
Secretary other than a program authorized under this part.
``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) High poverty percentage local educational agency.--
The term `high poverty percentage local educational agency'
means a local educational agency for which the number of
children determined under subsection (b) for a fiscal year is
20 percent or more of the total population aged 5 to 17,
inclusive, of the local educational agency for such fiscal
year.
``(2) State.--The term `State' means each of the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico.''.

SEC. 1011A. ADEQUACY OF FUNDING RULE.

Section 1125AA(b) (20 U.S.C. 6336(b)) is amended by
striking ``section 1122(a)'' and inserting ``section
1122(a)(1)''.

SEC. 1011B. EDUCATION FINANCE INCENTIVE GRANT PROGRAM.

In section 1125A (20 U.S.C. 6337)--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``under subsection (f)''
and inserting ``under section 1002(a) and made available
under section 1122(a)(1)'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``pursuant to subsection
(f)'' and inserting ``made available for this section under
section 1122(a)(1)'';
(3) in subsection (c), by redesignating subparagraphs (A)
and (B) as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively;
(4) in subsection (d)(1)(A)(ii), by striking ``clause
``(i)'' and inserting ``clause (i)'';
(5) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
``(e) Maintenance of Effort.--
``(1) In general.--A State is entitled to receive its full
allotment of funds under this section for any fiscal year if
the Secretary finds that the State's fiscal effort per
student or the aggregate expenditures of the State with
respect to the provision of free public education by the
State for the preceding fiscal year was not less than 90
percent of the fiscal effort or aggregate expenditures for
the second preceding fiscal year, subject to the requirements
of paragraph (2).
``(2) Reduction in case of failure to meet.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall reduce the amount of
the allotment of funds under this section for any fiscal year
in the exact proportion by which a State fails to meet the
requirement of paragraph (1) by falling below 90 percent of
both the fiscal effort per student and aggregate expenditures
(using the measure most favorable to the State), if such
State has also failed to meet such requirement (as determined
using the measure most favorable to the State) for 1 or more
of the 5 immediately preceding fiscal years.

[[Page S5102]]

``(B) Special rule.--No such lesser amount shall be used
for computing the effort required under paragraph (1) for
subsequent years.
``(3) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the requirements of
this subsection if the Secretary determines that a waiver
would be equitable due to--
``(A) exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances, such as
a natural disaster or a change in the organizational
structure of the State; or
``(B) a precipitous decline in the financial resources of
the State.'';
(6) by striking subsection (f);
(7) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (f); and
(8) in subsection (f), as redesignated by paragraph (7)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``under this section''
and inserting ``to carry out this section''; and
(B) in subsection (f)(3), in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A), by striking ``shall be'' and inserting
``shall be--''.

SEC. 1011C. SPECIAL ALLOCATION PROCEDURES.

Section 1126 (20 U.S.C. 6338) is amended by striking
``sections 1124, 1124A, 1125, and 1125A'' each place the term
appears and inserting ``sections 1123, 1124, 1124A, 1125, and
1125A''.

Amendment No. 2186

(Purpose: To establish the Promise Neighborhoods program)

(The amendment is printed in the Record of July 9, 2015, under ``Text
of Amendments.'')

Amendment No. 2100

(Purpose: To amend title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 to establish a full-service community schools grant
program)

(The amendment is printed in the Record of July 7, 2015, under ``Text
of Amendments.'')

Amendment No. 2144

(Purpose: To provide States and local educational agencies with
resources on climate theory to promote improved science education)

At the end of part B of title X, add the following:

SEC. 10202. RESOURCES FOR IMPROVED SCIENCE EDUCATION.

(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall provide States
and local educational agencies with balanced, objective
resources on climate theory to promote improved science
education for students in kindergarten through grade 12,
including materials regarding--
(1) the natural causes and cycles of climate change;
(2) the uncertainties inherent in climate modeling; and
(3) the myriad factors that influence the climate of the
Earth.
(b) Resources.--The resources provided under subsection (a)
shall be--
(1) in addition to any climate theory resources the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or the
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration are providing to States or local educational
agencies on the day before the date of enactment of this Act;
and
(2) made available to promote open classroom discussion
that builds student skills in scientific reasoning, critical
thinking, and independent thought.

Amendment No. 2176

(Purpose: To establish a climate change education program)

At the end of title V, add the following:

SEC. 5011. CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Climate Change Education Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) carbon pollution is accumulating in the atmosphere,
causing global temperatures to rise at a rate that poses a
significant threat to the economy and security of the United
States, to public health and welfare, and to the global
environment;
(2) climate change is already impacting the United States
with sea level rise, ocean acidification, and more frequent
or intense extreme weather events such as heat waves, heavy
rainfalls, droughts, floods, and wildfires;
(3) the scientific evidence for human-induced climate
change is overwhelming and undeniable as demonstrated by
statements from the National Academy of Sciences, the
National Climate Assessment, and numerous other science
professional organizations in the United States;
(4) the United States has a responsibility to children and
future generations of the United States to address the
harmful effects of climate change;
(5) providing clear information about climate change, in a
variety of forms, can encourage individuals and communities
to take action;
(6) the actions of a single nation cannot solve the climate
crisis, so solutions that address both mitigation and
adaptation must involve developed and developing nations
around the world;
(7) investing in the development of innovative clean energy
and energy efficiency technologies will--
(A) enhance the global leadership and competitiveness of
the United States; and
(B) create and sustain short and long term job growth;
(8) implementation of measures that promote energy
efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy will greatly
reduce human impact on the environment; and
(9) education about climate change is important to ensure
the future generation of leaders is well-informed about the
challenges facing our planet in order to make decisions based
on science and fact.
(c) Amendment to ESEA.--Title V of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.), as
amended by section 5010, is further amended by adding at the
end the following:

``PART J--CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION

``SEC. 5911. CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION PROGRAM.

``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to--
``(1) broaden the understanding of human induced climate
change, possible long and short-term consequences, and
potential solutions;
``(2) provide learning opportunities in climate science
education for all students through grade 12, including those
of diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds;
``(3) emphasize actionable information to help students
understand how to utilize new technologies and programs
related to energy conservation, clean energy, and carbon
pollution reduction; and
``(4) inform the public of impacts to human health and
safety as a result of climate change.
``(b) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary, in consultation
with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of
Energy, shall establish a competitive grant program to
provide grants to States to--
``(1) develop or improve climate science curriculum and
supplementary educational materials for grades kindergarten
through grade 12;
``(2) initiate, develop, expand, or implement statewide
plans and programs for climate change education, including
relevant teacher training and professional development and
multidisciplinary studies to ensure that students graduate
from high school climate literate; or
``(3) create State green school building standards or
policies.
``(c) Application.--A State desiring to receive a grant
under this section shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by
such information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
``(d) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this section, and annually thereafter,
the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report that
evaluates the scientific merits, educational effectiveness,
and broader impacts of activities under this section.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such
sums as may be necessary.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 2241

(Purpose: To amend the accountability provisions)

(The amendment is printed in the Record of July 14, 2015, under
``Text of Amendments.'')

AMENDMENT NO. 2177

(Purpose: To provide for youth jobs, and for other purposes)

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

Amendment No. 2242

(Purpose: To establish a Federal-State partnership to provide access to
high-quality public prekindergarten programs from low-income and
moderate-income families to ensure that they enter kindergarten
prepared for success, and for other purposes)

(The amendment is printed in the Record of July 14, 2015, under
``Text of Amendments.'')

Amendment No. 2130

(Purpose: To amend title I to support assessments of school facilities)

On page 69, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
``(N) if applicable, whether the State conducts periodic
assessments of the condition of elementary school and
secondary school facilities in the State, which may include
an assessment of the age of the facility and the state of
repair of the facility;

Amendment No. 2215, as modified

(Purpose: To include partnering with current and recently retired STEM
professionals and tailoring educational resources to engage students
and teachers in STEM)

Beginning on page 373, strike line 22 and all that follows
through page 374, line 3, and insert the following:
in the State;
``(C) information on student exposure to and retention in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields,
including among low-income and underrepresented groups, which
may include results from a pre-existing analysis; and
``(D) an analysis of the quality of pre-service preparation
at all public institutions of

[[Page S5103]]

higher education (including alternative pathways to teacher
licensure or certification) for individuals preparing to
teach science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
subjects in the State.
On page 381, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
``(vi) partner with current or recently retired science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics professionals to
engage students and teachers in instruction in such subjects;
``(vii) tailor and integrate educational resources
developed by Federal agencies, as appropriate, to improve
student achievement in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics;

Amendment No. 2222

(Purpose: To amend the State plan requirements of section 1111 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in order to support
children facing substance abuse in the home)

On page 69, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
``(N) if applicable, how the State educational agency will
provide support to local educational agencies for the
education of children facing substance abuse in the home,
which may include how such agency will provide professional
development, training, and technical assistance to local
educational agencies, elementary schools, and secondary
schools in communities with high rates of substance abuse;
and''.

Amendment No. 2231

(Purpose: To support professional development to help students prepare
for postsecondary education and the workforce)

On page 284, strike lines 4 through 8 and insert the
following:
(xix) Supporting the efforts and professional development
of teachers, principals, and other school leaders to
integrate academic and career and technical education content
into instructional practices, which may include--

(I) integrating career and technical education with
advanced coursework, such as by allowing the acquisition of
postsecondary credits, recognized postsecondary credentials,
and industry-based credentials, by students while in high
school; or
(II) coordinating activities with employers and entities
carrying out initiatives under other workforce development
programs to identify State and regional workforce needs, such
as through the development of State and local plans under
title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29
U.S.C. 3111 et seq);

On page 306, strike lines 18 through 23 and insert the
following:
(U) providing high-quality professional development for
teachers, principals, and other school leaders on effective
strategies to integrate rigorous academic content, career and
technical education, and work-based learning, if appropriate,
which may include providing common planning time, to help
prepare students for postsecondary education and the
workforce without the need for remediation; and

Amendment No. 2188

(Purpose: To ensure States will ensure the unique needs of students at
all levels of schooling)

On page 69, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
``(M) how the State will ensure the unique needs of
students at all levels of schooling are met, particularly
students in the middle grades and high school, including how
the State will work with local educational agencies to--
``(i) assist in the identification of middle grades and
high school students who are at-risk of dropping out, such as
through the continuous use of student data related to
measures such as attendance, student suspensions, course
performance, and, postsecondary credit accumulation that
results in actionable steps to inform and differentiate
instruction and support;
``(ii) ensure effective student transitions from elementary
school to middle grades and middle grades to high school,
such as by aligning curriculum and supports or implementing
personal academic plans to enable such students to stay on
the path to graduation;
``(iii) ensure effective student transitions from high
school to postsecondary education, such as through the
establishment of partnerships between local educational
agencies and institutions of higher education and providing
students with choices for pathways to postsecondary
education, which may include the integration of rigorous
academics, career and technical education, and work-based
learning;
``(iv) provide professional development to teachers,
principals, other school leaders, and other school personnel
in addressing the academic and developmental needs of such
students; and
``(v) implement any other evidence-based strategies or
activities that the State determines appropriate for
addressing the unique needs of such students;
On page 69, line 13, strike ``(M)'' and insert ``(N)''.
On page 69, line 17, strike ``(N)'' and insert ``(O)''.
On page 772, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
``(47) Middle grades.--The term middle grades means any of
grades 5 through 8.''.
At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. 1020_. REPORT ON THE REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER AND
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHO DROP OUT OF SCHOOL.

Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences
shall evaluate the impact of section 1111(c)(1)(M) on
reducing the number and percentage of students who drop out
of school.

Amendment No. 2156

(Purpose: To amend the State report card under section 1111 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to include the rates of
enrollment in postsecondary education, and remediation rates, for high
schools)

On page 82, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
``(xviii) for each high school in the State, and beginning
with the report card released in 2017, the cohort rate (in
the aggregate, and disaggregated for each category of
students defined in subsection (b)(3)(A), except that such
disaggregation shall not be required in a case in which the
number of students is insufficient to yield statistically
reliable information or the results would reveal personally
identifiable information about an individual student) at
which students who graduate from the high school enroll, for
the first academic year that begins after the students'
graduation--

``(I) in programs of public postsecondary education in the
State; and
``(II) if data are available and to the extent practicable,
in programs of private postsecondary education in the State
or programs of postsecondary education outside the State;

``(xix) if available and to the extent practicable, for
each high school in the State and beginning with the report
card released in 2018, the remediation rate (in the
aggregate, and disaggregated for each category of students
defined in subsection (b)(3)(A), except that such
disaggregation shall not be required in a case in which the
number of students is insufficient to yield statistically
reliable information or the results would reveal personally
identifiable information about an individual student) for
students who graduate from the high school at--

``(I) programs of postsecondary education in the State; and
``(II) programs of postsecondary education outside the
State;

Amendment No. 2232

(Purpose: To allow extended services Project SERV grants under part A
of title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to be
available for violence prevention activities)

On page 431, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
``(e) Project SERV.--
``(1) Additional use of funds.--Funds available under
subsection (a)(4) for extended services grants under the
Project School Emergency Response to Violence program
(referred to in this subsection as the `Project SERV
program') may be used by a local educational agency or
institution of higher education receiving such grant to
initiate or strengthen violence prevention activities, as
part of the activities designed to restore the learning
environment that was disrupted by the violent or traumatic
crisis in response to which the grant was awarded, and as
provided in this subsection.
``(2) Application process.--
``(A) In general.--A local educational agency or
institution of higher education desiring to use a portion of
extended services grant funds under the Project SERV program
to initiate or strengthen a violence prevention activity
shall--
``(i) submit, in an application that meets all requirements
of the Secretary for the Project SERV program, the
information described in subparagraph (B); or
``(ii) in the case of a local educational agency or
institution of higher education that has already received an
extended services grant under the Project SERV program,
submit an addition to the original application that includes
the information described in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Application requirements.--The information required
under this subparagraph is the following:
``(i) A demonstration that there is a continued disruption
or a substantial risk of disruption to the learning
environment that would be addressed by such activity.
``(ii) An explanation of the proposed activity designed to
restore and preserve the learning environment.
``(iii) A budget and budget narrative for the proposed
activity.
``(3) Award basis.--Any award of funds under the Project
SERV program for violence prevention activities under this
subsection shall be subject to the discretion of the
Secretary and the availability of funds.
``(4) Prohibited use.--No funds provided to a local
educational agency or institution of higher education under
the Project SERV program for violence prevention activities
may be used for construction, renovation, or repair of a
facility or for the permanent infrastructure of the local
educational agency or institution.

Amendment No. 2256

(Purpose: To amend the definitions of eligible technology and
technology readiness survey and to provide a restriction on funds)

Beginning on page 587, strike line 15 and all that follows
through page 588, line 10, and insert the following:

[[Page S5104]]

``(2) Eligible technology.--The term `eligible technology'
means modern computer, and communication technology software,
services, or tools, including computer or mobile devices,
whether for use in school or at home, software applications,
systems and platforms, digital learning content, and related
services, supports, and strategies, which may include
strategies to assist eligible children without adequate
Internet access at home to complete homework.
``(3) Technology readiness survey.--The term `technology
readiness survey' means a survey completed by a local
educational agency that provides standardized information on
the quantity and types of technology infrastructure and
access available to the students and in the community served
by the local educational agency, including computer devices,
access to school libraries, Internet connectivity (including
Internet access outside of the school day), operating
systems, related network infrastructure, data systems,
educator professional learning needs and priorities, and data
security.
``(4) Universal design for learning.--The term `universal
design for learning' has the meaning given the term in
section 103 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1003).

``SEC. 5702A. RESTRICTION.

``Funds awarded under this part shall not be used to
address the networking needs of an entity that is eligible to
receive support under the E-rate program.

Amendment No. 2240

(Purpose: To provide resources needed to study and review Native
American language medium schools and programs)

At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. 1020__. REPORT ON NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGE MEDIUM
EDUCATION.

(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to authorize a
study to evaluate all levels of education being provided
primarily through the medium of Native languages and to
require a report of the findings, within the context of the
findings, purposes, and provisions of the Native American
Languages Act (25 U.S.C. 2901), the findings, purposes, and
provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), and other related laws.
(b) Study and Review.--The Secretary of Education shall
award grants to eligible entities to study and review Native
language medium schools and programs.
(c) Eligible Entity Defined.--In this section, the term
``eligible entity'' means a consortium that--
(1) includes not less than 3 units of an institution of
higher education, such as a department, center, or college,
that has significant experience--
(A) and expertise in Native American or Alaska Native
languages, and Native language medium education; and
(B) in outreach and collaboration with Native communities;
(2) has within its membership at least 10 years of
experience--
(A) addressing a range of Native American or Alaska Native
languages and indigenous language medium education issues
through the lens of Native studies, linguistics, and
education; and
(B) working in close association with a variety of schools
and programs taught predominantly through the medium of a
Native language;
(3) includes for each of American Indians, Alaska Natives,
and Native Hawaiians, at least 1 unit of an institution of
higher education that focuses on schools that serve such
populations; and
(4) includes Native American scholars and staff who are
fluent in Native American languages.
(d) Applications.--An eligible entity that desires to
receive a grant under this section shall submit an
application to the Secretary of Education that--
(1) identifies 1 unit in the consortium that is the lead
unit of the consortium for the study, reporting, and funding
purposes;
(2) includes letters of verification of participation from
the top internal administrators of each unit in the
consortium;
(3) includes a brief description of how the consortium
meets the eligibility qualifications under subsection (c);
(4) describes the work proposed to carry out the purpose of
this section; and
(5) provides other information as requested by the
Secretary of Education.
(e) Scope of Study.--An eligible entity that receives a
grant under this section shall use the grant funds to study
and review Native American language medium schools and
programs and evaluate the components, policies, and practices
of successful Native language medium schools and programs and
how the students who enroll in them do over the long term,
including--
(1) the level of expertise in educational pedagogy, Native
language fluency, and experience of the principal, teachers,
paraprofessionals, and other educational staff;
(2) how such schools and programs are using Native
languages to provide instruction in reading, language arts,
mathematics, science, and, as applicable, other core academic
subjects;
(3) how such school and programs' curricula incorporates
the relevant Native culture of the students;
(4) how such schools and programs assess the academic
proficiency of the students, including--
(A) whether the school administers assessments of language
arts, mathematics, science, and other academic subjects in
the Native language of instruction;
(B) whether the school administers assessments of language
arts, mathematics, science, and other academic subjects in
English; and
(C) how the standards measured by the assessments in the
Native language of instruction and in English compare;
(5) the academic, graduation rate, and other outcomes of
students who have completed the highest grade taught
primarily through such schools or programs, including, when
available, college attendance rates compared with
demographically similar students who did not attend a school
in which the language of instruction was a Native language;
and
(6) other appropriate information consistent with the
purpose of this section.
(f) Other Entities.--An eligible entity may enter into a
contract with another individual, entity, or organization to
assist in carrying out research necessary to fulfill the
purpose of this section.
(g) Recommendations.--Not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, an eligible entity that
receives a grant under this section shall--
(1) develop a detailed statement of findings and
conclusions regarding the study completed under subsection
(e), including recommendations for such legislative and
administrative actions as the eligible entity considers to be
appropriate; and
(2) submit a report setting forth the findings and
conclusions, including recommendations, described in
paragraph (1) to each of the following:
(A) The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
of the Senate.
(B) The Committee on Education and the Workforce of the
House of Representatives.
(C) The Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate.
(D) The Subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native
Affairs of the House of Representatives.
(E) The Secretary of Education.
(F) The Secretary of the Interior.

Amendment No. 2249

(Purpose: To amend section 1111(c) of the ESEA to require States to
provide an assurance regarding cross-tabulation of student data)

On page 73, line 12, strike the period at the end and
insert the following: ``; and
``(N) the State educational agency will provide the
information described in clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) of
subsection (d)(1)(C) to the public in an easily accessible
and user-friendly manner that can be cross-tabulated by, at a
minimum, each major racial and ethnic group, gender, English
proficiency, and students with or without disabilities,
which--
``(i) may be accomplished by including such information on
the annual State report card described subsection (d)(1)(C));
and
``(ii) shall be presented in a manner that--

``(I) is first anonymized and does not reveal personally
identifiable information about an individual student;
``(II) does not include a number of students in any
category of students that is insufficient to yield
statistically reliable information or that would reveal
personally identifiable information about an individual
student; and
``(III) is consistent with the requirements of section 444
of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g,
commonly known as the `Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act of 1974').

``(3) Rules of construction.--Nothing in paragraph (2)(N)
shall be construed to--
``(A) require groups of students obtained by any entity
that cross-tabulates the information provided under such
paragraph to be considered categories of students under
subsection (b)(3)(A) for the purposes of the State
accountability system under subsection (b)(3); or
``(B) to prohibit States from publicly reporting data in a
cross-tabulated manner, in order to meet the requirements of
paragraph (2)(N).
``(4) Technical assistance.--Upon request by a State
educational agency, the Secretary shall provide technical
assistance to such agency in order to meet the requirements
of paragraph (2)(N).
On page 189, after line 23, insert the following:
``(5) Designing the report cards and reports under section
1111(d) in an easily accessible, user-friendly manner that
cross-tabulates student information by any category the State
determines appropriate, as long as such cross-tabulation--
``(A) does not reveal personally identifiable information
about an individual student; and
``(B) is derived from existing State and local reporting
requirements and data sources.
``(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in paragraph (5) shall
be construed as authorizing, requiring, or allowing any
additional reporting requirements, data elements, or
information to be reported to the Secretary not otherwise
explicitly authorized under this Act.

Amendment No. 2120 Withdrawn

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Warren amendment
No. 2120 is withdrawn.
The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S5105]]

Nuclear Agreement With Iran

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, needless to say, yesterday's announcement
about our ongoing stature and status with Iran is, in my view, a
dangerous step forward in advancing not only the illicit nuclear
program that they have had up until now but the clear nuclear weapons
capability they would have under this agreement.
I think the agreement confirms that the President was too willing to
get a deal with Iran at any price. The concessions made by the
administration, based on the starting point of these discussions, I
believe to be stunning. All we have to do is go back and review a
little bit of recent history to see that today Iran's advancement of
instability, terrorism, and violence in the world continues unabated
and not hampered by the agreement that has just been announced.
Tomorrow, we will see all of those things still continue unabated, and
unfortunately they are much better positioned and much better funded
than they are right now.
Supported by Iran, Assad in Syria has been massacring his own people,
resulting in the deaths of at least 191,000 people in Syria. That is
according to the U.N., and those numbers were reported a year ago.
Assad, by the way, stepped forward immediately to praise this
agreement.
Supported by Iran, Shiite militias are continuing to support Assad
and promote division and violence throughout the country of Iraq.
Supported by Iran, Houthi rebels have seized key territory in Yemen and
continue to work to destabilize that country. Supported by Iran,
Hezbollah in Lebanon wages terrorism and calls for the annihilation.
Supported by Iran, Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza continue to lob
mortars and rockets into Israel.
Last April, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy stopped a
Marshall Islands-flagged ship as it tried to go into the Strait of
Hormuz. This is at a time when Iran is trying to get major countries in
the world to negotiate with them.
Iran continues to hold hostages without any reasonable way of
defining hostages and without any reasonable charge. They currently
have three Americans held as hostages: Pastor Saeed Abedini, former
U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati, and Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian.
They also remain totally uncooperative in helping to locate former FBI
official Robert Levinson. When the Secretary of State was asked about
why these people weren't part of the negotiations, he said: Well, this
was a negotiation about nuclear weapons but not about people unlawfully
and wrongly detained.
Well, it quickly became a negotiation about not just nuclear weapons
but all kinds of other weapons that we have prevented the Iranians from
having access to in a worldwide marketplace. That was quickly added to
the topic, but we couldn't get three Americans released and find out
more about one American than we know now.
The concessions laid out by yesterday's announcement were also, I
thought, pretty stunning. Concerning uranium enrichment, the Obama
administration said a year and a half ago Iran didn't have the right to
enrich.
In November of 2013, the Secretary of State told ABC News:

We do not recognize the right to enrich. It is clear . . .
in the nonproliferation treaty, it's very, very [clear] that
there is no right to enrich.

Under the agreement, Iran is allowed to continue to enrich.
As far as inspections, the President said we would have to be able to
verify Iran's compliance or Iran's cheating through anywhere, anytime
inspections. It is widely understood that any good deal must allow
inspections--trust but verify. The President may say that is in there,
but it is clearly not in there.
In fact, last April the President's Deputy National Security Advisor
proudly proclaimed that ``under this deal'' we ``will have anywhere,
anytime 24/7 access'' to Iran's nuclear facilities. As it turns out
under this deal, inspectors will be forced to wait up to 24 days for
access to suspicious sites once they ask for access to suspicious
sites. That is a brand-new definition of ``anywhere, anytime.'' You can
possibly have access in 24 days, and obviously lots of things can and
would change in 24 days.
Militarily, the President said we would disclose and define the
possible military dimensions of the research and where Iran's illegal
nuclear program was headed. The President said this information is
critical to knowing what Iran's true breakout potential and their true
intentions would be. Under this agreement, however, the option of
examining the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program is
off the table.
As far as sanctions, the administration said that removing all
sanctions was a nonstarter until Iran demonstrated that it is complying
with the agreement. A little over a year ago, in March of 2014,
Secretary Kerry said: ``Iran is not open for business until Iran is
closed for nuclear bombs.'' However, we know now that Iran will, in
fact, be open for business much sooner than that. This deal will not
only allow them to be open for business, but they will be rewarded with
hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of sanctions relief and return
of assets that didn't have to be returned. And under this agreement all
sanctions, even those related to arms, missiles, and proliferation,
will be removed--not suspended. These will be removed. We have some of
the most aggressive arms suppliers in the world, and Iran is now being
given access to all kinds of arms that they couldn't get legally or
easily up until now.
All economic and banking sections, as well as those imposed on
transport, insurance, petrochemical industries, and valuable materials
will be removed.
As far as dismantling, the President said Iran would have to
dismantle its illegal nuclear program. In December of 2013, the chief
negotiator, Wendy Sherman, told PBS that a final agreement should
include ``a lot of dismantling of their infrastructure.'' Yet under
this deal we are seeing that Iran's program will, in fact, almost all
be preserved, not dismantled.
The length of the agreement--the P5+1 initially stipulated that Iran
must accept restrictions on its nuclear program for 20 years plus
another 25 years, and then later they said 20 years plus another 10
years, and finally their last offer was just 20 years, which in the end
was reduced to 10 years. I think over the next 60 days, as people read
the fine print of the agreement, they might find out that it is even
less than 10 years, but they certainly know now it is not 20 years plus
25 years.
This is a bad deal for the United States and one that will embolden
our enemies, jeopardize the security of our allies, and further lead
our friends to not believe they can trust us and our enemies not to be
afraid of us. In a dangerous world, what worse place could we be in
than that.
The stated goal of the negotiations was to ensure that Iran never
developed the capability of producing a nuclear weapon. Yet the
President agreed to a deal that does just the opposite. By allowing
Iran to become nuclear weapons capable and failing to provide for
anytime, anywhere inspections, this deal gives Iran a free pass to
cheat at its military sites with no access to U.S. inspectors.

Meanwhile, just last week Iran continued its calls for the
destruction of Israel. These are the people we are allowing, through
this process, to have access to more weapons and to become nuclear
weapons capable. Just last week, Iran called, as it has for decades,
for the destruction of Israel and ``death to America.'' In fact, Iran's
Supreme Leader stood by, calling for the need to fight the United
States even if there is an agreement. I don't know that we have ever
before entered into an agreement with another country that, while we
are in the agreement, says: And by the way, no matter if there is an
agreement or not, we want to continue to see the United States as an
enemy we need to fight.
This deal undermines the security of our friends and allies. It
legitimizes Iran's unapologetic sponsorship of terrorism throughout the
Middle East.
It is interesting what could be included, by the way, and what
couldn't be included.
Iran has repeatedly refused to abide by international agreements that
require inspection of nuclear facilities, details of facility designs,
acquisition and production of nuclear materials. What makes us think
Iran is going to change that behavior now? The negotiations themselves
should lead us to believe the new Iran is still the old Iran.
This is a bad deal. It is a deal that just hopes that in the next 8
or 10 years

[[Page S5106]]

the Iranian Government totally changes, the Iranian attitude totally
changes, our relationship with them totally changes, and it just hopes
that in the interim--during the time we have that hoped-for change--the
Iranians don't cheat. This is a hope, not a strategy, and it is a hope,
not a strategy, wherein we would let the world become much more
destabilized as a result.
After months of negotiations, Iran hasn't released a single American
prisoner, nor have they announced any intentions to do so.
The Iranians, the Russians, the Chinese, the Syrians--or at least the
Syrians who are still controlled by Assad--may like this deal, but this
is a bad deal for the United States of America, it is a bad deal for
world stability, and it is a bad deal for our friends.
Frankly, I think the law that Congress passed that now gives the
Congress of the United States 60 days to look at it will turn out to be
60 days that the President himself is about to find out what is in the
deal he and the administration signed.
This is a serious matter for every Member of the Senate.
I was asked earlier today: Are you going to lobby Members of the
Senate as to how they should vote on this agreement when it comes up?
I said: I am going to do everything I can to talk about the real
shortcomings of this agreement, the destabilizing effects of this
agreement, but every Member of the Senate is going to have to answer
for this agreement and this vote for a long time.
Members of the Senate on their own are going to have to decide what
side of this to wind up on. I predict that a majority--and maybe a
substantial majority--of the Senate will wind up understanding that
this is a bad deal for America and a bad deal for the future of the
world's security.
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. 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.

Amendment No. 2241

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, as we wait for colleagues to arrive to the
floor, I thought I would take a few minutes to speak a little bit about
accountability in this bill.
As we know, the No Child Left Behind legislation and now this new
version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act require annual
tests. They are not popular.
I believe we are overtesting kids in this country. It is not the
Federal requirement that is causing that; it is the relationship of the
Federal requirement to State and local tests that are administered, so
that by the time we get to the classroom inhabited by one of my three
daughters who go to Denver's public schools, for example, kids end up
spending too much time being tested. Part of that is because we haven't
done a good job, I don't think, of distinguishing between tests that
are used for accountability purposes--how is the school doing growing
kids--and tests that are used for teaching and learning purposes, which
are assessments that have to happen all the time during the school
year. When I was in school, we called those quizzes, and we dreaded
them, just as people dread them today. That was the way teachers were
able to keep an eye on how students were doing in their classroom
throughout the year so they could course correct, so they could make
changes based on the individual needs of the kids in their classroom.
Teaching and learning and accountability aren't the same things, and
I think we put too much freight on some of these assessments. I hope
what we are going to see as we come out of this new reauthorization is
an understanding about the importance of the accountability--why we
have it--and better implementation of tests at the State and local
level.
There is no reason for the Federal Government to be involved in
education, really--only 9 percent of what we spend is Federal money,
and the rest of it is State and local money--except for one reason. The
civil rights imperative in this bill and that is at the heart of this
bill has said to us that we just can't look the other way when it comes
to kids of color and kids living in poverty in this country, which we
did for decades--for decades--without knowing where we were headed.
The one great benefit of No Child Left Behind is that it required
that data about kids living in poverty, kids of color, kids with
special needs, and English language learners as well be published so we
could see the huge gaps that exist all across this country in
educational attainment. We can't go backward on that. I agree that
allowing States to have more flexibility in the design of these systems
is important. It is an important step forward in this bill.
As I mentioned yesterday, when I was the superintendent of the Denver
Public Schools--the best job I ever had; I had that honor--I used to
wonder all the time why people in Washington were so mean to our
teachers and to our kids. I got here and I realized they weren't mean,
they just have absolutely no idea what is going on in our schools and
our classrooms. Where the Presiding Officer is right now, right here,
in this place--and I mean this literally--is as far away as one can get
from a school or a classroom in this country and still be in this
universe. We are very distant. We may think we know what is going on
there, but we don't know. This institution doesn't know.
While I, as that superintendent, have developed a very strong view
that I didn't want to be told how we should do things by Washington,
and I didn't want Washington telling my teachers how to do things, our
principals how to do things, kids and families how to do things, I
think it is important and imperative that we have a national
expectation for what kids ought to be able to do at certain grade
levels and that we have a national imperative around the achievement
gap in this country.
We also have a national imperative--people may not like to know
this--to figure out how we are going to replace the 1.5 million
teachers we are going to require in this country over the next several
years.
Those are all issues of national concern, but our federalist system
tells us there are certain responsibilities assumed by the States and
certain responsibilities assumed by the Federal Government, and we have
gotten that twisted up when it comes to education. So I think that is
an important step forward, that we are not going to be telling people
how to do it, but we need to remind people that they need to do it.
It is not OK that we live in a country where if you are unlucky
enough to be born poor, your chances of getting a college degree or its
equivalent are roughly 9 in 100. That is not OK. That is a matter of
national concern. That is why the accountability provisions in this
bill are so important. To be honest, that is why the annual testing is
so important, if it is done wisely and well and if the data is used in
a thoughtful way to measure student growth.
No Child Left Behind not only was a huge overreach by the Federal
Government, it also asked and answered the profoundly wrong question.
It asked: How did this year's group of fourth graders do compared to
last year's fourth graders? That is how we evaluated schools, on that
basis. That is crazy. They are not the same kids. The question we
should be asking and the question we are asking now in many States and
in many communities across the country is this: How did this group of
sixth graders do compared to how they did as fifth graders compared to
how they did as fourth graders and then compared to all the kids in the
State--this is the way we do it in Colorado--who had a statistically
similar test history. That reveals a lot of information.
For No Child Left Behind, we used to have a matrix in Denver, and it
was four squares, and in the upper right-hand corner was--well, there
are two measures; one is growth and one is status. How much did you
grow this year? It would be like saying, how much weight did you gain
or lose this year, versus status, which is, how much did you weigh?
What is your achievement level? Those are two different ideas.
In those four boxes I mentioned earlier, in the upper right we had
high growth, high status schools, and in this corner we had high status
but low growth schools. Those are schools we

[[Page S5107]]

called excellent schools under No Child Left Behind. Those were blue
ribbon schools even though kids were losing ground in those schools.
They arguably shouldn't have been because those schools didn't have the
struggles schools have with kids living in poverty. Those were blue
ribbon schools. Those are schools where we were telling moms and dads
and kids that everything is fine, even though kids were losing ground
when they showed up at the schoolhouse door.
The reverse was also true. The reverse was also true because we were
saying to schools that were below the threshold of high status--low
status schools--that they were failing schools even though they might
have been schools where what we were seeing was 2 years of growth for
kids who had started out way behind because they had come to
kindergarten with that stubborn word gap, that 30 million word gap that
kids have who are living in poverty and are showing up in kindergarten.
By the way, we are not doing anything, almost, as a country to deal
with that problem.
As I mentioned yesterday, we are having a debate in Washington about
income redistribution sometimes. We have a discussion about what the
Tax Code should be, and there are people here who believe that it
shouldn't do anything. That is a principled position, but if that is a
person's position, they better be working day and night to make sure
every single kid in America has access to high-quality early childhood
education. We better make sure every kid in America has access and a
choice to go to a high-performing K-12 school. And we better make sure
we are doing everything we can to make it easier, not harder, to go to
college to get a higher education degree because this unforgiving
international economy is not going to change its mind about whether a
high school degree is enough or dropping out of high school is enough.
We need to be focused on education in this country. It is the single
most important public good we provide domestically. If a person asks me
as a parent what I would take a risk on for my kids, the No. 1 thing I
wouldn't take a risk on is their education. That is how we ought to be
feeling about all of the kids in the United States of America. We
should stop treating America's children as though they are someone
else's kids. They are not someone else's kids; they are our kids. And
if we extrapolate the academic outcomes that we are seeing in this
country, the college graduation rates we are seeing, the high school
graduation rates--if we extrapolate those against the changing
demographics in the United States, we are not going to recognize
ourselves in the 21st century.
When we constrain a child, a human being, an American citizen to the
margin of this economy or the margin of the democracy simply because
they are born into poverty and we can't do the work to provide a high-
quality education, that is all the evidence we need that we are
treating people as though they are someone else's kids. That is why, by
the way, there is more we need to do on accountability.
I feel as though we have made good progress with a lot of this bill,
and I am extremely grateful for the leadership of Chairman Alexander
from Tennessee and the ranking member of the committee, Senator Patty
Murray, and I am pleased to see that the bill passed out of committee
unanimously. Remember, ESEA is fundamentally a civil rights law. We
should measure growth. We should identify the bottom 5 percent of
schools in this country. We need to ensure that subgroups and high-
performing schools are not left behind. And that is the power of the
data that is collected, and that is the power of what is called the
disaggregation of that data so that we can see outcomes.
I see my colleague from New Jersey is here. Through the Chair, I
would ask if he wishes to speak, and if so, I will stop. I was filling
time. I do want to talk about the comparability loophole, but I will
come back to that and yield to my colleague from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I am grateful to Senator Bennet. Senator
Bennet and I met around education issues. Senator Bennet led the
largest public school system in the State of Colorado. Senator Bennet
has been in the weeds of education for years, if not decades.
I am grateful that Senator Bennet began his remarks by saying all of
the things that have been wrong with No Child Left Behind. That was a
bad piece of legislation. We saw the aspects of it that were causing
problems and that have created a bipartisan push to fix them.
I want to give credit to Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator Patty
Murray for joining together and doing the things necessary to improve
the bill. The culture of education has shifted in this country, from
high-stakes testing to looking at measures that made no sense to
creating artificial deadlines that could not be met or even doing
things that undermined the very goals and aspirations that we have for
our country, which is to lead the globe in educational excellence.
So, I am encouraged by Senator Bennet and myself and the majority of
this body who agree that this legislation needs to be changed. It is a
left-right coalition that is encouraging to me.
But I want to echo Senator Bennet's concerns about a problem that is
not being addressed--that as the pendulum swings away from the problems
of No Child Left Behind, we not create new ones that cut against the
very ideals with which this legislation was put in place by Lyndon
Johnson. Lyndon Johnson said clearly that this was a bill to bridge the
gap in this country between help and the helpless, for those children
who are suffering on the educational margins of our society, drowning
in the eddies of educational lack of opportunity, caught in the
quicksand of poverty and race, and with challenges that undermine and
contribute to the dysfunction and inequality in our Nation. This was to
be the bridge. It is why this body acted under President Johnson.
So now, Senator Bennet, I have a distressed heart, because what this
amendment we are trying to put forward does is to allow us to get to a
point where we are now not even putting a spotlight on where we are
failing to live up to our values. This amendment calls for us to at
least acknowledge that there are children in our country who are stuck
in so-called dropout factories, children who are perpetually
underachieving, and schools that are failing the genius of our
children. What this amendment was seeking to do was to say that we
cannot ignore our children, we cannot turn our backs on these children,
we cannot turn over and say it doesn't exist, because we do have a
problem in our Nation. What anguishes me about this problem is that the
children we are turning our backs on and not focusing on are children
that are poor and children that are disproportionately minority.
To paraphrase Martin Luther King, he said that what we will have to
repent for in this day and age is not the vitriolic words and actions
of the bad people but the appalling silence and inaction of the good
people.
I hear time and again that we love our children in America. Well, if
we love them, we should do something about the challenges that are
afflicting a small percentage of our kids who do not get the
educational environment they deserve. This is a peculiar form of
American insanity--insanity being defined as doing the same thing over
and over again and expecting different results. We are not going to
change this problem of perpetual failure in too many of our schools
that affect poor and minorities by not having some attention to that
problem.
Let's be clear. We have learned lessons. This amendment No. 2241, the
ESEA accountability amendment, does not do the things that this body in
its majority thinks should no longer be done by the Federal Government.
Let me be clear. This amendment does not reinstate any type of
adequate yearly progress, or AYP. In fact, the underlying bill is
repealed. AYP is repealed. It does not establish artificial deadlines
such as No Child Left Behind did, saying that all children will be
proficient by 2014. It does not establish Federal goals for our
students. States will have the prerogative to set their own. It does
not impose test-based accountability on States. States must include a
range of factors in their State-designed accountability systems. It

[[Page S5108]]

does not require schools to implement a one-size-fits-all intervention.
Local districts will design the intervention for underperforming
schools.
This legislation is not prescriptive. This legislation is not
Washington telling local districts what to do. This amendment does not
design programs. It simply says that there must be a commitment made
when there are these dropout factories and when there are these
populations that are not being served to ensure that States identify
certain low-performing schools so that students in these schools
receive the support they need.
It would require locally designed, evidence-based interventions to
schools identified in the following categories: the lowest performing 5
percent of our schools; high schools where less than two-thirds of
students graduate; and schools where subgroups, including low-income
students, students of color, students with disabilities, and English
learners miss State-established goals on multiple measures for 2
consecutive years. This amendment says that we cannot ignore those
children whom we are failing to serve, and that we can't turn our back
on these kids.
We salute this flag and say ``liberty and justice for all.'' Well,
every issue that I hear discussed in this august body cannot be dealt
with unless we deal with all children. The achievement gap in America
will not be addressed unless we focus on all children. The poverty gap
in America will not be addressed unless we focus on all children. The
opportunity gap in America will not be addressed unless we deal with
all children. Issues that I am passionate about such as mass
incarceration will not be addressed unless we focus on all children.
And the competitive economy--the productivity of our Nation--will not
reach its full strength unless we focus on all children.
So I am distressed today that this body will put into place a piece
of educational legislation that ignores the very children to whom this
original legislation was dedicated to serving years ago. We cannot be a
great nation if we have parts of our country--be they neighborhoods or
schools--that fail to experience what should be the bedrock of our
country: equal opportunity, a great education, and the opportunity to
succeed through one's grit, sweat, and hard work. We don't have that
now.
If we in this body create legislation that pours millions of dollars
into the States and then say that if States choose to ignore these
kids, if States choose to turn their backs on the children who need
them most, if States don't even want to put forward an idea of how to
address this persistent problem, and we are OK, then to me we belie the
oath we took, the pledge we gave to bring justice to all children.
We speak of accountability in this country. Well, we should be
accountable to the government dollars that we spend for America. We
should be accountable for the ideals of this Nation.
So I hope I can get my colleagues to support this bill that Senator
Murphy and Senator Bennet are leading so well. I hope we can stand up
in a chorus of conviction in this body, saying that every single
child--no matter what station in life, no matter how poor your parents
are, no matter what your background, color, creed or religion--can have
hope and opportunity in our public schools.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I thank Senator Booker.
I see the Senator from Pennsylvania is here. The Senator from
Connecticut is here, and I want to thank him for his leadership and how
he has stuck with it week after week after week.
I want to say to my friend from New Jersey, through the Chair, how
much I appreciate his words and his aspirations for our country,
because we are falling down on the job.
We have issue after issue after issue that comes here to the Senate
floor--sometimes resolved, sometimes not. Education almost never is in
front of us.
I sometimes hear people say this, and it rattles me when I hear them
say it. Sometimes people say: Michael, don't you know that not
everybody is going to go to college? Don't you know that not everybody
is going to go to college?
That is OK with me as long as it is their decision that they are
making and that they are an educated 12th grader but they are deciding
not going to go to college. That is the decision they are making.
But the reality is that it is not that we are sort of, kind of
getting it right when it comes to kids in this country. Let's do the
math. If you are born poor in the United States, because of the way our
K-12 system works in access to higher education, you stand a 9-in-100
chance of getting a college degree--not an 80 percent chance, not a 75
percent chance, but 9 in 100.
If we were poor kids in this place instead of Senators, it would be
those desks in the front row, the desks in the row behind them, and
three desks in the next row. The entire rest of this Senate would be a
sea of people without a college degree. That is the condition for poor
kids living in the United States of America. That is the circumstance
they face. We have to start believing there are kids--they are not
someone else's kids. We learned for the first time a month ago--this is
not a measure of poverty in the same sense that I was just using the
word, but for the first time in this country's history, over half our
public school children are poor enough that they qualify for free and
reduced lunch.

We did not change the standard for free and reduced lunch. That is
the effect of 20 years of an economy that is not driving middle-class
wages up and the worst recession since the Great Depression. So at
every level from the schoolhouse door to the floor of the Senate, this
ought to be our No. 1 priority. Because as the Senator from New Jersey
said, all the other stuff that we want to fix--he mentioned what we
need to do with sentencing reform.
Eighty-five percent of the people in our prisons are high school
dropouts. That tells you something about what you might do to cure that
problem. This ought to be our No. 1 issue. It ought to be our No. 1
here, and it ought to be our No. 1 issue at home.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. Before our leader on this amendment speaks, Senator
Murphy, I do want to echo what Senator Bennet said. He has been leading
this charge in a bipartisan manner, pulling people together trying to
get this across. I just want to echo that last point that Senator
Bennet made. We as a nation have this ideal that America is the best
country if you are poor to be born into; that you can make it here.
This is the country--Statue of Liberty, give us your tired, your
hungry, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores. This is the country
you can make it in.
Well, unfortunately, in social mobility, which is a measurable
index--the ability for somebody to make it out of poverty into the
middle class--we have fallen. We have fallen on that list compared to
our peers from other nations. If you just have the simple goal of
making it out of poverty, America is no longer the No. 1 country to do
that.
The principle reason for this is that the tried and true pathway to
the middle class must be the schoolhouse door. That path must lead
through educational systems. If our children don't have that access or
if we leave some children behind, we shut those doors to quality
education. Then it is an affront to the very ideal of the American
dream, and we are failing the purpose, the greatness, the glory that is
America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Amendment No. 2247, as modified

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an amendment that is
offered by the senior Senator from North Carolina. It is an amendment
that would change the formula for how title I funds are allocated among
the States. So first by way of background, title I is the largest
category of Federal financial assistance for K-through-12 education. So
we are talking about a large pot of money. This is the biggest single
source of Federal funding for primary and secondary education.
Under current law, the formula for how that money is allocated to the
school districts is based on two things. It is based on the number of
children who live in poverty in these respective districts, but it is
also related to the average amount that the various States spend on
education. So let me

[[Page S5109]]

be very clear. It is not a single, uniform amount per student. It was
never meant to be. It still is not.
There is a reason for that. The reason is it is meant--this
correlation to not only the number of kids in poverty but also the
amount of money States spend on education is designed that way in order
to reflect the fact that there are different costs of living in
different States. Nobody would dispute that, I don't think. In some
States, the real estate on which you build the school is more
expensive. Some States have a higher general wage level, so teachers
get paid more. States just have different expenses.
In addition, there is an incentive element. The incentive is, for
States that are willing to commit more resources--that means taxing
their residents more to fund education--then there is that little bit
more that comes from the Federal Government. So this is a finite amount
of money. What this amendment goes to is the question of how does this
get allocated? The amendment originally offered by the senior Senator
from North Carolina was very troubling to me because it would
profoundly change the formula effective immediately. This is a zero-sum
game. So some States would win a lot, other States would lose a lot.
Pennsylvania stood to lose a lot of funding under the formulation that
was originally constructed for this amendment--the gist of it being to
convert the funding to an almost uniform amount per student.
I can assure you, I was hearing loudly and clearly from the folks who
run especially the large school districts in Pennsylvania about how
concerned they were because it was a multimillion-dollar-per-year hit
that they were going to take. I spoke with Dr. Hite, who is the
superintendent of Philadelphia schools, and Dr. Lane from Pittsburgh
school district, as they would have been hit the hardest in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
In total, had the original amendment become law, it would have cost
Pennsylvania over $120 million per year. Every one of Pennsylvania's
500 school districts, except one, would have lost money. So 499 school
districts would have had to do with less and one would have had a
little more. Many of them would have lost huge amounts of their
funding.
I first want to say I appreciate the fact that the Senator from North
Carolina and other Senators worked with my office and other offices
across the aisle to take a different approach. So the original
amendment is no longer under consideration. My understanding is the
unanimous consent agreement which was struck earlier abandons that
approach, but it does still have an element of that direction that does
concern me.
I want to touch on that. So here is my understanding: Under the form
that the amendment now takes, and which we will be voting on maybe
later today, the current levels of funding will continue under the
current formula. In fact, that funding level, as it naturally tends to
grow each year because the Federal Government increases funding in
this--for a while, that growth will also occur according to the current
formulation. But at some point in the not-too-distant future, the total
spending on title I funding will reach about $17 billion--now it is
about 14.5. When it gets to $17 billion, from that point forward,
prospectively, the increments each year will then be allocated
according to the new formula, which is, by the design, the same design
as the original amendment, which is nearly uniform spending per child,
disregarding, in my view, the important consideration of the different
costs of living in the various States.
So this is a huge improvement, from my point of view, over what we
were looking at before. Pennsylvania will not have a dime cut from its
spending. The formula does not change next year or the year after. I am
not sure exactly when we will reach that $17 billion figure. But at
some point, if this amendment passes, this reformulated amendment from
the senior Senator from North Carolina, if it does pass, then at some
point we start to move incremental funding into this sort of uniform
formulation, rather than the current formulation where we take into
account the varying costs of education. So while this is a huge
improvement over the original version of this amendment, it is still
something that I think is very problematic and so I will be voting no
on this.
I would just summarize by saying that I think the amendment is
mistaken in two respects: One, it fundamentally fails to recognize the
varying costs of living in varying States. That is a very big
difference. Secondly, it penalizes those States that are willing to ask
their citizens to invest more in education by eliminating the current
mechanism. So I would urge my colleagues to vote no on that amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I thank my great friends Senator Booker
and Senator Bennet for their passionate and moving remarks about the
task ahead of us, to make sure that as we reauthorize No Child Left
Behind, as we reorder our priorities, that we remember that this law is
an education reform law, but it has to be a civil rights law as well.
It has to make sure that in the best traditions of this country, we are
requiring that every single child gets a quality education.
I want to talk about my amendment that is cosponsored by Senators
Booker and Warren, Coons, Durbin, Mikulski, and others. I want to start
by telling a story that is, unfortunately, not unfamiliar in probably
every corner of this country. I am going to talk about a 16-year-old
African-American boy, an eighth grader in an urban middle school in
Connecticut. I will call him James for today's purposes.
James had a habit of walking out of class in the middle of
instruction. He walked out of class and he would wander the hallways
until he would eventually run into a teacher, an administrator, a
school resource officer, who would haul him down to the principal's
office. His grandmother, who was his primary care giver, would get a
phone call. She would come pick him up and then the suspension
proceedings would start.
James would get suspended for a few days. He would come back, and the
whole cycle would play out again, such that by the middle of his first
semester of his eighth grade year, he had been out of school--
suspended--more days than he had been in school. One day he was so
frustrated when an assistant principal stopped him, once again, as he
was wandering the halls that he had an argument. He was a big kid for
his age, but he was a total teddy bear. He never hurt anybody. But that
day when he talked back to that assistant principal, they called the
police and James got arrested. Now he has a criminal record. But the
reason he was walking out of class day after day, week after week, was
pretty simple: James was an eighth grader who could not read--he could
not read. He could barely read. So he had this toxic mixture of
frustration and embarrassment every day that he sat in class such that
it had no relevance to him and he walked out.
The worst of it is that the school knew he could not read because he
had an identified learning disability. It was not a mystery. Yet James
got promoted year after year because it was easier to pass him along,
easier to push him out, as the suspensions and eventual arrest were on
their way to doing, rather than actually give James an education. Now,
I only know this story because my wife, who was then a legal aid lawyer
in Connecticut, represented James. His grandmother, who just wanted
James to get a decent education, would call my wife in tears every time
James was found in the hallway and suspended again and again.
My wife actually got the services James needed. But James' story is
not unique. Most kids do not have legal aid lawyers fighting on their
behalf. Most kids in James' situation have the deck stacked against
them: disabled kids who are hard to teach, poor kids who are warehoused
in failing schools, Black and Hispanic kids struggling to overcome
generations of discrimination.
They do not all have lawyers. They have us in the Congress. This
place, Washington, DC, has had its finest moments when it stands up for
educational civil rights: the idea that a child in this country should
get a quality education no matter their race or their address or their
disability. Whether we like it or not, there are these political
pressures in America that cause minority kids and disabled kids and
poor kids to get an education

[[Page S5110]]

that is not equal to that of their White or nondisabled or more
affluent peers.
The facts are just very stubborn. I can't say them any better than
Senator Bennet did earlier today. Today, half of African-American and
Latino fourth grade students score below the basic level of reading
that we expect of our students. Just one out of every seven African-
American eighth grade students scores at a basic proficiency level in
math. Nationally, 70 percent of students who attend high school with
low graduation rates come from low-income families. These statistics,
they represent a stain on the conscience of our Nation.
If this body wants to stay true to its history of standing up for
educational civil rights, then we have to make a stand this week to
make sure this Every Child Achieves Act ensures that minority and poor
and disabled kids get a fair shot at a good education.
Now, right now this bill does not meet this test. That is why the
Nation's leading civil rights organizations, from the NAACP to La Raza,
to the Urban League oppose this bill in its current form. It is why
they have joined together with business groups who want to make sure
our educational system stays competitive for everyone, to propose a
fairly simple solution to a problem that is also fairly simple.
So this bill requires that schools continue to assess student
performance while getting rid of those annual high-stakes tests that
were unquestionably bad for schools and for students. No Child Left
Behind was a bad bill for my State and for the Nation. So I am glad
Senators Murray and Alexander have come together to create something
better for our kids.
The bill requires that States track results by what we call
subgroups: minority students, disabled students, poor students, and
non-English-speaking students. But the problem is that when the schools
are failing or when minority or disabled students are falling way
behind their peers, the bill doesn't require or even ask States or
school districts to do anything to fix it--nothing. As a civil rights
matter, that is unacceptable.

No Child Left Behind said a lot on this issue, and most of it wasn't
helpful or productive. NCLB made the measurement of schools and
subgroups a test and only a test. NCLB prescribed in a detailed way
what schools had to do to turn around student outcomes, and NCLB
punished schools that didn't turn around those outcomes quickly enough.
We have learned a lot from that backwards approach, from this
``Washington knows best'' attitude. That is why the amendment we are
offering today takes a very different approach to accountability for
vulnerable kids. Under our amendment, States are required to identify
the bottom 5 percent of performing schools according to their
measurement of performance; they have to identify the dropout
factories--the high schools where fewer than two-thirds of the students
are graduating; and then they have to identify, again according to
their own measurement, schools where subgroups of students--low-income
students, students of color, students with disabilities, English
learners--aren't meeting their own set of criteria.
This amendment ensures that schools are identified based on a
measurement that is set by the State, not by Washington, and it has to
include multiple measures, not just test scores alone. Let me say that
again. The measurement is determined by the State, and it cannot be
based on test scores alone.
Then the amendment says that once you have identified those schools
or those student groups who are in need of improvement according to
your own measurements, then the State needs to come up with a plan to
improve outcomes. Period. Stop. Identify your achievement gaps
according to your own comprehensive measurements and come up with a
plan to fix the gaps. There is no federally dictated measurement, no
federally set intervention, no Federal penalty if you don't succeed.
Just identify your problems and come up with a plan to make the
problems better. The accountability will then happen naturally, as
students and parents and community members have input into that plan
and the ability to watch to see if it is working--local solutions,
local oversight, local accountability.
In 2006, as a candidate for Congress, I excoriated No Child Left
Behind wherever I went. I come from a family of teachers, and I married
a former teacher. Now I have two kids, one in the public school system
and one on his way there. And I watched firsthand as NCLB failed
teachers, parents, and students.
But about a month or so after I was sworn in to the House of
Representatives in 2007, I received a visit from the Children's Defense
Fund. They had heard how vocal I was in my criticism of the law, and
they just wanted me to know that not every State was like Connecticut.
They told me stories of places where prior to NCLB kids with
disabilities were sent for half a day of ``vocational training'' with
the janitor. Nothing was expected of those kids, and more often than
not those kids lived up to the low expectations that were set for them.
So maybe the only redeeming quality of No Child Left Behind was that
it did expose these inexcusable gaps in performance between disabled
and non-disabled kids. It forced States to talk about why Black
students year after year were 30 percent behind their White peer
students in achievement tests. It caused embarrassment for school
systems with schools where the majority of kids got so little out of
school that they dropped out before graduation. And it put pressure on
all of us to do better.
This is an education bill, but it is not a worthwhile bill unless it
is also a civil rights bill. Every single child, no matter their race
or their geography, their income or their disability, deserves a first-
rate education.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital amendment
that continues our march away from the stringent, inflexible
requirements of No Child Left Behind, while ensuring that all of our
students receive the support they need to be successful.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a couple aspects
of the legislation. I will do it in summary form. I will submit a
longer statement for the Record.
First, I wish to say how much I appreciate the work that has been
done not only this week but over many weeks and months that led up to
today. We were working a number of months ago on the Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions Committee to get a bill out of the committee. After
it was completed, of course it looked easy, but I know how hard Senator
Alexander, the chairman of the committee, and Senator Murray, the
ranking member, worked to reach this point. The vote that day was 22 to
0, and now we are considering the bill on the floor. So that is
significant and noteworthy, especially in these times in the Senate.
I just wanted to talk about a couple of aspects of this legislation.
For far too long, States have had to deal with the uncertainty of
Federal waivers. One aspect of the legislation we are focused on is
that we need one law that provides States and districts with more
flexibility.
We hear all across the country--I certainly heard it in
Pennsylvania--that among the concerns people had was a lack of
flexibility, sometimes a one-size-fits-all regimen that came from
Washington. So that flexibility is important. We also want to make sure
we are recapturing the original intent of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act--to protect our most vulnerable students.
The bill acknowledges the anxiety students, parents, and teachers
often feel about testing, but it also realizes and contemplates that we
must at the same time have a way to determine what students are
learning each year. So I am pleased to see that the legislation strikes
the balance by maintaining annual testing while taking significant
steps to reduce the high-stakes nature of the testing.
So while there is more work to be done to ensure that all our
children have access to high-quality early childhood education, I am
encouraged that the bill builds on decades of research on early
learning by requiring that States align their early learning guidelines
with their kindergarten through 12th grade standards. So this change
will help educators from Head Start, childcare, and other early
childhood

[[Page S5111]]

education programs in elementary schools work together so young
children have a successful continuity of learning over time that sets a
strong foundation throughout the kindergarten through 12th grade years
and beyond. That is something I pushed for over many years in the so-
called Continuum of Learning Act, and I am pleased it has been included
in the bill.
Mr. President, I wish to move to two other topics. I know we may have
limited time. The first is on the question of bullying, which we have
begun to address in the debates we have had leading up to this
legislation. We had a vote yesterday on Senator Franken's Student Non-
Discrimination Act. I supported that, and I commend him for his work,
but even with that vote, we have a long way to go on this issue.
Bullying, of course, is not what my generation understood it to be.
It is a much worse problem today. It is more severe, it is more
damaging, and it is destroying lives all across the country.
More students than ever are not in school every day for one reason--
bullying, because of the impact bullying has on their lives. If a child
is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, they are often and
disproportionately the victims of bullying. If a student has a
disability, he or she is often the victim of bullying, and again it is
disproportionate. So students are more likely to be bullied if they are
disabled, if they have a disability, or if they are gay, lesbian,
bisexual, or transgender. That is an abomination. That is an insult to
our country. Unless we begin to do something about this, we will still
see those numbers soaring.
Bullying, of course, is the ultimate betrayal. It is a betrayal by
adults with regard to children, and it is a betrayal of everything we
claim to stand for in America because we say to our children, ``If you
go to school every day and study hard and go to class and do your
homework and study hard for tests and quizzes, you will succeed,'' but,
of course, often children are betrayed because in between there, they
are bullied. When they go home, they are bullied. When dinner is over
at night, they are bullied. All throughout the night they are bullied
often because of technology and because of vicious students who go
after one student and use social media or other tools to harass and
bully that person. We have to do something about this. We have to do
more than just debate it and talk about it. We need to do something.
I am hoping that some of the efforts I have undertaken in my
legislation will be the subject of not just more debate but more
action, progress, and results when we get through the conference
committee because I think this overall legislation should reach the
point of getting to conference.
I am going to conclude because I see our chairman, who wants some
time before we start.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I am fine.
Mr. CASEY. Thank you.
I wish to give one example of a particular individual--a real-life
example of what bullying means, and I will have some comments as well
about prekindergarten education.
This is a real-life story. Brandon Bitner, 14 years old, of Mount
Pleasant Mills, PA, walked 13 miles from his home on an early Friday
morning in November of 2010 to a busy intersection and threw himself in
front of an oncoming tractor trailer after leaving a suicide note at
his home. That is what happened to a 14-year-old Pennsylvanian. I
cannot even imagine the horror of that, what led to that action he took
when he took his own life. It is, unfortunately, not an isolated
example. There are too many of these today. There would be too many if
there were one, but unfortunately there are many more than one.
So there seems to be little doubt in our minds and certainly in the
minds of those who knew Brandon why he did what he did on that day in
November of 2010. I am going to quote a friend, Takara Jo Folk. Here is
what Takara said: ``It was because of bullying.'' That was written in a
letter to the Daily Item, a newspaper in central Pennsylvania.
Quoting again from that letter:

``It was not about race or gender, but they bullied him for
his sexual preferences and the way he dressed. Which,'' she
said, ``they wrongly accused him of.''

Brandon's suicide note reportedly explained that he was constantly
bullied at Midwest High School in Middleburg, where he was a freshman.
Bullies at that school allegedly called Brandon names--names which I
will not repeat on the floor of the Senate. He stated in the note that
a humiliating event in school this past week was the ``straw that broke
the camel's back.''
Brandon was an accomplished violinist, having been a member of the
Susquehanna Youth Orchestra in 2009, the year before he took his own
life.
That story, unfortunately and tragically, is emblematic of the
problem. We read these stories all the time. They may not be every
single day and in every single newspaper, but not more than a week can
go by in the United States of America where you don't read something
like that.
I have others I could read as well, but I think folks within the
sound of my voice know this. We all know this. So what are we going to
do about it? Well, we all have a role to play. Parents have to do a lot
more. Parents haven't done enough. Public officials haven't done
enough. Schools haven't done enough. You could go down the list. At a
minimum--and that is why I introduced legislation that we want to get
back to; we want to be able to reach consensus--at a minimum, we should
say to school districts: Look, if you are getting Federal money and you
don't have a policy in place that deals with bullying and harassment
and you don't specifically define or list or enumerate what is unlawful
conduct, what is prohibited, then there should be a consequence for
that. You should have to prescribe what is wrong by way of a set of
rules, a code of conduct. You should enforce it. And you should keep
data. If we take those kinds of steps, at least we can say that in a
school or a school district, there is a heightened consciousness about
this problem and that it is everybody's problem. This isn't just the
problem of the person being bullied and the person engaging in
bullying; it is the problem of all of us, whether we are parents,
taxpayers, public officials, or whatever. We all have an obligation.

So I hope we can get back to this, in addition to continuing the good
work Senator Franken and others have started, because this is a
betrayal. It is a betrayal of our children. And we are all diminished
by our allowing this problem to persist.
The only good news here--and it is significant--is that in a lot of
places we have parents who are taking responsibility, teachers, school
administrators, school board directors, and of course students
themselves taking on the responsibility of making sure in their school
there will be zero tolerance for bullying, the best that they can
implement that kind of a policy. So we have students who are working
with other students to resolve disputes, to help someone who might be a
victim before something goes wrong and someone becomes a tragedy after
being a victim of bullying. So we have a ways to go on this issue, and
we have more to do.

Amendment No. 2242

Let me conclude with some thoughts about what we will likely be
voting on tomorrow, which is prekindergarten education. It is a very
rare vote on the floor of the Senate where the entire Senate will cast
a vote on a very basic program--a program to make sure that if a State
wants to join together in partnership with the Federal Government to
build upon, expand, enlarge, or even start from scratch an early
learning, prekindergarten program for 4-year-olds, this legislation
will give them that opportunity. This is paid for. We have an offset
for the cost of it.
This is the right thing to do for 3 million American children,
meaning that if this prekindergarten education program were enacted and
if every State took advantage and implemented this program, 3 million
children in the country would have prekindergarten education, 93,930 in
Pennsylvania alone. The State of Texas, for example, upon passage of
this kind of a program into law, will have the opportunity to have
300,000 children get the benefit of early learning.
Let me say finally that this is not just any program; we want high-
quality early learning. All the experts know, have known for years, and
have told us for years what works. If there is a high-quality program,
a child will learn more now and he or she will earn

[[Page S5112]]

more later. It is not just a rhyme, it is the truth. We have 50 years
of data making that direct linkage between learning and earning, and
all we need to do is give States the opportunity to work with us to
develop a nationwide strategy so that the United States can say we are
preparing not just our children for that bright future we hope they
have but that we are preparing our workforce and our economy. When you
make that linkage between learning and earning, you are literally not
just improving the life of that child, but you are improving our
economic prosperity as well. I think our economic destiny is tied to
these kinds of strategies.
So we have a long way to go to get there, but tomorrow we should have
a vote, and I am looking forward to that.
I also again commend Senators Alexander and Murray for their work on
the legislation overall.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. SANDERS. Of course.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, for Senators' information, I will be
talking to Senator Murray in the next few minutes, and there is a good
possibility we will have votes beginning at about 3 o'clock. But I will
have more to report, hopefully, after the Senator from Vermont makes
his remarks.
I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

Amendment No. 2177

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, one of the amendments that will be
offered is an amendment I have submitted regarding a major crisis in
this country that we don't talk about enough, and that is the
frighteningly high rate of youth unemployment in America.
I am delighted that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is on
the floor for debate today, and I thank Senator Alexander and Senator
Murray for their hard and constructive work on this important piece of
legislation. In my State of Vermont, we have held town meetings on No
Child Left Behind, and the people of Vermont want to leave No Child
Left Behind very far behind. They want to get rid of it. They feel it
has not been productive for our kids, and I think that sentiment exists
all over the country. If we go forward on this legislation, I think we
will be taking a very important step forward for the children of
America.
When we talk about the needs of our young people, it is not just a
dysfunctional child care system we talk about and the need to make sure
working families all over this country have good-quality, affordable
childcare; it is not simply that college is increasingly unaffordable
for millions of working-class families; it is not just that the United
States, tragically and embarrassingly, has the highest rate by far of
childhood poverty of any major industrialized country on Earth. We talk
about the future. We talk about family values. But the truth is that we
have significantly ignored the needs of our children, and that is not
what a great nation does--not a nation that looks forward to the
future.
This country has to come to grips with the reality that we have not
just a high rate of youth unemployment but a tragically high rate of
youth unemployment in this country. This is an issue we don't discuss.
It is literally swept under the rug. We have to bring it out in the
open, we have to discuss it, and we have to address this issue.
Last month, the Economic Policy Institute released a new study about
the level of youth unemployment in this country. This study took a
close look at census data on unemployment among young people between 17
and 20 who are jobless, those who are working part time when they need
a full-time job, and those who have given up looking for work
altogether. The results of this study should concern everybody in our
country and every Member of the Congress.
By the way, I have mentioned these facts in the past. PolitiFact,
which seems to check every statement I make, checked it out, and they
said these facts are basically accurate.
Here is what the Economic Policy Institute found. From April of 2014
to March of 2015, the average real unemployment rate for young White
high school graduates between the ages of 17 and 20 was 33.8 percent.
High school graduates, high school dropouts, White, 17 to 20--33.8
percent. The jobless figures for Hispanic kids in the same age group
was 36.1 percent. And incredibly, the average real unemployment rate
for African-American high school graduates was 51.3 percent. High
school graduates or dropouts between the ages of 17 and 20, African
American, over 50 percent unemployed or underemployed.
Today in America, over 5.5 million young people have either dropped
out of high school or have graduated high school and do not have jobs.
It is no great secret--not to any parent, not to any Member of the
Senate--that when kids are not in school, when kids have no jobs, that
is when kids get into trouble, when they get into drugs, when they get
into self-destructive activity.
The result of kids not being in school and kids not having jobs is
that tragically, today, we in this country have more people in jail
than any other country on Earth, including China--a Communist
authoritarian country with a population four times our size. We have
more people in jail than China does. Incredibly, over 3 percent of our
country's population is under some form of correctional control.
According to the NAACP, from 1980 to 2012, the number of people
incarcerated in America quadrupled--quadrupled--from roughly 500,000 to
2.2 million people.
A January 2014 study published in the journal Crime & Delinquency
found that almost half of Black males in the United States are arrested
by the age of 23. That is an unbelievable statistic and a tragic
statistic. If this current trend continues, one in four Black males
born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime. What
a tragedy this is. We cannot ignore it. We have to deal with this
reality.
But this crisis is not just a destruction of human life and of
potential, it is also very costly to the taxpayers of our country. In
America, we now spend nearly $200 billion on public safety, including
$70 billion on correctional facilities each and every year.
It is beyond comprehension that we as a nation have not focused
attention on the fact that millions of young people are unable to find
work and begin their careers in a productive economy. That is what
young people want to do. They want to get out, they want to get a job,
they want to earn some money, they want to become independent from
their parents, and they want to begin a career ladder, but for millions
of these young people, that is not taking place today.
Let me be as clear as I can be. It makes a lot more sense for us to
invest in jobs and education rather than in more and more incarceration
and more and more jails. The time is long overdue for us to start
investing in our young people, to help them get the jobs they need, to
help them get the education they need.
This is not only saving human life; it is saving dollars. It is a
very expensive proposition to put people into jail. Many people who go
to jail come out of jail and go back to jail. They don't get jobs, and
they don't pay taxes. Their lives are destroyed. Their families' lives
are destroyed. It is high time we understood that. We have to invest in
jobs, and we have to invest in education--not more jails, not more
incarceration.
I have offered an amendment that will be voted upon, either today or
tomorrow, that is pretty simple and pretty straight forward. It says to
us that now is the time to keep kids out of jail, to get them jobs, and
to get them an education. This amendment would simply provide $5.5
billion in immediate funding to States and cities throughout the
country to create 1 million jobs for young Americans between the ages
of 16 and 24. This amendment would also provide job opportunities for
hundreds of thousands of young adults.
Frankly, this amendment doesn't go far enough, but it is an important
start in trying to save the lives of countless numbers of young people
who, if we do not address their needs, are going to end up in jail or
with destroyed lives.
Specifically, under this amendment the U.S. Department of Labor would
provide $4 billion in grants to States and local governments to provide
summer and year-round employment opportunities for economically
disadvantaged youth, with direct links to academic and occupational
learning. This

[[Page S5113]]

amendment would also make sure that young Americans have access to
transportation and childcare services they may need in order to
participate in job opportunities all over this country. This amendment
would also provide $1.5 billion in competitive grants to local areas to
provide work-based job training to low- and moderate-income youth and
disadvantaged young adults.
I hope very much we can have bipartisan support for this amendment,
because what we are talking about is not just saving countless numbers
of lives and not just saving taxpayers a substantial sum of money. It
is much more cost effective to invest in kids so they have productive
lives rather than seeing them go into jail and into jail and into jail
and see their families being destroyed. It is high time we addressed
this issue. This amendment is an important first step. I look forward
to seeing bipartisan support for it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. 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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Nuclear Agreement With Iran

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday President Obama announced a deal
with Iran, one that will send billions of dollars to a regime with a
long history of violently opposing the United States and its allies.
I come to the floor to express again my deep skepticism about how the
Obama administration has approached these talks and my great concerns
about what has been revealed about the deal so far--recognizing that we
should all, perhaps, reserve our judgment for the process that will
unfold over the next couple of months, by which we will actually be
able to read the text of the deal and then to show to the American
people what it contains and express our concerns publicly and debate
those. That is going to unfold over the next couple of months.
But I think we can all agree that bringing Iran to the negotiating
table and securing an agreement that prohibits 100 percent of their
ability to gain the capacity to create a nuclear weapon would be a
tremendous legacy for any President to accomplish.
Preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power would have been a
legacy item for President Obama or any President. But these
negotiations have been particularly concerning because, in spite of the
fact that the Iranian regime has given us no reason to trust it, the
President has been operating under the assumption that any deal is
better than no deal.
I am afraid the President has demonstrated the old adage that if you
want a deal bad enough, that is exactly what you are going to get--a
bad deal.
In so doing, the President has abandoned longstanding U.S. policy.
Our policy has always been to prevent Iran from getting nuclear
weapons. Instead, the administration has said: Well, it is OK. We will
allow you a plan forward, and--in the words of Prime Minister
Netanyahu--pave the way toward your acquisition of nuclear weapons.
This is an outcome that is irresponsible, unacceptable, and
exceedingly dangerous.
I found it interesting that during his announcement the President
said U.S. engagement in Iran was built upon ``mutual interests and
mutual respect.'' The theocratic Iranian regime is a government that
just last week encouraged its citizens to shout slogans often heard on
the streets of Tehran. ``Death to America,'' they say. ``Death to
Israel.'' I don't see how the President can consider such actions a
sign of ``mutual respect.'' It is just the opposite.
But I should be fair to the President. He is of course not the only
person who supports this deal. We hear that Russia's President Vladimir
Putin has endorsed it. So has Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, who
called the agreement a ``major turning point.'' Our enemies think this
is a great deal, and they strongly support it.
But I hope the administration is aware that the optimism they have
surrounding Iran and this deal is not universal. Our staunchest ally in
the Middle East, the nation of Israel, has stated its clear opposition
yesterday.
President Netanyahu, as he did in a joint session of Congress just a
few short months ago, said in crystal clear language that this
agreement represents a ``historic mistake'' for the world. That is
likely because the Iranian regime has regularly--even throughout the
ongoing negotiations--called for the destruction of Israel.
So while our enemies such as Bashar al-Assad of Syria called the deal
a major turning point, our greatest ally called it a ``historic
mistake.'' That should give all of us pause. What other warning signs
do we need? Can a deal that is wholeheartedly endorsed by our
adversaries and simultaneously disdained by one of our closest allies
possibly be in the best interest of the United States of America? I am
interested in hearing the answer to that question during the course of
our review and debates because that is the question we will have the
chance to answer for ourselves at the end of this next 60-day period of
time.

Although I have seen several headlines talking about Republican
opposition to the agreement, I would like to point out that there are a
number of Democratic colleagues who have been quick to voice their
concerns as well. This should not, and I pray will not, become a
partisan disagreement. What we ought to be doing, in the best interest
of the United States of America and our national security and those of
our allies, is getting to the bottom of this agreement, raising
concerns, and asking questions. Perhaps the President would like for
this to become a partisan debate because then he wins, and in so doing
America and our allies lose.
Yesterday, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee said that ``there is no trust when it comes to Iran.'' That
statement was made by the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Mr.
Cardin. Similarly, another Democratic colleague, the senior Senator
from New Jersey and former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee,
said that ``the deal doesn't end Iran's nuclear program,'' but instead
it ``preserves it.''
This deal cements many of the longstanding concerns that I and many
of my colleagues have had. Instead of ridding the world of an Iranian
nuclear weapon once and for all, this simply kicks the deal down the
road--when, by the way, President Obama will no longer be in office--
but it completely preserves the nuclear infrastructure required to
create a nuclear weapon in as little as 1 year. We can't afford to sit
back, cross our fingers, and wait for the regime to resurrect its
nuclear program after their main obligations under the deal have
expired.
Let me just be clear. The American people are not so desperate to cut
this deal with the Iranian regime, and I think they will be even less
supportive than they have been so far once the details of this deal
gets vetted.
I wholeheartedly reject the suggestion the President has made on
numerous occasions that there are two alternatives: There is this deal
or there is war. That is ridiculous. That is a false choice. What it
should be is a choice between this deal and something better--something
that actually denies Iran nuclear weapons and doesn't unleash billions
of dollars for them to fight their proxy war against the United States
and our allies.
Again, the No. 1 state sponsor of international terrorism is Iran,
and we are going to unleash the sanctions on the oil that they will now
be able to sell in global markets and reap windfall profits perhaps,
along with released funds that have been sequestered in American banks
and other institutions, so they can now prop up their economy and again
pay for the war they are fighting against Israel and the United States
and other allies.
The bipartisan sanctions regime that Congress has put in place over
decades should not and cannot be undone through an Executive agreement
between President Obama and the head of the world's leader in state-
sponsored terrorism. As elected representatives of the American people,
we, all of us, in addition to the President, are committed to securing
a good deal for the people who sent us here, and that means making sure
Iran will never have the ability to build a nuclear

[[Page S5114]]

weapon, protecting our interests and our allies against a threatening
regional power and, first and foremost, ensuring that the American
people are safer tomorrow than they were yesterday.
Now that the White House has submitted the first 109 pages of this
deal to Congress, we are in the process of reviewing it, but there is
more to come--classified annexes and all. I look forward to reading
this agreement word-for-word, understanding it better, and asking many
of the similar-type questions which I posed here today, which need good
and solid and reliability answers. We can't base this on a policy of
hope or even trust in the rogue regime in Tehran. We need answers to
these questions and, even more importantly, so do the American people.
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.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2241

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, our Nation has always held the ideal of
providing education for all, but a half century ago we put that ideal
into action with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act or ESEA.
That law aimed to close education gaps between rich and poor, Black and
White, kids from rural areas, and kids from big cities.
Today, we are debating an amendment to strengthen accountability in
our bill to reauthorize ESEA to do even more by making sure schools are
delivering on the promise of quality and equality to every student in
America.
Across the country, too many schools today have failed too many of
our children for too long, and that has to change. Now our bipartisan
bill removes the unrealistic goals and one-size-fits-all mandates of No
Child Left Behind. But we can still have strong accountability without
going back to those requirements.
Senator Murphy's amendment, which we will be voting on shortly, will
shine a light on the persistent inequality and achievement gap that
still exists and do something about it, and it would ensure that we
make sure children from low-income backgrounds, the kids of color, the
students who are still learning English, and students with disabilities
have access to a high-quality education.
Under his amendment, States would identify the bottom 5 percent of
schools, States would identify the high schools that are failing to
graduate one-third or more of their students, and States would identify
schools that have failed to help subgroups of students make progress.
Now, of course, accountability is about more than just identifying
the schools and districts that need help. We have to make sure those
schools get the resources they need. The Every Child Achieves Act
allows districts to design interventions tailored to the individual
needs of low-performing schools. This amendment doesn't change that,
but this amendment would give parents, teachers, and communities
important measures to hold schools accountable for delivering a quality
education to every child.
I will also note that in our bipartisan bill, we have done a lot to
help the adults in this school get the support they need from
professional development to easing the burden on school administrators.
I was very proud to work on all of those provisions. But this amendment
isn't about the adults. It is about the children in our schools. So I
urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Murphy amendment so we can do
even more to make sure all of our students learn, no matter where they
live or how they learn or how much money their parents make.
Let's fix No Child Left Behind. Let's continue to improve this bill
by strengthening accountability, and let's reaffirm our Nation's
commitment to providing a quality education to every student in
America.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and 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.
Ms. HIRONO. 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. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Every Child Achieves
Act, S. 1177, which replaces the education law better known as No Child
Left Behind. I wish to thank the HELP Committee Chairman Alexander and
ranking member Patty Murray for their hard work on today's bipartisan
compromise bill.
Today's Every Child Achieves Act isn't perfect, but it makes good
progress. For years, I have heard from Hawaii's teachers, parents, and
administrators that No Child Left Behind, or NCLB, is broken. It is
time to leave NCLB behind.
I have been working to fix this broken law, first as a member of the
House of Representatives' Education and Labor Committee in 2007 and now
as a Senator. I also began to work on education reform when I was
Lieutenant Governor of the State of Hawaii.
I will start with one of the biggest problems with NCLB, which is the
testing requirements. I heard from teachers in Hawaii loud and clear
that NCLB brought us too much testing. Teachers and students in some
schools spent so much time on testing and test prep that they didn't
have enough time for teaching and learning.
Today's bill includes Senator Baldwin's SMART Act legislation, which
I cosponsored, to cut redundant State and local tests, and it also
includes Senator Bennet's amendment that sets a cap on the percent of
time spent on testing.
I also strongly support the early education parts of this program as
negotiated by Senator Murray, herself a former preschool teacher. I
urge my colleagues to expand on this work by also supporting the Strong
Start for America's Children amendment led by Senators Casey, Murray,
myself, and others.
The Strong Start amendment would invest significant resources in
high-quality preschool grant programs, which would serve some 16,000
Hawaii children in my State alone. It would expand early Head Start
childcare partnerships, such as Hawaii's Parents And Children Together
and Kama'aina Kids, and would strengthen the Maternal, Infant, and
Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, supporting programs like the
Hawaii Home Visiting Network.
Quality early education helps kids enter kindergarten ready to learn,
a recipe for success in school and in life. Studies show that by age 3,
there is a 30-million word gap, basically a 2-to-1 gap, between low-
income children and their wealthier peers with regard to their language
skills. Quality early education can help close this gap early. Kids
then are more likely to succeed in school, avoid crime or teen
pregnancy, graduate from high school and college, earn more income, pay
more taxes, and need fewer public services. Why?
First, they have the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in a
changing economy. Business and financial leaders in Hawaii--Hawaii's
Business Roundtable executive director Gary Kai is a huge supporter of
quality early education, and former Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke
also agrees that early childhood education is a key investment in U.S.
competitiveness.
Second, military leaders have also stressed the importance of quality
early education as a national security issue. The Department of Defense
has estimated that 75 percent of Americans age 17 to 24 are ineligible
for military service due to poor education, physical unfitness or
criminal records. Hundreds of retired admirals and generals know that
quality early learning can reverse this trend.
Third, early education investments make financial sense for
taxpayers. A study by the University of Hawaii and Good Beginnings
Alliance estimated a return of more than $4 for every $1 invested in
early education. National studies are even higher. Some show a return
as high as $17 for every $1 invested in quality early education. That
depends, of course, on the quality of the program and particularly if
we target the highest need students.
Finally, parents themselves are demanding quality, affordable
preschool for their children. In April of this year, I visited Kauai
Community College

[[Page S5115]]

whose Early Childhood Development Center reopened after a few years of
renovations.
This center trains early childhood educators while providing high-
quality early learning services to children of faculty, staff, and the
community. Their lead teacher and coordinator, Gina Medrano, said, ``So
far, no one has cried since we opened. They only cry when it is time to
go home.'' That is evidence of how important early education is to our
kids themselves.
Currently, the KCC Center can only serve 20 children. There are wait-
lists for this program and for quality early learning programs in
Kauai, all across Hawaii, and nationwide. We can and should do much
better.
The Strong Start for America's children amendment would help make
early learning the national priority it deserves to be. The amendment
would provide quality preschool to over 3 million children nationwide.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment when it comes to the
floor.
So many of us recognize that education is a continuum which starts
early and continues throughout life; therefore, coordination of effort
is important. So I am pleased that this bill before us includes
provisions to foster coordination between existing early childhood
programs and their local elementary school. In 2011, Senator Casey and
I introduced the Continuum of Learning Act, and today's bill on the
floor includes many pieces from that legislation.
On balance, the Every Child Achieves Act before us means good
progress for our keiki--our children--and I hope we can continue moving
forward and pass the bill before us in a bipartisan way.
Our country is at its best when all students have access to high-
quality education from birth to college and career. Improving our
education system through evidence-based reforms will help every child
achieve so that our next generation can compete and lead in the 21st-
century global economy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Murray from
Washington and myself, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:15 p.m. today,
the Senate vote on the following amendments in the order listed: Markey
amendment No. 2176, 60-vote threshold; Heitkamp amendment No. 2171, 60-
vote threshold; Kirk amendment No. 2161, 60-vote threshold; and Murphy
amendment No. 2241, 60-vote threshold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2144 Withdrawn

Mr. ALEXANDER. I further ask unanimous consent that the Wicker
amendment No. 2144 be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 2144 is
withdrawn.
Mr. ALEXANDER. 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. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2176

Mr. MARKEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 2 minutes on
my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple. It would
create a competitive grant program to support the development and
improvement of educational materials and teacher training on climate
change science and solutions.
The scientific evidence of climate change is longstanding and wide-
ranging. The National Academy of Sciences and numerous science
professional organizations all recognize the reality of climate change
and the influence of human activities upon it. The children of our
country deserve the best scientific education they can get on this
topic. They are the future leaders of our country and the world. They
must be equipped for this generational challenge.
This is without question one of the overarching issues of our 21st
century. We must ensure that we provide the best science training
available for this next generation--the green generation. They are
going to have to confront this problem. They should have the best
scientific evidence available.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, we will have a vote on the Markey amendment. I would
urge a ``no'' vote for the following reasons: If you love Washington
getting involved in Common Core, you will love this amendment, because
it gets the Federal Government involved in creating a curriculum for
climate change in your local high schools and other schools.
Based upon what we know about the U.S. Department of Education, as
soon as we authorize this, it will begin to write regulations defining
what we mean by climate change, and we would have to change textbooks
in 100,000 public schools every time we have a Presidential election.
Just imagine what the curriculum on climate change would be if we
shifted from President Obama to President Cruz and then back to
President Sanders and then to President Trump. There would be a lot of
wasted paper, writing and rewriting textbooks.
The Every Child Achieves Act prohibits officials of the Federal
Government from getting involved with the instructional material in
classrooms. If we want to have better climate science, the appeal
should not be to a national school board that gets Washington involved
in climate change. It should be to the local school board or the State
school board. I say that as a Republican who believes that climate
change is a problem and that human activity is a major contributor to
that problem. But I do not want the Federal Government involved in
local high school and elementary school curricula for climate science
or anything else.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
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 Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham).
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 44, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 238 Leg.]

YEAS--44

Ayotte
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--53

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

NOT VOTING--3

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

Amendment No. 2171

Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate
equally divided prior to a vote in relation to Heitkamp amendment No.
2171.

[[Page S5116]]

The Senator from North Dakota.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support
my amendment. As you have been talking to your school districts and as
you have been talking to the school personnel, if they don't mention
the challenges they have dealing with children in their schools who
need services beyond education services, who come unready to learn
because of behavior and mental health problems, we have a program that
has existed for a number of years. I understand it has been
underutilized. But if there has ever been a time, as we talk about the
behavior and mental health challenges that we have in our communities
and in our schools, and if there has ever been a challenge for a grant
program that develops best practices, it is today.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and integrate these
behavior and mental health programs into the schools and into the
education system so that we can better address the concerns, so that we
can, in fact, begin to challenge our society to deal with these issues
at the school level. Schools should not be in this alone. We need to
integrate the behavioral health and mental health systems into our
schools.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I urge a ``no'' vote. Of course, we
should help and care about the mental health of children, but the
Federal Government already funds at least 16 programs related to mental
health.
A new program isn't needed, and the Department of Education is not
the best suited agency to administer it. It ought to be in the
Department of Health and Human Services.
It is unnecessary. The district may use funds already under the
education bill and other health programs for this purpose.
One of the problems we have as a Congress is we have a good idea and
we appropriate and create a new program without realizing there are
already 16 other programs there. We should stop that and focus our
efforts on existing programs and giving States more flexibility to use
that money.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. 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 Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 39, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 239 Leg.]

YEAS--58

Ayotte
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--39

Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Coats
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Paul
Perdue
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NOT VOTING--3

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

Amendment No. 2161

Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to Kirk amendment No. 2161.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to vote yes on the
Kirk-Reed-Baldwin-Brown amendment.
Essentially, in this legislation--and I commend the chairman and the
ranking member for all the work they have done--they have established
lofty goals, but without adequate resources, all of our students cannot
succeed. This amendment encourages the States to develop and report on
measures of access to critical education resources; identify
disparities in districts' access to those resources; develop plans with
school districts to address these disparities; and include the
Opportunity Dashboard of Core Resources on the State report card.
Again, it is a very simple concept. Lofty goals without adequate
resources will not give opportunities to American students. We hope
this will help provide equitable access to critical resources.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I urge a ``no'' vote. This bipartisan
bill on the floor is about reversing the trend toward a national school
board. This amendment is about making the national school board bigger
and more powerful. It would result in the Federal Government deciding
for States which educational resources are critical. That would have
the Federal Government deciding about licensing teachers, teachers'
salaries, library books, wellness programs, school facilities, and it
would produce new lawsuits.
We need to go in the other direction. We need to keep the
measurements of how children are doing but restore to States and local
school boards the responsibility for making these decisions.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to amendment
No. 2161.
Mr. ALEXANDER. 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 Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Blumenthal) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal) would have voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 240 Leg.]

YEAS--46

Baldwin
Bennet
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Kaine
Kirk
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--50

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

[[Page S5117]]

NOT VOTING--4

Blumenthal
Cruz
Graham

Nelson

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

Amendment No. 2241

Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote on Murphy amendment No. 2241.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, arguably the only good thing that the
existing education law did was expose these unconscionable gaps in this
country between the performance of minority kids and nonminority kids,
between disabled kids and nondisabled kids.
Frankly, this body is at its best when it says that, no matter your
race, geography, disability or income, you deserve access to a quality
education. If we can't guarantee that, then the question is this: What
good is a Federal education law in the first place?
So this amendment learns from the mistakes of No Child Left Behind,
and it simply says two things. States have to identify when they have
these unjustifiable yawning gaps between the performance of disabled
kids or minority kids and the rest of the school, and then they have to
come up with a plan through a community conversation as to how to fix
that--period, stop. Identify your problem, your achievements.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me quickly say that this vote will
be the last vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. All this amendment says is that just simply on a State by
State basis, identify your achievement gap and then come up with a plan
to fix it--no Federal intervention, no Federal prescription of how you
fix the problem.
It is a big, big problem in this country that has a very simple
solution in this amendment, and it deserves our support.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, yesterday the Senator from Montana, Mr.
Tester, came on the floor and said he supported this bill because it
got rid of adequate yearly progress. This is adequate yearly progress
through the back door. Instead of fixing No Child Left Behind, it keeps
the worst parts of it and restores those kinds of parts with new
mandates.
If you don't believe me, here is a letter dated yesterday from the
National Educational Association on behalf of its 3 million members:

After 13 years of witnessing firsthand the negative
consequences [of] No Child Left Behind's one-size-fits-all
approach to accountability . . . our members strongly oppose
more of the same. . . . we believe the Murphy amendment would
continue the narrow and punitive focus of NCLB.
Our members are deeply concerned the amendment would mark
an entire school for intervention if a single subgroup misses
goals for two consecutive years--precisely the approach that
misidentified schools under the Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) provision of [No Child Left Behind].

We are reversing the trend toward a national school board, not
establishing more of a school board. Governors, teachers, school board
members, and superintendents agree with that.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mrs. MURRAY. 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 241 Leg.]

YEAS--43

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Stabenow
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--54

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

NOT VOTING--3

Cruz
Graham
Nelson
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The Senator from Ohio.

Amendment No. 2247, as Modified

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak regarding the Burr
amendment, which has been offered to the underlying education bill.
This is an amendment that I understand has been modified recently, but
it still has some of the flaws it has had all along; that is, it tells
States that if they invest in their kids, they are penalized, which I
think is the wrong message. I hope this amendment can be defeated on
that basis alone.
It also happens to be bad for some States because, for instance, in
my home State of Ohio, we would lose an estimated $70 million because
we do invest in our children who are poor, who are vulnerable.
Therefore, because of formula changes, we get less money in Ohio.
I hope States that are affected one way or another, though, will look
at this from a policy perspective and understand that certainly in this
Federal K-12 education bill, we ought not to be telling the States,
such as my home State of Ohio, that because they invest more in their
kids, somehow they are penalized.
I know the Burr amendment was changed to reach a different level
before this formula change would occur. I think it is $17 billion;
right now it is $14.4 billion. This means that this change will not
occur for a few years, as I understand it, but the same problem
remains.
We hope this authorization will last through that period and we will
not be back revisiting this on the floor of the Senate. Therefore, I
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--and I know there is
opposition on both sides of the aisle to this amendment--to stand tall
and to say let's not tell the States that if they invest in kids who
come from some of the lowest income school jurisdictions in our
country, that somehow they are going to be penalized under a new
formula.
This amendment is a mistake because it fails to take into account
that the cost of education in different parts of the country differs,
and again it penalizes States that invest more in education.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Burr amendment.
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.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3
minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Remembering Dr. Elson Floyd

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, every once in a while you meet an
individual who thinks bigger than themselves, rises above challenges
with grace, is driven by a passion to better the world

[[Page S5118]]

around them and, most importantly, is a truly wonderful human being. I
have come across many advocates and community leaders in my career, but
Dr. Elson Floyd was exceptional. He was a giant in Washington State's
higher education community. He inspired countless students and teachers
and many across the State as Washington State University's president. I
can only imagine what else he would have accomplished had his life not
been cut painfully short.
For 8 years, I have had the privilege to work with Dr. Floyd in his
role as the beloved president of my alma mater, Washington State
University. He was one of our Nation's most successful advocates for
affordable and accessible higher education. I always admired his
dedication to his students, his passion for education, and his desire
to make a great university even better.
The last time I spoke with Dr. Floyd a few months ago, he spoke of
the bright future of Washington State University and the innovative
steps the institution was taking to provide high-quality education to
its students.
As we look back now on the life and legacy of Dr. Elson Floyd, we
will remember how he led WSU through a trying economic recession by
tirelessly advocating for investments in higher education as a path to
the middle class and how he doubled the enrollment of students of
color. We will remember how he skillfully convinced our State
legislature to allow the university to begin building the State's
second medical school at Washington State University-Spokane. And, most
importantly, we will remember how, through a warm handshake to visiting
alumni or a comforting hug to a student, he always had a way of making
those around him feel welcome.
I hope to honor Dr. Floyd's memory by striving every day to better
our higher education system with the enthusiasm and the warmth he
emanated as a tireless advocate for Washington State students.
There is so much we can all learn from his work, and I know his
legacy will continue to live on in Washington State and across the
higher education community.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized for such time as I shall consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the
junior Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Lankford, be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

DRIVE Act

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, right now probably the most significant
thing we will be facing as soon as we get through with the education
bill that Senator Lamar Alexander has done such a great job on is the
transportation reauthorization bill. I found out the House just passed
a few minutes ago a 5-month extension to the highway reauthorization
bill.
I would suggest to the people who may think there is some type of
adversarial relationship between our bill in the Senate and the House
bill that there isn't. We are working together and we both want to
accomplish a long-term bill, and I anticipate that we will actually
have passed in the next few days a long-term--maybe a 6-year--highway
reauthorization bill, at which time we will go to conference with the
House and it will be business as usual. I want to make sure, in case
there is a fire looming out there, that we put it out early.
Passing the long-term transportation bill has been my top priority
since I returned as chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee. Ironically, the ranking member of that committee, Senator
Boxer of California, feels just as strongly that it is her top priority
also. So I consider this to be the second most significant bill of the
year, the first one being of course the Defense reauthorization, which
we have already addressed here. But we felt strongly enough about this
being a top priority that we had our first full committee hearing on
the need to reauthorize what at that time was MAP-21. We had Anthony
Foxx, the Secretary of Transportation, as well as a lot of government
leaders so they could share the importance of an ongoing Federal and
State partnership in building and maintaining a modern surface
infrastructure system.
Since that hearing, my committee has put forward a bold bipartisan
solution called the DRIVE Act that will put our Nation on the path to
having a world-class transportation system. I have often said there is
no such thing as a Republican or a Democratic road or bridge. This is
something that is bipartisan. By the way, I have to say when the DRIVE
Act passed through my committee, it passed unanimously--every Democrat
and every Republican voted for the bill.
The Transcontinental Railroad, I am proud to say, the Republicans
have historically been leading the way in transportation going all the
way back to the Lincoln days. We passed the Transcontinental Railroad.
The Panama Canal was done by Teddy Roosevelt.
Of course, the Interstate Highway System was done by Eisenhower.
Eisenhower said the transportation system is a dynamic element in the
very name we bear, United States. Without it, we would be a mere
alliance of many separate parts. What he also said--let's remember that
Eisenhower was a President. He was a star. He was concerned, and he
started the first highway bill by addressing the problems of defense.
The fact is that if you don't have a highway system within the United
States, you can't adequately supply the necessary means to fight and
win wars. So that was the very first motivation for it. In laying out
the full interstate system, Eisenhower envisioned it to be the physical
backbone of the economy, fueling the growth of our GDP, our cities, and
the competitiveness of our exports.
Now, this vision and certainty maximized the economic and mobility
benefits of the system. Businesses and individuals knew that if they
could locate somewhere on a future interstate system, they would be
connected not just with the Nation but with the world.
I am afraid this legacy system, which was built with a 50-year design
life, is now more than 50 years old. So we are out of warranty now, and
we need to address that. That is the sense of urgency that we have. We
are in serious danger of eroding a half century of investments without
proper maintenance, modernization, and reconstruction. We are on
borrowed time with a system that is in full need of restoration.
Our national interstate system currently has a maintenance backlog of
$185 billion. Now that national interstate system is actually 47,000
miles in length, and just to bring back the system to the original 1956
design, it would be that expensive.
Maintaining Eisenhower's vision of economic opportunity and strength
in defense requires a continued partnership between the Federal
Government and the States, which is the hallmark of the DRIVE Act. Yet
due to 33 short-term passages since 2005, the highway construction now
consists of maintenance patchwork.
This is what happened. We had a transportation reauthorization bill
that was a 5-year bill. This was in 2005. I am very familiar with it. I
was the author of the bill at that time. In 2005, we passed this long-
term bill. Since that time, we have been unable to pass a long-term
reauthorization bill. So we have been operating on extensions--short-
term extensions.
It is interesting that we are now looking at something that has both
a liberal and a conservative perspective. The conservative position is
a long-term bill because the only alternative is short-term extensions.
Short-term extensions--I don't think anyone has ever challenged this--
costs about 30 percent more because you can't get big projects, which
we are talking about in a minute. So we are now to the point where we
are going to be able to do something with a long-term bill.
Passing a long-term bill is crucial in many aspects of day-to-day
life in America. More than 250 million vehicles and 18 billion tons
valued at $17 trillion in goods traverse across the country every year.
Yet every day 2,000 miles of our highways slow below the posted speed
limits because of the stop-and-go conditions of overcongestion.
The National Highway System--this is kind of interesting. Not many
people

[[Page S5119]]

are aware of this. Our whole National Highway System is 5.5 percent of
the total Nation's roads, but it carries 55 percent of all vehicles
traveling and 97 percent of the truck-borne freight. So 5.5 percent of
the Nation's roads account for the transportation of 97 percent of the
freight crossing this country. This type of congestion has a huge
negative impact on our businesses throughout America.
Congress just passed a 2-month extension, and we now have a
responsibility to pass a long-term solution. As I mentioned, they did
pass something over in the House that we are in agreement that will get
them to conference with us, and I think most of them are going to be--
from the ones I talked to over there--very excited about the fact that
we are going to have funding for a 6-year bill.
The highway trust fund needs $15 billion a year to maintain current
spending. What we are saying there is, if you take proceeds of the gas
tax that is out there in order to do what we are currently doing, it
takes an additional $15 billion each year just to do that, but we need
to do more than just maintain the system. We need to improve it for the
future of America's growing economy. Fortunately, my committee just
passed this bill unanimously with what we call the DRIVE Act.
The DRIVE Act will put America back on the map as the best place to
do business. The DRIVE Act has several key components to position
America's transportation system to support our growing economy.
First of all, it prioritizes funding for core transportation formula
programs to provide States and local governments with strong Federal
partners. In other words, the States have needs. They articulate those
needs to the Federal Government. The Federal Government goes in and
makes sure that is going to be a reality. Let's keep in mind, there are
some States--suggesting Wyoming as an example--it would take three
times as much money actually to take care of the roads in Wyoming than
could be produced by the sparse population of that State. So that is
one of the major initial reasons for the program.
Secondly, it prioritizes the interstate system, the National Highway
System, and the bridges at risk system. Well, as I said, the interstate
system is 47,000 miles, but the National Highway System is 220,000
miles, which does encompass the 47,000 miles of the interstate system.
Thirdly, it creates a new multibillion-dollar-per-year freight
program to help the States deliver projects that promote the safe,
efficient, and reliable transportation of consumer goods and products
across the United States.
The fourth thing is--and this is something a lot of people are not
aware of--a lot of people think that we in Washington have this
infinite wisdom that we know what is best for the States. We don't
believe that. We believe the States should set their own priorities. In
my State of Oklahoma, I don't even get involved in what projects are
going to be there. We have a State system, where the State does
evaluate, and certainly they know more about our needs in Oklahoma than
the Federal Government does. Don't you agree? That is right. Well, that
is where we are on that. We let the States determine what projects we
are going to be doing.
The fifth thing is to provide greater efficiency in the project
delivery process through reforms that put DOT in the driver's seat
during the NEPA process by requiring other agents to bring in their
issues. Here is what happens. We have a lot of good rules in the NEPA
Program, in the environmental programs, but there are some things where
we feel that should not slow down the construction of roads, highways,
and bridges, both new bridges and repairs. To do that, we have to write
that into the law, so that streamlines the system. If you have nothing
but short-term extensions, that doesn't happen. They don't get
streamlined.
Let me compliment my partner in this, the ranking member Senator
Boxer from California. It is interesting. I am among one of the most
conservative Members of the U.S. Senate. She is a very proud liberal.
Yet we both agree on what our priorities should be, and that makes this
process more important. She has been willing to do things she didn't
really want to do because it does short-circuit some of the NEPA
requirements, and as a general rule she would not want to do that. But
this has been a give-and-take, and that is why we have a bill that
passed our committee unanimously.
The sixth or seventh thing is eliminating duplicative reviews and
expanding categorical exclusions. To give an example of that, we have
bridge projects that are given special considerations with new
exemptions from section 4(f), the historic property reviews. Now, to be
a historic property, it has to be over 50 years old. For them to
continue to be able to do it, it takes these exemptions from what other
historic things have to go through because we are in the business of
building bridges.
Secondly, we have the Migratory Bird Treaty Act on the books, and it
allows us to go ahead and start working on projects even though
swallows nests--I know it sounds kind of insignificant, but it is not,
because swallows go in there, and while they are not protected or
listed as an endangered species, they still are protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and they have caused us to stop construction
on many of the bridges around the country.
This is kind of a brief overview of the bill. As the DRIVE Act
progresses on the floor, I intend to address the significance of each
program in a lot more detail. Most importantly, the DRIVE Act sets up
funding levels for the next 6 years. This is at the very best what the
Federal Government should provide so States and local officials in the
construction industry can gear up for large projects--the $500 million
to $2 billion projects. These are things you can't do with extensions,
but you can do with a bill such as the bill we have successfully
passed.
We have thousands of projects around the Nation that are currently in
jeopardy, and construction will come to a halt unless this legislation
becomes a reality.
As shown in this picture I have in the Chamber, this is the Brent
Spence Bridge. This goes from Kentucky to Ohio. Right now it is in dire
need. One can see actually the problems with this antiquated bridge.
There are chunks of it dropping off into the river below and it has
become very dangerous.
We saw not long ago in another adjoining State what can happen if a
bridge goes down. Here in DC we had the Memorial Bridge. It is
literally crumbling. You can go right down and you can see the pieces
of the bridge dropping into the Potomac River. It was built in 1932. It
has only received patchwork ever since that time. It is estimated that
nearly $250 million will be required to keep the bridge operational.
That is not a new bridge. That is to make that into an operational
bridge.
You recognize this. You drive by it, many of you, every day. But you
don't see--you have to get down there and you can see concrete dropping
into the Potomac. We have many more like this. What else do we have
here? The Mobile River Bridge. This is in Alabama. This is what it will
look like later. That is not a current picture. This is what it is
right now.
These are the types of projects that we can do now which we could not
do with just extensions, as we have been doing since 2009. I believe
more than just a small part of the economic success enjoyed by the
United States over the past 50 years has been the interstate system
started by President Eisenhower. But today we literally sit in a
situation where we would have to do something to carry this forward.
That is why Senator Boxer and I are bringing the DRIVE Act to the
Senate floor. It will ensure that States have the tools and certainty
to make the necessary new investments to rebuild Eisenhower's vision,
fight growing congestion and maintain the mobility of goods and
services across our country. So we are going to have this up. I think
this will be on the floor, probably the next thing after we finish with
the education bill.
Again, no one can argue that this is the second most significant bill
that we address each year. We have not addressed this one in the right
way since 2005. So it is very significant. We are looking forward it
to. Anyway, we are going to be coming forth with this, I'm going to be
coming to the floor and

[[Page S5120]]

talking about it in a lot more detail. We have got to get the roads and
the bridges taken care of. We intend to do it. The product to do that
is the DRIVE Act.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, in the 1960s the Johnson administration
led Congress to start allotting a small amount of money--of Federal
funding from the Federal taxpayers to target schools and reach out to
the poorest of the poor in America and try to help beat back poverty.
Five decades later, we have an education policy in America that reaches
out to every single school district in America--millions of kids--that
continues to fail them, to fail their parents, and that still has not
solved the poverty issue.
What we have is an ever-increasing Federal bureaucracy that has
reached well beyond what it was designed for in the 1960s and, I would
assure you, reaches well beyond what it was originally designed for--
something that would help the poorest of the poor or take care of kids
on military bases and those on Indian tribal lands.
No Child Left Behind passed in 2001, authorizing education policy
that was even more expansive. The goal was good--make sure that every
child in America has the opportunity for success, that every teacher
has teaching qualifications, and that every school has accountability.
It was approved through 2008, and it still continues today.
Math, reading, and science are now measured in adequate yearly
progress for each school, and it has become the slow-rolling disaster.
The problem was the source and the goal. Parents, local districts, and
States should set education policy--I would think that is something we
should agree on--not a massive, centralized, controlled bureaucracy--
the bureaucracy that is here, made up of a lot of nice folks who do
care about kids; it is just that most of the folks who are here in this
bureaucracy dealing with education have never been to Oklahoma, and the
folks in Oklahoma don't know their names and don't know why they are
managing their district.
The goal should be progress for each student, not each school, but
the annual yearly progress demanded by No Child Left Behind really
managed the progress of the school, not the child. I can assure you
that the parents at home are not trying to figure out if the school is
better; they are trying to figure out if their child is better in a
particular subject.
Annual yearly progress and the Federal mandates have put my State in
the untenable position of playing ``Mother, may I'' with the Federal
Government and asking for a waiver every single year and having the
national education board determine what our schools in Oklahoma can and
cannot do. That has to change.
We want our students in Oklahoma to be college- and career-ready. We
want accountability to the parents and the community. We want less
burden on the educators who give their lives and their time to the task
of helping parents and their children. We want that. As surprising as
it may be to some in Washington, DC, we actually do care about our
kids. We want the best for them. So we ask a simple thing. Allow
Oklahomans to manage education for Oklahomans and just take this
assumption: We do love our kids. We are going to work hard to make sure
they are taken well care of.
My mom was an educator for decades. She started teaching elementary
school and then went into a library and was an elementary school
librarian and then a high school librarian and then moved into the
black hole of education that is the administration building downtown,
where she worked in a burnt-out position in school administration for a
district for years. She is passionate about kids. She passed that on to
me.
I started out my first year in college as a business major. I
thoroughly enjoyed it for probably a week and then shifted the next
year to secondary education--the thing that I fought against because my
mom was in education, so surely I should not do the same thing, but I
loved being with students. I spent 22 years of my life serving students
after college. It is a passion in my family. There are multiple
educators in my family, both at the college level and in the schools.
We believe in education.
I will never forget the student teaching time that I had in college,
interacting with those kids for the first time, stepping out of a
college setting of being the student to now suddenly being the student
teacher and having a classroom and understanding for the first time
that it is my responsibility to help those parents educate their
children; that I am not now the parent for this child--this child has a
parent, and that parent has the responsibility to be able to raise
their child well, but I have a responsibility to come alongside that
parent and help. Allow us to have that.
This is what I want. I want greater flexibility for States. I want
greater authority and responsibility to be placed on parents in
education. The people in Oklahoma want the freedom to be able to make
decisions about their own children, their own families. That is why I
voted for the A PLUS Act. I tried to add that as an amendment to this
bill. Steve Daines from Montana and I and multiple others supported the
ability for States to have even more control if they choose to, to have
both the responsibility and the authority for all areas of all parts of
education. We did not win that amendment, but it was a blanket ``We
want everything to go back to the States if they choose to have it.''
We will continue to have that fight in the days ahead.
Lamar Alexander brought out an amendment that would have been great
to have. It allowed parents to choose their school regardless of
whether it is public or private.
Education union leaders had kittens about that, saying: The public
schools are getting better, and so we don't want to take funds away
from those public schools; we want to keep all of the funds in the
public schools.
The parents are saying: I understand that school is going to get
better someday, but my child is there right now.
Certain leaders in schools will say: We cannot have Federal funds
moved to follow the child.
I would say: Would you allow the parent to help that child have the
one shot they are going to get to get an education and allow them to
choose where they want to go?
That is why I am also a supporter of things such as the DC
opportunity scholarships that will allow children in Washington, DC, to
be able to choose the school they attend. The President has fought
adamantly against that. So have the education unions. Quite frankly,
the parents here in DC want to have the option to send their child
anywhere they choose to send them.
I would like to see more reductions in duplication of education
programs. There is real reduction in that in this particular bill, but
I would like to see even more. We have education programs in the
Departments of Defense and Ag and Health and Human Services and
multiple other places scattered around the bureaucracy. We need to be
able to shrink all of those different programs and to be able to make
sure that we are not feeding the bureaucracy but that we are actually
helping kids.

I would actually like to see more in this bill dealing with options
for those who are homeless. This bill helps us get a better count and
better insight on the educational quality and the graduation rate for
homeless and foster children. But I would like to have greater
flexibility built into this bill, which I did not get. I would like the
parents and the people in the local district to be able to have better
decisionmaking capability.
What did I get? There are some things we won in this bill. There are
no common core mandates. I can assure you, in my State of Oklahoma,
most every person in my State stands and cheers when they find out one
thing: that there are no common core mandates in this. There are no
Federal tests at all. States--my State in particular--will have
absolute control over standardized testing and the results of those
tests and how they apply the information gained from those tests. The
leaders in my State will manage that, control that, and make sure that
is accurate for us.
There are no Federal education standards. There is no Federal
curriculum. There are reductions in some of the education programs. I
am glad to

[[Page S5121]]

see that, although, as I have already mentioned, I would like to see
more of that.
It breaks down some of the funding silos. Do you realize right now
that if there is money available in one silo dealing with kitchens, for
instance, and nutrition for school, they may allot Federal dollars and
say, ``You can have those Federal dollars if you want to buy a new
oven.'' But if a district says, ``We don't need more money for ovens;
we need money for special education,'' the Federal Government currently
says, ``No, you can't do that. You have to buy a new oven.'' That is
dumb. Why don't we allow the districts to make that decision? This bill
begins to break down some of those funding silos, and it gives them the
opportunity to be able to make decisions on that.
What I would like to see and what I did get was more local control of
education, dramatically increased local control, in fact, local
authority and additional local responsibility. That is the way it
should be. Inhofe and I even had a bill on local school board
flexibility. We got good downpayment on that bill. There is more to go
on that. We need to get a chance to see additional things, but those
are things we were able to win.
Can I tell you the one big thing we really won? It is that my State,
after this bill passes--if we can get this bill done, my State will no
longer have to crawl back to Washington, DC, every year and beg for a
waiver in education to maintain the education funding--which, by the
way, came out of our State. Literally, the Federal taxpayers pay in
with their tax dollars, and the State of Oklahoma has to come crawling
to Washington, DC, saying: Can I please have those dollars back to our
State? Right now, we have to do that every year.
My State actually lost Federal control because we chose not to do
common core. The Department of Education said: If you don't do this,
then you are going to lose your funding. For months we lost control of
that funding, but that was our choice because we were setting our own
standards. We have now won that waiver back. In fact, just a few weeks
ago, that waiver was renewed again.
I am already sick to death of our State having to come beg for the
Federal dollars that we put into the system and to get permission from
someone in DC. This bill finally fixes that. Does it go as far as I
want to go? No. I have been pretty clear about that. But it is the
first step taking in our long journey towards taking us back in the
direction where we need to be--our schools, our parents making
decisions for our kids.
Again, I remind you, Oklahoma parents do love their kids, and
Oklahoma legislators are doing a great job of trying to turn some
things around in a very hard situation. Let's give them the ability to
be able to do that. I encourage this body to pass this education bill,
and let's get going again towards educating our students and doing the
right thing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for
up to 20 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Climate Change

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, as folks around here know by now, I
come to the floor once a week to say as clearly as I can that it is
time to wake up to the mounting hazard of climate change. Today is the
106th consecutive time.
Why do I do it? Why do I care so much? Because I know the harm we are
causing through carbon pollution spells trouble for my home State of
Rhode Island. I see it already. We are the Ocean State.
Here is a recent headline from the Washington Post: ``Human impact on
the oceans is growing--and climate change is the biggest culprit.''
But I don't have to read the Washington Post to know that. With the
changes from carbon pollution, our Rhode Island fishermen see strange
catches coming up in their nets. Our homeowners and business owners
along the coast see rising sea levels, worsening erosion, and extreme
weather. It is no longer rare for extreme weather to claw people's
homes into the sea. Sandy took several.
Rhode Islanders get all of this. But unless and until the men and
women in this Chamber decide to heed the warnings of all of our best
scientists--not to mention America's insurance companies, faith
leaders, our military leaders, virtually every big American company not
associated with the fossil fuel industry, and, of course, the American
public--Rhode Island and all States will continue to risk even worse
effects.
For the fossil fuel industry, we are the best Congress money can buy.
For everyone else, we are a disaster.
Last year I went to New Hampshire to talk with people about the
changes they see there. I met climate scientist Dr. Cameron Wake of the
University of New Hampshire. He showed me a detailed analysis on
climate change in New Hampshire--what scientists have already measured
and what projections indicate the future may hold. We had a good talk
and after my visit he ran for me a similar analysis of climate change
in Rhode Island.
This is what he found. This chart shows measurements of the average
annual maximum temperature for three weather-monitoring stations in
Rhode Island. Block Island is in blue, Kingston is in red, and
Providence is in orange. It measures the highest daily temperature for
each day, averaged over the whole year from 1895 to 2012. Let me remind
everyone that these are measurements. This is not theory. These are
measurements. This is climate change on the march in Rhode Island. What
does it show? Warming. The trend is indisputable.
Dr. Wake's analysis shows that the average annual maximum temperature
has increased at a rate of 3.6 Fahrenheit per century in Block Island,
2.8 degrees per century in Kingston, and 3.1 degrees per century in
Providence.
Dr. Wake then looked to the future of Rhode Island. This chart shows
the same thing we were looking at on the last chart--the average annual
maximum temperature. But while that one just looks backward, this one
looks forward. It shows two scenarios: business as usual in red or
reduced carbon emissions in blue. It shows us, in effect, the
difference that cutting back on carbon pollution could make for future
generations of Rhode Islanders.
If we do nothing to curb our carbon pollution here, the annual
average goes up toward 68 degrees, some years close to 70 degrees
Fahrenheit by year's end.
Remember the last chart, which ended around here in 2010? The
historical record there ended at around 60 degrees. Carry on this flood
of carbon pollution and here is where you end, around 8 degrees warmer
on average.
Between 1980 and 2010, the average annual maximum temperature of
Washington, DC, was 68 degrees. That is the 8-degree difference. The
difference that this flood of carbon pollution portends is Providence
feeling like steamy, sweltering, Washington, DC. But if we take action
to dial back our pollution, the warming is about half as much and less
severe.
This is not the only measure of what carbon pollution will bring to
Rhode Island. Winter temperatures going up mean fewer snow-covered
days. Extreme precipitation will likely increase, and as the average
annual maximum temperature increases, there will also be more very hot
days in the summer.
This chart shows the increase in the number of days with a maximum
temperature above 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Hot days such as that are
common here in sweltering Washington, but historically Rhode Island
might see maybe three 90-degree days a year. People come from all over
to our cool, beautiful shores to swim in our cool, beautiful Atlantic.
This chart shows that even in the best case, Rhode Island can expect
to see 18 such sweltering 90-degree days per year and, in the worst
case, that number could rise to over 50 90-degree days every year, with
the mercury soaring over 95 degrees Fahrenheit for 16 of those days.
Well, if you want to sit inside watching TV, cranking up your air
conditioner, that may be fine, but Rhode Islanders like to go outside.
We enjoy the beach, and we enjoy the bay. We are not looking forward to
what these temperature consequences mean for our health.

[[Page S5122]]

Earlier this year, the Rhode Island Department of Health produced an
in-depth report on heat and health in Rhode Island, concluding this:
``The destabilizing effects of climate change on our environment are
among the most significant potential health threats faced by
individuals and Rhode Island communities today.''
That is the official word of the Rhode Island Health Department. So
don't expect me to ignore this issue here because it is uncomfortable
for someone. Rising temperatures and extreme heat cause serious human
health effects, such as dehydration, heat exhaustion. Hospitalizations
result and even death. The department of health projected that the
calculated temperature increases in Rhode Island will result in almost
400 additional emergency room visits in the year 2022 alone and nearly
1,400 more in 2084.
Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health just published a
study showing that death rates among seniors in New England increased
when summer temperatures rose significantly. The risk, they believe,
comes not only from the hotter temperatures but also from variability
in temperatures as climate change makes the weather weirder and more
unpredictable.
There is a documentary series, ``Years of Living Dangerously,'' which
looked at how this works, as has the Rhode Island Department of Health,
working with Brown University. Both found that a pronounced increase in
emergency room visits and deaths as temperatures rise was statistically
related to heat.
In many cases, it was not specifically indicated in the chart as
related to heat. This suggests that heat-related deaths and illness may
be underdiagnosed if you just look at medical charts. So this is a
significant health issue that we face.
Then there are the storms. Climate change will increase the frequency
and intensity of extreme weather events in Rhode Island, such as
Hurricane Sandy, to the tune of $2 billion to $6 billion in Rhode
Island, according to one report. In a State of 1 million people, that
is a lot of damage. The heavy rains that brought on our floods in 2010
will become more frequent as well.
This is what our health director wrote: ``In Rhode Island, where our
economy, culture, and identity are all so closely tied to the ocean and
to Narragansett Bay, the effects of climate change will be particularly
acute.'' Again, that is the official word of our health department.
Climate change threatens our water systems as temperatures increase
and as we see more intense rain events. Stormwater and sewer overflows
can contaminate Rhode Island coastal waters. Warmer waters can foster
bacterial growth that can be harmful. Swimming in or consuming polluted
water obviously can cause illness.
Then there is vibrio. The world-renowned shellfish of Narragansett
Bay are becoming susceptible to a group of marine bacteria known as
vibrio. If vibrio gets into seafood, it can be very unpleasant.
Symptoms can be especially severe in people with compromised immune
systems. Rhode Island health officials now have to work with the
State's shellfish industry, with the University of Rhode Island, and
others to monitor water quality and shellfish growing and harvesting
conditions to protect this important resource.
These are just a few of the health threats laid out in the report.
The department of health is just one of many agencies and organizations
in our State that have had to put climate action and clean energy at
the heart of their work as we in Congress pretend this problem does not
exist.
Dozens of the most dedicated and innovative minds in our State
recently came to Washington for my sixth annual Rhode Island Energy and
Environmental Leaders Day. Our attendees represent some of the best
work being done in Rhode Island to stave off the devastating effects of
climate change.
Janet Coit, our director of environmental management chairs the
Executive Climate Change Coordinating Council, created by our Governor
to coordinate State agencies to address threats from climate change,
threats to the State's environment, the State's economy, and the
State's people.
The council was established by the Resilient Rhode Island Act, passed
by our general assembly in 2014. That law also set specific greenhouse
gas reduction targets and incorporates consideration of climate change
effects into the powers and duties of all State agencies. The bill's
author, Representative Art Handy, also came down and joined us for the
Rhode Island Energy and Environmental Leaders Day, along with his
colleague Representative Carlos Tobon, a member of the Rhode Island
House Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources.
Dennis Nixon was there. He heads Rhode Island Sea Grant at the
University of Rhode Island School of Oceanography. Sea Grant works with
the Rhode Island government agencies and coastal communities to support
climate resiliency and to protect vibrant waterfronts.
Marion Gold, our commissioner of the office of energy resources, was
there. She has advanced incentives for large and small renewable energy
development in our State, and she has helped Rhode Island become the
third most energy-efficient State in the Nation.
Recently, we saw this report: ``Study shows Northeast states benefit
from carbon cap program.'' We are a part of RGGI. Marion Gold helps
supervise that. It has created jobs, it has saved money. It is proving
that solving the carbon pollution problem is not actually a burden on
the economy. It is a boost to the economy.
One of the special breakout sessions at the Energy and Environmental
Leaders Day focused on corporate sustainability efforts to spur
innovation, save money, and reduce emissions.
Representatives from Microsoft, Mars--the company--FedEx, and
Schneider Electric shared their sustainability success stories. For
these companies, efforts to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon
emissions are more than good intentions; they are good business.
Another breakout session looked at faith perspectives on
environmental stewardship. Rev. Anita Schell of Rhode Island Interfaith
Power & Light came. She works with local faith-based institutions to
raise awareness about climate change and about safeguarding the poor of
the world, who are least responsible for and most vulnerable to climate
change. As Pope Francis gives his voice to this moral calling, these
faith perspectives were especially welcome.
Dozens of other smart, hard-working Rhode Islanders attended--too
many to mention them all. But I am always proud of the important work
going on in Rhode Island to combat climate change. It is my inspiration
to continue fighting for responsible action in Washington.
As our senior Senator Jack Reed told the group, ``Rhode Island is one
of the leaders in the country in smart policies . . . and it's is the
result of the culmination of lots of individual activities.''
Rhode Island gets it, and we are pulling together in one direction.
Our homes, our shores, and our way of life are at stake. We need every
State in the Nation to join us to take this issue seriously, and we
need every Senator to pay attention. It is truly time to wake up.
I ask my colleagues here today, if this were you, if something this
threatening were happening to your State, would you really expect me to
stand down because it was uncomfortable for big powerful industries and
big aggressive donors? You would not. You would go to war to protect
Utah and to protect Iowa from a threat such as this.
So forgive me if I am impatient, but this is serious in our Ocean
State. If your department of health projected these kinds of threats
for your home State people, you would be up in arms. So forgive me for
being a little bit up in arms.
I will close with this. Look at this picture. Do you know what that
is? That is a picture of Pluto. That is a picture of the dwarf planet
Pluto. Do you know how we got that? We got that off of NASA's New
Horizons spacecraft. It made it to Pluto after crossing the solar
system for 9\1/2\ years. It traveled 3 billion miles from Earth and
came within 8,000 miles of the surface of Pluto. It was traveling at
more than 31,000 miles per hour, and it took 3 minutes to cross the
face of Pluto, where it took innumerable images and samples for our
scientists.
Let me quote one of the lead scientists, whose name is Bowman, who

[[Page S5123]]

managed 1 hour of sleep in her office Monday night. She said:

I have to pinch myself. Look what we accomplished. It's
truly amazing humankind can go out and explore these worlds,
and see Pluto revealed just before our eyes. It's just
fantastic.

And it really is. These are American scientists who are able to run
an American craft 3 billion miles to cross within 8,000 miles of Pluto
traveling 31,000 miles an hour. When those scientists from NASA tell us
that climate change is real, what do we have to say to them? We say
that they are part of a hoax.
Really? Is that going to be the position of Members in this body--
that the people driving a rover around on the surface of Mars and the
people who flew this New Horizons craft by Pluto don't know what they
are talking about when they say that climate change is real?
We have people trying to unfund their satellites so that we don't
have the information to prove what is happening on climate change. Is
that responsible with respect to NASA?
A day of reckoning is going to come on this, and we had better start
getting this right.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 1965, Congress passed the original
Elementary and Secondary Education Act as part of President Lyndon
Johnson's War on Poverty. The centerpiece of that law, then as now, is
title I funding provided as a block grant to local school districts to
serve children in poverty.

The assumption in 1965 was that simply providing an infusion of
Federal cash to schools with more disadvantaged children would correct
educational inequities compared to more affluent schools. As it turned
out, simply providing more money didn't result in improved educational
outcomes for disadvantaged children.
So every time this law came back up for reauthorization, Congress
added more stipulations on the use of the funds and additional programs
that well-meaning Members of Congress hoped would help students.
Meanwhile, Congress kept raising the level of funding. Over time,
there began to be a bipartisan realization that all this funding and
all these programs were not resulting in improved student achievement,
so something needed to change.
In this context, President Bush proposed what became the No Child
Left Behind Act. His original proposal promised to fundamentally change
the old Washington-knows-best approach to improving teaching and
learning.
The theory was that we would cut the Federal strings that tied the
hands of local administrators and teachers, allowing them to focus on
teaching kids. In return, the law would require greater accountability
in terms of student achievement outcomes.
However, the final compromise that passed Congress included a very
detailed one-size-fits-all assessment and accountability system, but
not the degree of local freedom that many had hoped for.
In retrospect, I think most people believe the focus on achievement
for all students was positive. But like with many Federal laws, how it
worked in practice didn't live up to the good intentions.
The reality is that the new federally mandated accountability system
included required interventions that were cooked up in Washington and
designed for big city failing school districts. These were not a good
fit for communities in Iowa and many other States. Moreover, they set a
new precedent for Federal intervention into how local schools are run.
Secretary Duncan took this a step further through the Race to the Top
program and his abuse of the Federal waiver authority by adding
conditions found nowhere in law. He used these tools to coerce States
into adopting his preferred policies. These included new, even more
heavy-handed mandates regarding reorganizing local schools, specific
methods for schools to evaluate their teachers, and most infamously,
pushing States to adopt the common core standards.
I believe these actions go well beyond any authority Congress gave
the Secretary of Education, and I told him so in a letter when he
denied Iowa's waiver. This should be a warning to Congress that if you
give an inch, Federal officials might just take a mile.
The high-stakes system in No Child Left Behind also created negative
incentives for schools to focus on getting passing test scores rather
than meeting the individual learning needs of each student.
For instance, I have had a concern for a long time in how Federal
education policy affects gifted and talented students. The exclusive
focus on bringing struggling students up to some minimum level means
that we are setting our sights on mediocrity.
Left out of this equation are gifted students, including those from
disadvantaged backgrounds, who have enormous potential but need to be
challenged to reach that potential.
At the end of the day, the goal of making sure all students are
receiving a quality education is a good one, but the record of
Washington's intervention in this issue has not been a success. It is
time for Congress to take a step back and have a little humility. We
don't know what's best for every child in every school. We can't design
a single national education system that can meet the individual needs
of children we will never meet.
Our Founding Fathers designed a federal system of government for a
reason. The principle of federalism is that decisions should be made at
the level of government as close as practicable to the people those
decisions impact.
When it comes to education, no one has a greater stake in educational
decisions, or knows better what is right for a specific child, then
that child's parents. As a result, parents should have maximum control
over their child's education. When governments make decisions that
impact education, it should be at a level of government as close as
possible to the parents and children who are affected.
The Every Child Achieves Act is a step in that direction. It
eliminates the very specific mandates on States requiring that they
evaluate schools based on test scores and apply federally designed
interventions. States will be free to design their own assessment and
accountability systems.
The bill retains the requirement that States test annually in grades
3-8, which I understand was necessary to get a bipartisan agreement.
However, States will have wide discretion in how they design their
assessments. And, the elimination of the federally mandated school
interventions that raise the stakes on the test results will reduce
teaching to the test.
This bill also consolidates Federal funding in a way that provides
more latitude to local school districts to better meet their individual
needs, although less so than in the House- passed bill. By contrast,
the Obama administration's blueprint for reauthorizing the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act called for replacing the current set of
Federal mandates with a new set of Federal mandates. What the President
proposes would include even more intrusive, mandatory Federal
interventions for certain schools.
It also proposed a series of new Federal competitive grants with
broad purposes, which puts smaller rural schools at a disadvantage and
gives the Secretary of Education an inappropriate degree of control
over which schools get funding for which purposes. Moreover, the
President's blueprint proposes tying Federal education funds to the
adoption of State content standards that are ``college and career
ready,'' which is code for common core.
In short, the Obama blueprint would have essentially ratified this
administration's heavy-handed intrusions into how and what students are
taught and enabled further Federal overreach.
The Every Child Achieves Act represents a rejection of that approach
and an admission that the model of Federal control of local schools has
not worked. As a result, President Obama has said he cannot support the
bill as it stands unless it adds back more power for the Secretary.
That position flies in the face of what I hear from Iowa educators and
parents.
In fact, this bill quite intentionally tightens up some of the
language in current law to prevent future overreach by the Secretary of
Education. For instance, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has
always required States to develop a State plan to show how it will
comply with the law in order to get Federal funding.

[[Page S5124]]

Under current law, the Secretary of Education is charged with
approving the plan unless it does not meet the requirements of the law.
That should be sufficient to tell the Secretary that he must approve a
plan so long as it complies with the law.
However, given the current Secretary's track record, the language in
this bill is more explicit. It requires the Secretary to deem a State
plan approved within 90 days of its submission unless he can provide a
detailed description of the specific requirements in law that the State
did not comply with. It then lists three pages of explicit limitations
on the Secretary's authority describing what he cannot consider in
evaluating a State plan. That is then followed by a rule reemphasizing
that the Secretary cannot require anything at all from States beyond
what is in the law.
This bill also voids any conditions attached to waivers already
granted by the Secretary of Education and prohibits the attaching of
any new ones in the future.
I am also glad that this bill includes very comprehensive language I
worked on with Senator Roberts to explicitly shut off all the avenues
this administration has used to coerce States to adopt the common core
standards. This will free States to adopt whatever content standards
they choose based on the input from their citizens without Federal
coercion or fear of Federal repercussions.
Too often, Congress passes vague laws that delegate excessive
discretion to Federal agencies to fill in the blanks. This bill is an
improvement over the standard practice. It makes congressional intent
more clear and fills in many gaps to ensure that the Department
implements the law as intended rather than based on the whims of the
Secretary.
Some bipartisan compromise is necessary for any bill to pass the
Senate, and like any compromise, most people can find some things they
don't like in this bill. Some Senators feel this bill goes too far in
reducing the Federal role in education and some Senators feel it
doesn't go far enough. I am one of those Senators who would prefer to
see a maximum degree of State and local control and I voted for
amendments to that effect.
However, the Every Child Achieves Act is a step in the direction of
reducing Federal control on local schools so teachers can teach and
parents know who to hold accountable for decisions that affect their
children. Given the current mess with an unworkable law on the books,
many States ceding control over major policies to Washington in return
for a waiver, and an unprecedented degree of Federal intervention into
what happens in neighborhood schools, it is overdue for Congress to
act. Local schools can do more when Washington does less. Let's give
them that chance.
I yield the floor.

____________________