[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19655-19667]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 STUDENT SUCCESS ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 1177, 
which the clerk will report.

[[Page 19656]]

  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Conference report to accompany S. 1177, a bill to 
     reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 to ensure that every child achieves.

  Mr. REID. Is the time divided equally on quorums?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order for division of time.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that during all quorum calls this 
morning, the time be equally divided between the two sides.
  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 senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Religious Freedom

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Founding Fathers took great care when 
it came to the issue of religion in our Constitution. Many of the 
people who had come to the United States and became its earliest White 
settlers came for religious freedom. They had witnessed discrimination. 
They had witnessed government religion. They had witnessed the type of 
conduct which not only offended their conscience but motivated them to 
come to this great Nation. So when the Founding Fathers sat down to 
craft our Constitution, they made three hard-and-fast rules when it 
came to religion in this United States of America. The first was our 
freedom to believe as we choose or not to believe, a personal freedom 
when it came to religion embodied in the civil rights. The second was 
prohibition against any Government of the United States establishing a 
state or government religion. Third, the prohibition of any litmus test 
before anyone could run for public office when it came to religion.
  For over 200 years now, those fundamental principles have guided the 
United States and have kept us away from some of the terrible conflicts 
which have occurred in other nations across history when it came to the 
clash of religious belief. It is hard to imagine that in this 21st 
century, more than 200 years after the Constitution was written, that 
in the midst of this Presidential campaign, we would once again be 
reflecting on religion in America, but we are.
  Statements that were made over the last several months, and 
especially a statement made yesterday by a Republican candidate for 
President, have called into question again the policy and values of the 
United States when it comes to the practice of religion. Mr. Donald 
Trump, Republican candidate for President, has proposed excluding 
people of the Muslim religion from the United States. He said we need 
to do that until our government figures out what to do with terrorism. 
Mr. Trump's statements have been condemned, roundly condemned by most 
of the other Republican Presidential nominees, as well as former Vice 
President Richard Cheney. It is an indication that he has gone too far. 
I hope it is an indication that we in America will reaffirm fundamental 
values, when it comes to religious beliefs, that have guided this 
Nation for more than two centuries. I might add, this is just the 
latest chapter in this story.


                                Refugees

  Mr. President, it was only a few weeks ago when there was a conscious 
effort promoted by the Republican Presidential candidates to exclude 
Syrian refugees from the United States. They called it a pause. They 
said we needed to assess whether or not we ought to change our system 
for refugees coming to this country, and, in so doing, they required 
the certification by the heads of our national security agencies of 
each individual refugee before they could come to the United States.
  Each year, the United States allows about 70,000 refugees to come to 
our shores from all across the world. They come from far-flung nations. 
The largest contributor last year was Burma--those who were escaping 
persecution in Burma. The second largest group was those coming from 
Iraq. They included, incidentally, those Iraqis who had served and 
helped the United States and its military during our period of 
occupation. Many of them risked their lives for our soldiers, and now 
they are worried about retribution and have asked for asylum refuge in 
the United States.
  The proposal was made by the Republican side that we should limit--in 
fact, should delay and then limit--Syrian and Iraqi refugees. One has 
to wonder whether or not it has anything to do with the fact that the 
vast majority of people living in those two countries are of the Muslim 
faith.
  I have met some of these refugees in the city of Chicago. Some of 
them waited up to 2 years after they were being investigated and 
interviewed and fingerprinted--up to 2 years--before they could come to 
the United States. Their stories of what they and their families have 
been through are tragic. They come here simply to start a new life in a 
safe place and to raise their children. It truly is what has motivated 
people across the span of history to come to this great Nation, and 
these refugees are no different.
  The fact that the Republicans would start by excluding refugees--and 
now, Mr. Trump takes it to the extreme of excluding people of a 
religious faith, the Muslim religion--is an indication of a 
conversation in American politics that needs to stop. We need to 
reflect once again on the fundamental principles of this country and 
the fundamental values of this country as well. I hope this is the 
beginning of a reevaluation.
  It wasn't but 2 weeks ago that the House of Representatives passed 
the measure, the so-called pause in accepting refugees. It is 
interesting what has happened since. More than half of Democrats who 
voted for this--47 of them--have said they don't want to include this 
measure in any final appropriations bill considered by Congress. They 
are obviously having second thoughts about their votes. At least one 
Republican Congressman from the State of Oklahoma said he made a 
mistake; he never should have voted for this policy when it came to 
Syrian refugees. So perhaps, as tempers cool and as we reflect on who 
we are as a Nation and what we want to be, we will have second thoughts 
about this question of refugees.


                              Gun Violence

  Mr. President, there was another vote last week which I noted on the 
floor yesterday and which I still find hard to believe. A measure was 
offered by Senator Feinstein of California. What it basically said is: 
If you are on a no-fly list--if you have been identified by our 
government as a suspected terrorist--you cannot purchase firearms. 
That, to me, is not a radical suggestion. It is a commonsense 
suggestion. The two killers in San Bernardino had AR-15s, weapons that 
can be used to fire many rounds in a hurry. The net result: 14 people 
died and another 18 or so were seriously injured. So when someone is 
put on the no-fly list, the suspected terrorist list, I don't think it 
is unreasonable to say: You can't purchase a firearm as long as you are 
on that list.
  Senator Feinstein addressed the question raised by the Republican 
Senator from Texas: What if the government is wrong? What if your name 
should not be on the list? She included in her bill a process to 
challenge any name on the list and to do it in an orderly way with due 
process. Apparently, Republicans felt that wasn't enough.
  Overwhelmingly, Republicans voted against the Feinstein amendment. 
Overwhelmingly, they voted against a proposal to ban suspected 
terrorists from buying firearms in America.
  Now, I know there are many people who are skeptical--maybe even 
cynical--when it comes to the role of our government. But if we are not 
going to take the government's information and advice when it comes to 
suspected terrorists, where will we be?

[[Page 19657]]

  Our government--through our military, our intelligence agency, the 
FBI, and law enforcement--gathers information about individuals and 
warns us if those individuals could be a danger to our families and to 
our communities. The vote by the Republicans rejected that warning and 
said: We will err on the side of giving people firearms even if they 
are suspected terrorists. That makes no sense whatsoever. It shows you 
the extremes you can reach when you listen closely to the gun lobby and 
not to the vast majority of Americans who simply want to live in a safe 
country. It shows what happens when your opposition to this President 
and this government has reached the point where you question even the 
basic conclusion that someone has been engaged in suspicious, if not 
outright, terrorist activity. That vote was defeated. The amendment by 
Senator Feinstein was defeated.
  She also offered an amendment originally penned by Senator 
Lautenberg--the late Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey--related to 
terrorists, but the Senate also considered an amendment that related to 
background checks for those who want to purchase firearms. That 
amendment came to the floor under the sponsorship of Senator Manchin, a 
Democrat from West Virginia, and Senator Toomey, a Republican from 
Pennsylvania. What it said is very basic: If we are going to sell 
firearms in America, we are going to make every reasonable effort not 
to sell them to convicted felons or people who are mentally unstable. 
That makes sense. In fact, it should be a standard we all accept. The 
vast majority of gun owners accept that standard. They don't want guns 
in the hands of people who would use them in crime or people who are 
mentally unstable and can't manage a firearm. That amendment came to 
the floor; again, it was defeated by the Republicans in the Senate. 
That is unfortunate.
  In the State of Illinois, too many crime guns cross the border from 
northwest Indiana into the city of Chicago, coming into that city where 
they are traced to gun shows in Indiana where there are no background 
checks, where people can fill up the trunks of their cars with firearms 
and ammunition, cross the border into Illinois and into Chicago, and 
engage in deadly, violent contact. We should have that come to an end.
  The people who own and use guns responsibly and legally have no fear. 
But those who would buy them for criminal purposes or those who would 
buy them when they don't have the faculties to truly maintain a firearm 
or use it should be stopped.
  The Republicans disagree. They are listening to the gun lobby when 
they should be listening to the people of this country.


                          For-Profit Colleges

  Mr. President, last month, the Department of Justice, along with the 
Department of Education and a group of State attorneys general, 
announced an agreement to settle litigation against Education 
Management Corporation, the second largest for-profit college chain in 
America.
  EDMC was found to have been engaged in fraud and deception when it 
told the Federal Government it was complying with Federal laws that 
prohibited incentive compensation to be paid to recruiters. For EDMC 
recruiters, students essentially had a bounty on their heads. The more 
students they signed up for their for-profit colleges, the more bonuses 
and perks the recruiters could receive, such as trips to places like 
Cancun and Las Vegas, Starbucks gift cards, expensive candies, and 
tickets to sporting events.
  To tell the whole story, the same EDMC recruiters--as they were 
recruiting young people to attend these for-profit colleges--needed 
only to find students with a ``pulse and a Pell'' to sign up. What they 
are referring to, of course, is low-income students eligible for over 
$5,000 in Pell grants--$5,000 that would flow to this for-profit 
college, regardless of whether the students were getting a good 
education.
  U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch referred to this school as a 
``recruitment mill.'' What was the result of this recruitment mill? 
While these illegal practices were taking place, EDMC reportedly took 
in--listen to this--$11 billion in Federal funds, $11 billion in 
taxpayer funds. Under the settlement, the company was fined $90 
million--$11 billion; $90 million.
  Well, how about the executives who masterminded the scheme to sign up 
young people so that their Pell grants and government loans would flow 
to the for-profit college, regardless of whether they ever finished 
school or ended up with a diploma that was worth anything? What 
happened to these people who engineered this scheme that cost Federal 
taxpayers $11 billion--students almost $11 billion in debt--and a fine 
by the government of $90 million? So far, they are getting off scot-
free.
  Todd Nelson, CEO of EDMC until 2012, personally received over $25 
million in total compensation during his 5 years. The settlement didn't 
include any accountability for him. Now Mr. Nelson is the CEO of the 
Career Education Corporation, another for-profit education company that 
is under massive State and Federal scrutiny.
  What about the students who were lured by EDMC's illegal recruitment 
mill, pressured by the company's high-pressure, boiler-room tactics 
into mountains of student debt? They can't find jobs many times, and 
they certainly can't repay their loans.
  Attorney General Lynch called EDMC's tactics a violation of the trust 
placed in them by the students. More than 40 State attorneys general 
accused the company of deception and misleading recruitment.
  So let's be clear. This was not just a case of EDMC lying to the 
Federal Government. Students were the victims.
  I encourage the Department of Education to use the evidence the 
Department of Justice and States attorneys general have in this case to 
provide Federal student loan relief to students who were harmed by 
Education Management Corporation. But make no mistake. If the students 
are spared the student debt from these fly-by-night for-profit 
colleges, ultimately the taxpayers will be the losers as well. We 
provided the money to the students that flowed to the schools, and now 
everyone is a loser, including the taxpayers--oh, not the officers of 
the company. They walked away with millions of dollars in compensation.
  There is one thing I always say at this point to make my case, and I 
have never, ever heard a rebuttal from the for-profit colleges. For-
profit colleges educate about 10 percent of all the high school 
graduates in America. Who are the major for-profit colleges? The 
biggest one is the University of Phoenix, Kaplan is another large one, 
and DeVry University is out of the city of Chicago. These are for-
profit schools.
  About 10 percent of high school grants go to these for-profit 
colleges. The for-profit colleges as an industry receive 20 percent of 
all the Federal aid to education--10 percent of the students, 20 
percent of the Federal aid. Their tuition is so high that students have 
to go deeper into debt than if they had chosen a community college or a 
public university. But here is the No. 1 number: 10 percent of the 
students--44 percent of student loan defaults occur with students who 
attend for-profit colleges and universities. Almost half of the 
students who end up going to these for-profit schools default on their 
student loans.
  Don't forget that student loans, student debt is not dischargeable in 
bankruptcy. A 19- or 20-year-old student and their parents who sign up 
for these student loans have signed up for debt for life. It cannot be 
discharged. They will take it to the grave. When the student defaults, 
we actually have seen efforts to secure Social Security payments from 
the parents who cosigned for these loans. For 10 percent of the 
students in for-profit schools, there are 44 percent of the student 
loan defaults.
  Well, the EDMC news came on the heels of a major announcement by 
Westwood College, one of the worst actors in the for-profit college 
industry. Westwood announced it would stop enrolling students in 
campuses nationwide, including the four that operate in the Chicago 
area. Praise the Lord.

[[Page 19658]]

  Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan sued Westwood for engaging in 
deceptive practices. Madigan's suit focused specifically on Westwood's 
criminal justice program, one of the first that I have heard about that 
raised my interest in this for-profit college industry. In order to 
lure students into their criminal justice program, Westwood College 
convinced students they could get jobs with the Chicago Police 
Department and the Illinois State Police. What happened when the 
students actually graduated from Westwood College, this for-profit 
school, and took their degrees to the employers? The employers laughed 
at them. They didn't recognize the Westwood degree. In fact, it reached 
a point where they told the students they would be better off if they 
didn't include Westwood College on their resumes. Just say you didn't 
go to school, and you will have a better chance.
  The Attorney General recently reached a settlement with Westwood 
under which it would forgive $15 million in private student loans for 
Illinois students. Now it appears the company as a whole may be on its 
way out. That is the trend in this industry. As students and parents 
across America are starting to realize these for-profit schools are bad 
news and State and Federal regulators are shining a light on their 
illegal tactics, enrollment is declining. At one point, I believe the 
University of Phoenix had over 500,000 students. Now they are down to 
less than half of that amount. Along with the decline in enrollment, 
stock prices on these private corporations are plummeting.
  Years of bad behavior is starting to catch up with these companies, 
but the damage is done for these students. Many of their lives have 
been harmed, if not ruined, by this debt. And, of course, there has 
been damage to the Federal Treasury, which shells out billions--that is 
with a ``b''--of dollars to the for-profit colleges that the taxpayers 
will never get back. Yet the other party continues to come to the aid 
of the for-profit college industry, attempting to block any steps to 
ensure that for-profit colleges are following the law and held 
accountable. We saw it earlier this year. The junior Senator from 
Florida came to the aid of the disreputable Corinthian Colleges. While 
Corinthian was lying to students about its job-placement rates, 
suckering them into enrolling, and saddling them with debt, the junior 
Senator from Florida was writing to the Department of Education asking 
them to demonstrate leniency to Corinthian--leniency to a company that 
made misrepresentations to the students, lied to the government, and 
swindled taxpayers out of billions of dollars. That is the answer from 
the junior Senator from Florida.
  If Republicans are willing to defend Corinthian, it shouldn't be a 
surprise that they want to shield for-profit colleges from what is 
known as the gainful employment rule. The Department of Education has 
developed responsible criteria for determining whether career education 
programs really do prepare students for gainful employment. That is 
required by law. The gainful employment rule ensures that students who 
graduate from a covered program of study are able to get a job that 
allows them to manage the student debt they take on in the process. The 
point is to protect students from worthless postsecondary programs that 
leave them saddled with debt and unable to get a good job. The point is 
to also protect Federal taxpayers by cutting off Federal funding to 
programs of study that don't really prepare students for a job. But the 
for-profit college industry and their friends in Congress--they hate 
this rule. Why? As an industry, for-profit colleges, as I mentioned 
earlier, enroll 10 percent of the students and account for more than 40 
percent of the student loan defaults. They take in $25 billion in title 
IV dollars annually. If they were a Federal agency, the for-profit 
colleges and universities would be the ninth largest Federal agency in 
America.
  Is this the private sector, is this the free market, or is this crony 
capitalism that survives on massive Federal subsidies? The for-profit 
colleges and universities are the most heavily subsidized private 
industry in America. Their business model depends on easy access to 
Federal funds and the ability to spend as little as possible on quality 
education. They spend more money on advertising than they do on 
teaching.
  Earlier this year, the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Columbia dealt a devastating blow to this industry's attempt to block 
the gainful employment rule. The court upheld the rule in its entirety. 
This was the second U.S. district court to do so. Having been 
embarrassed in Federal court, the for-profit college industry has 
turned to my friends on the other side of the aisle to protect them. 
They attached a rider to the appropriations bills that fund education 
programs and are pushing to include it in the final spending bill this 
year to stop the Department of Education from enforcing the existing 
law on gainful employment.
  How can we as Members of Congress block implementation of this 
commonsense rule in light of what just happened with Corinthian? This 
company was inflating its job-placement rates to lure students, 
defrauding the students and taxpayers, and lying to creditors and the 
Federal Government. When it collapsed, when Corinthian went down, more 
than 70,000 students were left in peril. Many were left with more debt 
than they could ever possibly repay and a Corinthian education that is 
worthless.
  Now is not the time for Congress to meddle in the Department of 
Education's efforts to protect taxpayers, students, and their families, 
and to prevent another Corinthian collapse. The Department estimates 
that of the nearly 1,400 programs of study, 99 percent of them at for-
profit colleges will fail under this basic rule. That is why the 
industry is in a mad dash to find political sponsors to save them from 
accountability. Programs have to fail the rule 2 out of 3 consecutive 
years to be cut out of Federal funding, so the institutions do have an 
opportunity to improve. If they don't, we shouldn't just continue to 
blindly send billions of Federal taxpayer dollars to these companies.
  With all we know about the for-profit college industry and their 
fraudulent and deceptive practices, I can't believe my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle are prepared to fight a rule that is 
nothing more than a way to protect students and taxpayers. But here we 
are facing the prospect of a policy rider, substantive legislation in a 
spending bill to shield for-profit colleges from being held accountable 
and delivering on their promises to students. Well, I am going to 
resist that, and I hope my colleagues will join me. It isn't just a 
matter of making certain that these schools follow the law; it is a 
matter of protecting students and families from being exploited--going 
in for an education and ending up with nothing other than debt--and 
protecting taxpayers who are sending $25 billion a year to this 
industry.
  We have had some heated debates on the floor about people receiving 
food stamps--perhaps $180 a month in food stamps--and whether they are 
deserving or whether it is a rip-off for taxpayers, but when it comes 
to $25 billion for an industry that has shown over and over again that 
it is the source of 44 percent of student loan defaults, to the misery 
of the students and families who are victims of it, some of these same 
people who are critical of food stamp fraud turn a blind eye. They say: 
Oh, this is just business. Don't be afraid of making a profit.
  I salute businesses that make a profit if they do it honestly, 
honorably, and do it with competition. This industry is taking 
advantage of Federal tax dollars in a way that no other industry is.
  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. COTTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          Terrorist Watch List

  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I will be brief. I wish to respond to 
what I heard earlier this morning from the

[[Page 19659]]

Democratic leader and what we heard from the President on Sunday night.
  The Democrats would have us believe that any person on a watch list 
can go and buy a firearm without any notice whatsoever. That is simply 
false. The background check system that federally licensed firearm 
dealers use includes a terrorist watch list, and the FBI 
counterterrorism division is notified when that occurs. Of course, the 
list is notoriously inaccurate. A Department of Justice IG report just 
a few years ago said half of the names on the list are incorrect. The 
New York Times, which continues its proselytizing for gun control, used 
to be strongly opposed to the use of this list. Most famously, Ted 
Kennedy, a U.S. Senator from America's leading political dynasty, was 
on the list and couldn't get off for weeks, having his flights 
disrupted time after time. Stephen Hayes, a well-known conservative 
journalist who I admit looks a little suspicious, also found himself on 
the list. It took him months of public commentary, and he was only 
removed from the list when Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson 
was challenged on the news about him being on the list.
  If it took Ted Kennedy and Stephen Hayes weeks or months to get off 
that list, how long would it take the little guy in Arkansas? For that 
matter, how long do we think it would take patriotic Muslim Americans 
who are on the list--most likely because of confusion about their names 
with suspected terrorists--to get off that list?
  Moreover, what other rights would Democrats like to deprive American 
citizens of without notice and due process? Their right to free speech? 
Their right to practice their religion? Their right to petition their 
government? Their right to enlist unreasonable search and seizures? 
Their right to a trial by jury? Their right to confront their accusers? 
Their right to get just compensation when their property is taken?
  Democrats should quit being so politically correct. They should focus 
on winning the war against radical Islam. If they did, maybe fewer 
Americans would feel the need to buy firearms to protect themselves 
from terrorist attacks.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, this is a day for opportunity in the 
Senate. We have an opportunity today to reverse the trend of the last 
several years toward a national school board. We have an opportunity to 
make clear that in the future, the path to higher standards, better 
teaching, and real accountability will be through States, communities, 
and classrooms and not through Washington, DC.
  We have an opportunity to vote in favor of what the Wall Street 
Journal has called ``the largest devolution of Federal control to 
States in a quarter century.''
  We have an opportunity to inaugurate a new era of innovation and 
excellence in student achievement by restoring responsibility to States 
and classroom teachers. Tennessee, after all, was the first State that 
paid teachers more for teaching well. Minnesota educators created the 
first charter schools. The real advances in higher standards and 
accountability and appropriate testing have come from classroom 
teachers and from Governors, not from Washington, DC, and I believe 
that is where those advances will come from in the future.
  We have an opportunity today to provide much needed stability and 
certainty to Federal education policy from some very important people 
who are counting on us: 50 million children, 3.4 million teachers, and 
100,000 public schools.
  Newsweek magazine recently reminded us what we already know very 
well: No Child Left Behind is a law everybody wants fixed. Governors, 
teachers, superintendents, parents, Republicans, Democrats, and 
students all want the law fixed. There is a consensus about that and 
fortunately there is a consensus about how to fix it. That consensus is 
this: continue the law's important measurements of academic progress of 
students--disaggregate and report the results of those measurements--so 
teachers, parents, and the community can know what is going on in the 
schools but restore to States, school districts, classroom teachers, 
and parents the responsibility for deciding what to do about those 
tests and about what to do about improving student achievement.
  In our Senate hearings, I suppose we heard more about over-testing 
than any other subject. I believe this new law will result in fewer and 
better tests because States and classroom teachers will be deciding 
what to do about the results of the tests.
  Building on the consensus I have just described is why the Senate--
our Senate education committee--passed our bill 22 to 0 and why it 
passed on the floor 81 to 17. That is why conferees from the Senate and 
the House were able to agree 38 to 1, and that is why last Thursday the 
House of Representatives approved the conference report 359 to 64. That 
is why the National Governors Association gave our conference report 
its first full endorsement that the NGA has given to any legislation in 
nearly 20 years. That is why the Chief State School Officers, the 
school superintendents, the National Education Association, and the 
American Federation of Teachers all have supported our result.
  This consensus will end the waivers through which the U.S. Department 
of Education has become in effect a national school board for more than 
80,000 schools in 42 States. Governors have been forced to come to 
Washington, DC, and play ``Mother, May I'' in order for a State to put 
in a plan to evaluate teachers, for example, or to help a low-
performing school.
  Our consensus will end the Federal common core mandate. It explicitly 
prohibits Washington from mandating or even incentivizing common core 
or any other specific academic standards. That is exclusively the 
responsibility of the State. It moves decisions about whether schools, 
teachers, and students are succeeding or failing out of Washington, DC, 
and back to States and communities and classroom teachers where those 
decisions belong.
  I am grateful to Senator Murray, who is here today, and 
Representatives Kline and Scott, and to all of the members of our 
Senate education committee, for the leadership they have shown and the 
bipartisan way in which they have worked on this legislation. I am 
grateful to both the Democratic and Republican staffs in the Senate and 
in the House for their ingenuity and hard work. Fixing No Child Left 
Behind has not been easy. Everyone is an expert on education. This has 
been a lot like being in a football stadium with 100,000 fans, all of 
whom know exactly which play to call and usually each one of them says 
so.
  Some Republicans would like even more local control of schools than 
our consensus provides, and I am one of them, but my Scholarship for 
Kids proposal, which would have given States the option to allow 
Federal dollars to follow children to the school their parents choose, 
only received 45 votes in the Senate. It needed 60.
  So I have decided, as a President named Reagan once advised, that I 
will take 80 percent of what I want and fight for the other 20 percent 
on another day. Besides, if I were to vote no, I would be voting to 
leave in place the common core mandate--and I would be voting to leave 
in place the waivers that permit the U.S. Department of Education to 
act as a national school board for 80,000 students and 42 states--and I 
would be voting against the largest step toward locally-controlled 
schools in 25 years. Let me repeat that. Voting no today is voting to 
leave in place the common core mandate and the national school board 
and voting against the largest step toward local control of schools in 
25 years.
  I say to my friends, especially on the Republican side, many of whom, 
as I do, would like more local control: That is not the choice. The 
choice is whether we want to leave in place common core, the national 
school board, and the largest step toward local control in 25 years. I 
don't want to do that.
  This law expired 8 years ago. It has become unworkable. If it were 
strictly applied, it would label nearly every

[[Page 19660]]

school in America a failing school. So States, teachers, and parents 
have been waiting 8 years for us to reauthorize this law. If this were 
homework, they would give Congress an F for being tardy, but I hope 
they will give us a good grade for the result we have today.
  It is a great privilege to serve in the U.S. Senate, but there is no 
need for us to have that privilege if all we do is announce our 
different opinions or vote no if we don't get 100 percent of our way. 
We can do that at home or on the radio or in the newspaper or on a 
street corner. As U.S. Senators, after we have had our say, our job is 
to get a principled result. Today we have that opportunity.
  I hope today will demonstrate that we understand the privilege we 
have as Senators and show that we cherish our children by building upon 
this consensus and vote yes to fix the law that everybody wants fixed 
and yes for the consensus that restores responsibility for our schools 
to States, communities, and classroom teachers.
  Before Senator Murray speaks, I would like to do two things, briefly. 
The first vote--the vote we are having today at 11:30--is a vote about 
whether to cut off debate on fixing No Child Left Behind. I hope no 
Senator thinks we have not had enough debate. We have been at this for 
7 years. We failed in the last two Congresses. We have been working in 
our committee since January. We have had innumerable hearings, more 
than 50 amendments in committee, more than 70 amendments were dealt 
with on the floor, a dozen or so amendments in the conference report. 
Every Senator has had this in his or her office since last Monday--at 
least for a week. So the question today at 11:30 is, Is it time to cut 
off debate and move to a final vote? I hope every Senator will vote 
yes.
  Finally, I mentioned Senator Murray and her role in this, which has 
been indispensable in terms of our ability to come to a result. I would 
like to extend my deep thanks and appreciation to her staff and our 
staff, the committee staff, that worked on fixing No Child Left Behind. 
Many of them have been working on this effort for nearly 5 years. They 
have been ingenious. They have worked hard. They have been 
understanding, they have been tireless, and they have been 
indispensable in creating this important bipartisan, bicameral bill. 
That includes the staffs of Representative Kline and Representative 
Scott in the House
  On Senator Murray's exceptional staff I would like to thank 
especially Evan Schatz, Sarah Bolton, Amanda Beaumont, John Righter, 
Jake Cornett, Leanne Hotek, Allie Kimmel, and Aissa Canchola. All of 
those people were very important. For my hard-working and dedicated 
staff, I would especially like to thank our staff director, David 
Cleary, Peter Oppenheim, Lindsay Fryer, Bill Knudsen, Jordan Hynes, 
Hillary Knudson, Jake Baker, Lindsey Seidman, Allison Martin, Bobby 
McMillan, Jim Jeffries, Liz Wolgemuth, Margaret Atkinson, and Taylor 
Haulsee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, 50 years ago, President Lyndon Johnson 
rushed to the old elementary school he had once attended and with him 
he had a piece of major legislation. At a picnic table on the lawn of 
the school, President Johnson signed into law the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act--or ESEA. He said that with this law, he 
envisioned ``full educational opportunity as our first national goal.''
  Our Nation has always held the ideal of education for all, but in 
1965 ESEA put that idea into action. It aimed to close the education 
gaps between rich and poor, Black and White, kids from rural areas and 
kids from big cities. In doing so, ESEA took a step forward for civil 
rights.
  Today we have a chance to reauthorize that civil rights law to 
continue what President Johnson called our ``first national goal.'' We 
have a chance to finally move away from the No Child Left Behind Act, 
and we have a chance to send the Every Student Succeeds Act to the 
President's desk to help ensure all kids have access to a quality 
education regardless of where they live, how they learn, or how much 
money their parents make.
  I appreciate the tireless work of Chairman John Kline and Ranking 
Member Bobby Scott in the House and their staffs. I especially want to 
thank my partner here in the Senate, the chairman of the HELP Committee 
and senior Senator from Tennessee, Senator Lamar Alexander. The 
chairman had an opportunity to go down a partisan road, but instead he 
committed to work with me earlier this year to get this important bill 
done. I was very proud to work with him and with many of our colleagues 
to break through the gridlock and keep this bill moving forward. 
Together we passed our bill through the HELP Committee with strong 
bipartisan support. We passed our bill in the Senate with strong 
bipartisan support. We got approval from our bicameral conference 
committee with strong bipartisan support. Last week the House passed 
this final legislation with strong bipartisan support. And today I hope 
our colleagues will approve this final bill with the same bipartisan 
spirit that has guided our progress this far.
  Nearly everyone agrees that No Child Left Behind is badly broken. I 
have heard from parent after parent and teacher after teacher about how 
the law overemphasized testing and how oftentimes those tests are 
redundant or unnecessary. I have seen firsthand how this law is not 
working for my home State of Washington. No Child Left Behind issued 
one-size-fits-all mandates but failed to give the schools the resources 
they needed to meet those standards.
  These mandates were so unworkable that the Obama administration began 
giving States waivers from the law's requirements. My State lost its 
waiver last year. Parents across the State got a letter in the mail 
saying their child's school was failing, and teachers were left working 
as hard as ever, knowing their ``failing'' label didn't reflect the 
reality in their classrooms.
  A few months ago, I heard from a teacher in Seattle named Lyon Terry. 
He has taught school for more than 17 years and pours his energy into 
engaging with his students. He starts the morning by playing songs on 
his guitar, keeps his students laughing with jokes, and every day he 
tries to create an environment where kids want to come to school. 
Despite Mr. Terry and his fellow teachers' hard work, his school was 
labeled as failing. That is not fair to teachers like Mr. Terry, it is 
not fair to the parents who need confidence in the education their kids 
get at public schools, and it is not fair to students who should never 
have to bear the consequences of this broken law.
  Fixing No Child Left Behind has been one of my top priorities for 
students, families, and communities back home in Washington State and 
across the country. Back in January we didn't know there would be a 
path to compromise on a bill to reauthorize the Nation's K-12 law, but 
I started out with several principles and Washington State priorities 
that I would be fighting for.
  First, I knew we needed to ensure that schools and States provided a 
quality education to all our students because we already know what 
happens when we don't hold them accountable for every child. 
Inevitably, it is the kids of color or kids with disabilities or kids 
learning English who too often fall through the cracks. I said back in 
January and I will repeat that true accountability means holding up our 
schools to our Nation's promise of equality and justice.
  I knew we had to give schools and teachers resources they need so 
they can help their schools reach full potential because in some 
schools students don't have the same opportunity to graduate ready for 
college and careers in the 21st-century economy like other students do.
  I knew we should only pass an education bill that would help expand 
access to early childhood education because giving more students the 
chance to start kindergarten ready to learn is one of the smartest 
investments our country can make.
  I am proud to report that our bill, the Every Student Succeeds Act, 
takes

[[Page 19661]]

major strides on those priorities and much more. The Every Student 
Succeeds Act will put an end to the one-size-fits-all mandates of No 
Child Left Behind. It will end the era of State waivers. That will give 
teachers and parents in my State of Washington and across the country 
some much needed certainty.
  Our bipartisan bill will also reduce reliance on high-stakes testing 
so teachers and students can spend less time on test prep and more time 
on learning. I know that is going to be a major relief for teachers and 
principals, such as high school principal Lori Wyborney in Spokane, WA. 
She told me she wants to see some commonsense policies for testing. 
That is what our bill will help to do.
  While the Every Student Succeeds Act gives States more flexibility, 
it also includes strong Federal guardrails to hold schools and States 
accountable. Our bill will make sure schools work to close achievement 
gaps that too often hurt kids from low-income backgrounds, students of 
color, those learning English, or those with disabilities. For schools 
that struggle the most to help students succeed and for high schools 
where more than a third of their students fail to earn a diploma, our 
bill will take steps to make sure they improve.
  A couple of weeks ago, I met a parent named Duncan. He has a son in 
second grade in the Highland public schools, and Duncan is active in 
their PTA. Many of the kids in his school district struggle with 
poverty. Duncan has said he has seen firsthand how, in districts like 
this, ``every dollar matters.''
  In the Every Student Succeeds Act, I fought hard to make sure that 
Federal resources go to the schools and districts that need them the 
most by rejecting a proposal known as portability. If enacted, 
portability would have siphoned off money from the schools with the 
highest concentration of students in poverty and sent it to more 
affluent schools. Our bill protects schools with students in low-income 
areas and upholds our responsibility to invest Federal resources where 
they are needed the most.
  Even so, many schools and districts don't get equal access to the 
resources they need to help students learn, grow, and thrive. These are 
things such as offering AP classes, how much funding districts spend on 
each student, access to preschool, and many more. Our bill will require 
all schools to report on these issues to help shine a light on resource 
inequality.
  Our bipartisan bill will help improve and expand access to preschool 
programs. Before I ever thought about running for elected office, I 
taught preschool in a small community in my home State of Washington. I 
remember that the first day with new students would always start the 
same way: Some kids wouldn't know how to hold a pencil or crayon or how 
to turn a page in a book. But over the first few months, they would 
start to catch on. They learned how to listen at story time. They 
learned how to stand in line for recess. By the time they left for 
kindergarten, they had those basic skills and many more, so they were 
ready to tackle a full curriculum in school.
  I have seen firsthand the kind of transformation early learning can 
inspire in a child, and I am so glad that for the first time, our 
Nation's primary education law will invest in early childhood 
education. I fought hard for this because I know that investing now in 
preschool will payoff for years to come.
  Strong Federal guardrails for accountability, shining a light on 
resource inequity, reducing the reliance on high-stakes testing, and 
increasing access to preschool are some of the great things in this 
bill, but almost as important is what this bill represents. Gridlock 
and dysfunction have come to define Congress over the past several 
years, but on an issue as important as education and on a law as broken 
as No Child Left Behind, we worked together and found a way to find 
common ground.
  It is not the bill I would have written on my own. I know it isn't 
the bill Republicans would have written on their own. That is the 
nature of compromise. We put partisanship aside and proved that 
Congress can get results for the American people, and that kind of 
bipartisanship is what we need more of here in Congress.
  With the legislative process for this bill coming to an end, I am 
looking ahead to the future. When all students have the chance to 
learn, we strengthen our workforce, our Nation grows stronger, and our 
economy grows from the middle out, not from the top down. We empower 
the next generation of Americans to lead the world.
  As proud as I am that we have come this far on the Every Student 
Succeeds Act, we always have to keep improving educational 
opportunities. I am going to see to it that this bill is implemented 
effectively, that schools and teachers get the resources they need, and 
that students have access to the programs that help them succeed in the 
classroom and beyond. I am going to keep pushing to build on the 
progress we have made in this bill and make sure more students start 
school on a strong footing. I am going to keep fighting to make college 
more affordable and reduce the crushing burden of student debt. I am 
going to keep working every single day to make sure our government is 
doing everything possible to help students in Washington State and 
across the country. Reauthorizing ESEA isn't the finish line; for me, 
it is more of a milestone in an ongoing commitment to swing open more 
doors for Americans.
  I am asking all of my colleagues here today to join me. Let's fix 
this No Child Left Behind law. Let's show teachers and principals that 
we are on their side. And let's help instill educational opportunity as 
our first national goal and grow our Nation stronger for generations to 
come.
  In a few minutes, as the chairman said, we will be voting on cloture 
to end debate so that we can move to passage of this bill. Along with 
him, I thank all of our staff. When we get to the final bill, I want to 
name them as well. They have put in an incredible amount of time, work, 
and hours to help get to this agreement. Again, I thank all of our 
staffs on both sides of the aisle and in the House. I will say more 
about that later, but I truly want to thank Chairman Alexander for 
taking the time to be thoughtful, to work with us, and to find a path 
forward for compromise on a law that was broken that needed to be fixed 
and that we are about to pass.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I have said many times but I would 
like to say again that at the beginning of this discussion, when the 
Senator from Washington and I talked about how we had been stuck for 
two Congresses on this, I started in one direction and she suggested a 
different direction. As it turned out, she gave me good advice. I took 
it, and as a result, we have a result. So I thank her for that, and I 
look forward to working with her on other important issues in the same 
way.
  The Senator from Georgia would like to speak before we vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, as the last surviving person who served 
on the committee who wrote the original No Child Left Behind Act for 
the Congress, I am delighted to be here on this day.
  I think this Senator speaks for every superintendent, every Governor, 
every parent, and every child to say thank you to Senator Alexander and 
Senator Murray. We knew when we wrote No Child Left Behind that if it 
worked, by the time the sixth year came, we would have to reauthorize 
it or else it would go from a net positive to a negative. We didn't 
reauthorize it, and AYP became a problem, good schools became needs-
improvement schools, and the law worked backward. In fact, we have run 
education by waivers the last 6 years.
  The leadership of these two great Members of Congress. Seeing this 
bill through in the committee is a great testimony to working together, 
to finding common ground, and to our collective purpose of seeing to it 
that our

[[Page 19662]]

children are the best educated children in the world.
  Senator Alexander, thank you. Senator Murray, thank you for what you 
have done.
  To the Members of Congress, the Senate will vote in a few minutes. We 
need a vote for cloture and a vote for final passage to see to it that 
we end a chapter in education and open a new chapter--a chapter that 
focuses on student improvement, student achievement, leaves No Child 
Left Behind but also sees that every child can succeed and makes sure 
we disaggregate so we can focus on children as they perform within 
their own group and we can focus on every child in every school in 
America.
  I am honored to have been a member of the committee that worked hard 
on this bill, and I am honored to serve with Senators Alexander and 
Murray.
  I appreciate the time to speak on behalf of not just myself but for 
every student, teacher, and parent in America.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Georgia, and 
I salute him. The Senator from Georgia is a former chairman of the 
Georgia State Board of Education. His experience there, his work with 
Senator Murray on early childhood education, and his insistence on an 
amendment that gives States the right to allow parents to opt out of 
federally required tests all were major contributions to this 
legislation. I think it is fair to say that we could not have fixed No 
Child Left Behind without Johnny Isakson's experience and leadership, 
and I am deeply grateful to him for that.
  We yield back all time on our side.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, we yield back all our time as well.


                             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 legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the conference 
     report to accompany S. 1177, an act to reauthorize the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to ensure that 
     every child achieves.
         Mitch McConnell, Lamar Alexander, Mike Rounds, Deb 
           Fischer, Dan Sullivan, Lisa Murkowski, Orrin G. Hatch, 
           Shelley Moore Capito, Pat Roberts, Chuck Grassley, 
           Richard Burr, Cory Gardner, John Hoeven, John Cornyn, 
           David Perdue, Johnny Isakson, Daniel Coats.

  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 
conference report to accompany S. 1177, an original bill to reauthorize 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to ensure that every 
child achieves, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Graham), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 84, nays 12, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 333 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     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
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--12

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Coats
     Graham
     Rubio
     Sanders
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 84, the nays are 
12.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, on behalf of the Senator from 
Washington, Mrs. Murray, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding 
the provisions of rule XXII, the vote on adoption of the conference 
report to accompany S. 1177 occur at 10:45 a.m., on Wednesday, December 
9, which is tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, that sets the final vote on our bill 
to fix No Child Left Behind tomorrow morning at 10:45 a.m. I don't 
think there is any doubt what the result will be. We have had a series 
of votes that give a pretty clear indication of where the Senate is. 
The vote today was 84 to 12 to cut off debate and move to the final 
vote. Senators who wish to speak between now and then can do that.
  Senator Murray, in her remarks, mentioned how good this process has 
been, and I wish to call that to the attention of Senators as well. The 
Senate can operate pretty well under the rules that it has if Senators 
will agree to cooperate with one another. I said before that I think 
one reason Senator Murray works so well toward a result, even though 
she is a partisan leader in the Democratic conference, is because she 
used to be a preschool teacher, and in kindergarten you learn how to 
work well with others and that is true in her case. That is actually 
true with all of the members of our committee. We have as much 
divergence on our committee, with 22 members, as does any committee. I 
will not name the names of the Senators, but there is almost no one who 
can dispute that. Yet we went through a process, which Senator Murray 
and I agreed on at her suggestion, and this is what happened: We had 22 
members in the committee vote yes to move the bill to the floor. That 
is every single member of the committee. Several of those members 
agreed to withhold amendments that might have been damaging to the bill 
so we could deal with them on the floor.
  In the committee we considered 58 amendments and 29 were adopted. 
Twenty-four of the adopted amendments were offered by Democrats and 
five amendments were offered by Republicans. Then we went to the floor. 
When we moved to the floor, the vote was 81 to 17--not quite as good as 
today, but it was a very good vote. We had 52 Member priorities 
incorporated into a substitute amendment. In other words, 52 Senators 
made suggestions about the final bill. Forty-four of these were 
priorities requested by Democrats and eight were priorities requested 
by Republicans. On the Senate floor, 177 amendments were filed and 78 
were considered--23 by rollcall vote and 65 amendments were agreed to. 
Forty of the adopted amendments were offered by Democrats, 25 by 
Republicans.
  Sometimes I have heard it said that we don't have time to deal with 
amendments. We dealt with 177 amendments on the floor in less than a 
week. The practice of going around to our colleagues and talking them 
out of amendments takes more time than it does to actually vote on them 
and to give them a chance to participate. In conference 17 more 
amendments were filed, 10 from the House, 7 from the Senate. Of those 
17 amendments, 9 were considered and 7 were agreed to--4 Democrats, 3 
Republicans.

[[Page 19663]]

  I suggest to the Senate and President that it is not a secret why we 
were able to succeed this year in fixing a bill that is very difficult 
to fix. We know that because we have tried very hard in each of the 
last two Congresses, working with the Secretary of Education, House 
Republicans and Democrats, and the Senate Republicans and Democrats. We 
spent a lot of hours working on a bill, but we failed.
  Why did we have more success this time? I think it is because 
everybody had a part in the process, everybody had a chance to have 
their say. We had amendments in committee, we had amendments on the 
floor, and we had amendments in the conference. If you are convinced 
that you had a chance to have your say, then it is easier to say: Ok. 
Let's vote. I might win or lose, but at least I had my say and we need 
to get a result. I would like to see more of that here. We can do that 
fairly easily, and the key to it is allowing amendments.
  It is possible, under the Senate rules, for Senator Murray to offer 
an amendment and to try to make it pending, and I can object. If I then 
offer an amendment, she might object, and then the whole process 
collapses. So any one of us can keep the Senate functioning as it 
should, but in this case--an issue when there are alligators lurking in 
every corner of the pond that could have brought this to a halt and 
nearly did several times--we were able to go through the process and 
get a result for the benefit of 50 million children and 3.4 million 
teachers in 100,000 public schools.
  Someone asked me earlier yesterday what it would take to have the 
American people have a higher opinion of the U.S. Congress. My answer 
is actions such as this, where we take an issue that affects real 
Americans in the schools they attend, the homes where they are doing 
their homework, and the teachers who are working every day--this 
affects every single one of them. This empowers them to do their job. 
This creates an opportunity for a new era of innovation and excellence 
in student achievement. When we work together to get this result, I 
think people think better of the process here.
  As I said earlier, it is possible to just stand here and say: Here is 
my opinion, and if I don't get 100 percent, I will vote no. If that 
were all I wanted to do, I would stay home. I would stand on the street 
corner or get my own radio show or column, offer my opinion for about 5 
minutes, and then go do something else, but I wouldn't waste my time 
trying to be a U.S. Senator. It is hard to get here, and then it is 
hard to stay here. So while you are here, you might as well amount to 
something, and amounting to something as a U.S. Senator is getting a 
principled result on issues that are important to the American people.
  We have done that this year more than most people might think. 
Senator Murray has a well-known reputation in this body, not just for 
being a Democratic leader but for being someone who is interested in a 
result. Senator Wyden is working with Senator Hatch on tax extenders 
and Senator Udall worked with Senator Vitter on chemical safety. The 
Energy bill that came out of committee depended upon Senator Cantwell 
as well as Senator Murkowski. The mental health bill that came out of 
our committee came from Senators Murray and Alexander. The cyber 
security bill that passed the Senate was the work of Senator Feinstein 
as well as Senator Burr. The trafficking victims law came from Senators 
McCaskill and Cornyn. The terrorism risk insurance was the result of 
Senators Brown and Shelby working together. The Iran Nuclear Review 
Act, which is a pretty extraordinary bill, started with Senator 
Menendez, then Senator Cardin, along with Senator Corker. The Veterans 
Suicide Prevention Act came from Senators Durbin and McCain.
  I haven't even mentioned all of the important legislation that came 
through the Senate this year. So it is perfectly possible for us to 
deal with very important pieces of legislation if we work together, and 
both Democratic and Republican Senators have all shown they can work 
together.
  I look forward to the vote tomorrow at 10:45 a.m.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that for the 
next 20 minutes I be given 4 minutes, Senator Shaheen be given 4 
minutes, Senator Blumenthal be given 4 minutes, Senator Feinstein be 
given 4 minutes, and Senator Murphy be given 4 minutes, concluding in a 
unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 551

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, like so many Americans, my thoughts are 
with the families and friends of those affected by the terror in San 
Bernardino last week. Our hearts go out to the victims and their 
families.
  As we learn more about the suspects, it is becoming clear that San 
Bernardino will serve as a sad--but also shocking--reminder of what 
needs to be done to address what has become known as the terror gap.
  I rise to support that most commonsense proposal to bar individuals 
on the terrorist watch list from being able to legally get a gun. The 
GAO found that between 2004 and 2014 suspected terrorists attempted to 
exploit this loophole. People say: Well, this never happens. Listen to 
this. Those on the terror watch list tried to purchase guns 2,233 times 
and succeeded in 2,043 of those--or 91 percent.
  It is absolute insanity that this is not already a restriction we 
have in place. Given what happened in San Bernardino, it is extra 
insanity that we are not going to move on this and that we haven't 
moved on this already. It makes no sense. We can't let a small group--
an influential, powerful lobbying group--make America less safe. Yet 
many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing just 
that. Because the NRA says no, they say no, even though terrorism is a 
scourge that we have to deal with on many fronts.
  I appreciate my friend from Texas. He says there are certain people 
on the terrorist watch list who don't belong there. There are a few, 
but this newly found sympathy for the civil liberties of those who 
might be causing trouble is surprising. We don't say abolish the 
criminal justice system because not every single person we convict is 
guilty--although 99 percent probably are or some large percentage. Why 
are we doing it here? Are we saying if there are two or three people on 
this terrorist watch list--20 or 30 who shouldn't be there and they 
have the right to appeal and correct it; I have done it for 
constituents--then we should let the other thousands who belong on that 
watch list and who present a danger to America buy guns? It makes no 
sense.
  I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle: Why should 
terrorists like the ones who perpetrated the heinous attack in Paris or 
the ones who did in San Bernardino be allowed to buy a gun? No red 
herring argument will work. This is plain common sense at a time when 
we need common sense, and it should not be a partisan measure. Guess 
who introduced this idea originally? Not Barack H. Obama but George W. 
Bush in 2007.
  The vast majority of gun owners may have a right to have a gun, and I 
would protect their right to have a gun if they are not felons or 
adjudicated mentally ill or spousal abusers; therefore, everyone is for 
it. The other side says no. So I hope now that it has become--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Now that it has become clear since our last vote that 
the two in San Bernardino have terrorist ties, I hope when Senator 
Murray propounds the unanimous consent request, the other side will 
support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to join my 
colleagues

[[Page 19664]]

because I also believe we should keep guns out of the hands of 
terrorists. I don't think that applies to law-abiding citizens, but I 
think it does apply to terrorists.
  I have been a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. In New 
Hampshire, we have a rich tradition of safe and legal firearm 
ownership. We have a rich tradition of hunting and sportsman's 
activities. But like most Granite Staters, I also support pragmatic and 
sensible ways to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people who 
would threaten this country, while also protecting the rights of law-
abiding citizens. That is what we are discussing here today.
  We have put forward commonsense legislation that adheres to a pretty 
simple principle: If you are not allowed on a plane because you are on 
a no-fly list, because you are suspected of threatening the country, 
then you should not be allowed to buy a gun.
  I want to repeat what Senator Schumer said because I think people 
don't think that is real. They think: Oh, well, if you are on the no-
fly list, you are not going to be able to buy a gun. But according to 
the Government Accountability Office, between 2004 and 2014, suspected 
terrorists attempted to purchase guns from American dealers at least 
2,233 times that we know of. In 2,043 of those cases--2,043--91 percent 
of the time, those suspected terrorists succeeded. That is 
unacceptable, and it is time we close the loophole that allows 
suspected terrorists to purchase guns.
  After the horrific tragedy last week that was carried out by 
radicalized individuals in San Bernardino, it is clear that we need to 
be doing more to prevent violent attacks inspired by ISIS here at home. 
Closing this loophole in our gun laws is a commonsense thing that we 
can do today.
  I have heard concerns that the legislation we have proposed doesn't 
allow for adequate due process for those on the list, but that is just 
not correct. The Department of Homeland Security has a process in place 
for removing a name from the no-fly list. As Senator Feinstein, the 
author of the legislation, has noted, the FBI office that handles the 
firearm background check system must provide a reason for a denial upon 
request. Individuals who are listed then have a right to correct any 
inaccurate records in the background check system. So there is a 
process in place for people who are wrongfully on that no-fly list to 
be able to remove their names.
  I would ask those who oppose this bill: If the no-fly list is not 
good enough for keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists, why is it 
worthwhile for protecting commercial airline flights from terrorists? 
The reasoning is inconsistent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, it is time to come together in the 
interests of national security to pass this bill to close this loophole 
in our Nation's gun laws.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we talk in this Chamber every day 
about the threat of terrorism and many associated terrorist threats 
with airplanes and explosives, but we have seen in recent horrifying 
events in Paris and in San Bernardino how much tragic carnage can be 
wrought by a small number of people using firearms designed for war. 
They are using assault weapons that have the purpose to kill and maim 
human beings--no other purpose. For me and for the American people, 
common sense says a person too dangerous to be permitted on a plane is 
too dangerous to be permitted a gun. No fly, no gun. No check, no gun. 
That ought to be the rule. It is a commonsense rule.
  When I talk to people in Connecticut and they say to me ``Why didn't 
the Senate approve that rule?'' there is no commonsense explanation. 
The reason given by colleagues on the other side that there is some due 
process violation is nonsense. I hesitate to say it is that frivolous, 
but it is because, No. 1, there is a right to challenge the designation 
on the no-fly list through the Department of Homeland Security, which 
has to provide reasons and an opportunity to challenge it. Also, under 
Senator Feinstein's bill, there is an additional safeguard to 
constitutional rights because it can be challenged through the 
Department of Justice, which is required to establish an administrative 
process and then an appeal--a right of appeal to the Federal courts. 
Anybody denied permission to buy a gun has a right of appeal. So the 
rule no-fly, no gun is based on common sense and legal, constitutional 
rights.
  No right, in fact, is absolute. Whether it is the First Amendment or 
any other right, there is the guarantee in the Constitution that there 
will be reasonable restrictions, when necessary, to protect the public 
interests, and here is a case of the public interests clearly deserving 
this protection. If there are problems with any individual being on the 
list, challenge it, but clearly having to wait 72 hours for that check 
and for the denial of permission to go forward is unreasonable.
  I urge that we move forward with this commonsense protection for the 
public. I am hard-pressed to think of a more clear and staggering 
example of the gun lobby's influence than the defeat of this bill.
  Plainly, the vote last week showed that the gun lobby unfortunately 
still has a staggering stranglehold on this process. When it comes to 
law enforcement, they are on our side.
  I urge our colleagues to heed this reasonable request: No fly, no 
gun. If you are on that no-fly list, if you are too dangerous to fly 
and to board a plane, the Constitution says this reasonable restriction 
should be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 7 
minutes. I understand that wasn't in the original request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, when I was a prosecutor, we had one 
straightforward goal: Convict the guilty and protect the innocent. To 
me, that simple mission still holds true. We must make our world safer 
by rooting out evil in our midst, while still protecting the rights of 
people who mean no harm. Those 14 people in San Bernardino, that 
American aid worker killed in Mali, those innocent families whose plane 
exploded over Egypt, and those young people killed and maimed in Paris 
deserve nothing less.
  That means, of course, taking out evil at its roots, increasing our 
efforts, and leading an international coalition against ISIS, and it 
means keeping our homeland safe. Part of that is tightening the Visa 
Waiver Program, and some of it is the work that must be done on 
encryption. But there is one commonsense way to get at this terror that 
I join my colleagues in supporting today--commonsense action to close a 
dangerous loophole that allows suspected terrorists to illegally buy 
guns in the United States.
  Incredibly, current U.S. law does not prevent individuals who are on 
terror watch lists from purchasing guns. A total of 2,233 people on the 
watch list tried to buy guns in our country between 2004 and 2014, and 
more than 2,000--or 91 percent of them--cleared a background check 
according to the information from the Government Accountability Office.
  I am a cosponsor--and have been before these tragic events of the 
last few weeks--of Senator Feinstein's bill to close this loophole. 
During last week's budget debate, I joined 25 of my Senate colleagues 
in offering an amendment that would also have stopped these dangerous 
individuals from buying firearms and explosives.
  Passing legislation to ensure that suspected terrorists cannot buy 
guns has bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, where 
Republican Congressman Peter King of New York has long advocated for 
this change.
  As we work to fight terrorists abroad, as we work to stop the 
recruitment in our own country--which I know well from my own State of 
Minnesota, where we have over a dozen cases and indictments against 
those who were trying to go to fight with ISIS and others who were 
going to fight with al-Shabaab--we have been

[[Page 19665]]

very aggressive in going after those cases as well as working to 
prevent recruitment from occurring in the first place.
  This is all a piece of a very difficult puzzle, but to close our eyes 
and say that people on a terror watch list can go out and buy a gun is 
wrong. We need to do everything we can to ensure that those suspected 
of terrorist activities cannot buy guns in the United States. I am 
hopeful the Senate can come together to advance this commonsense 
national security measure to keep lethal weapons out of the wrong 
hands.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I am here to join my colleagues in our 
call to bring for debate and vote on the Senate floor a measure that is 
supported, I would argue, by probably 95 to 99 percent of my 
constituents, and that is the simple idea that if you are on a 
terrorist watch list, if you are suspected of being involved in 
terrorist activities, you shouldn't be able to purchase a gun. I will 
be asking for a unanimous consent agreement in order to move this 
debate to the floor.
  Here is why it matters. What we know right now is that over the last 
12 months ISIS has lost about 25 percent of their territory in Iraq and 
Syria. That is not good enough, and hopefully we will be able to join 
together to put even more pressure on the so-called caliphate, to 
shrink it down eventually to elimination. But the growth of ISIS is 
dependent on two narratives. One is a narrative that the so-called 
caliphate is growing, and second, the narrative that the East is at war 
with the West, that the Muslim world is at war with the Christian 
world. As the first narrative becomes less powerful, the second one 
becomes even more important. So, as shocking as Paris was, as shocking 
as San Bernardino was, it is not surprising in the respect that these 
attacks outside of Syria and Iraq are now becoming more important, more 
necessary to this terror organization in order to perpetuate this 
second set of mythology around the Islamic world being at war with the 
Christian world.
  Now is the moment that Republicans and Democrats have to come 
together around hardening our country from potential attackers and 
potential attacks and recognize that because these attacks may be more 
important than ever before to the future expansion of ISIS, we have to 
take steps to make sure they don't occur. One of the simplest ways we 
can do that is embodied in Senator Feinstein's piece of legislation. 
Let's just say together that those who are on the terrorist watch 
list--and this is a list you get on if you have reason for the FBI or 
other law enforcement to believe you are affiliated in some way, shape, 
or form with a terrorist organization. You may not have committed a 
crime yet, but you have had communications or affiliations with 
terrorist organizations. Let's just agree that people on that list 
should by default be prohibited from buying guns.
  Importantly, the bill has in it provisions that would allow for those 
individuals to get off that list, to be able to say that they were put 
on it mistakenly. But let's say as a default premise that if you are on 
a terrorist watch list, you shouldn't be able to purchase a gun.
  Recent polling tells us that the vast overwhelming majority of 
Americans support this law. In addition, the vast overwhelming majority 
of American gun owners support this law, in part because they have seen 
statistics. It bears repeating. My colleagues have talked about these 
numbers, but they really are stunning.
  Over the last 10 years, someone on the terrorist watch list has 
attempted to purchase a weapon 2,223 times. In 2,043 of those 
instances, they were successful in purchasing the weapon, taking it 
home. That is a 91-percent success rate. It may be that 1 or 2 of those 
2,000 shouldn't have been on that list, but this legislation gives them 
the power to contest that and to get off that list eventually, as it 
should. But let's not live in a fantasy world in which the majority of 
people on that list shouldn't be there. The list isn't foolproof, but 
the vast majority--95 percent, 99 percent--of those on the terrorist 
watch list are there with reason, and they shouldn't be able to walk 
out of a store with a weapon. That is why three-quarters of gun owners 
and 90 percent of Americans support this legislation.
  While today it has become partisan--Republicans are standing almost 
in lockstep against a bill that stops terrorists from getting guns--
historically this has been bipartisan. This was initially proposed by 
President Bush and then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Let's make 
it bipartisan again. Today on the floor of the Senate, let's decide 
that we are going to have a debate on this and that we are going to 
bring it for a vote because that is where the majority of our 
constituents are. They want us to take steps together to stop 
terrorists from getting guns.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 551 and the 
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I further ask that the 
bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, would the 
Senator modify the request to include the Cornyn substitute amendment 
which is at the desk?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my 
understanding that this substitute would require the Federal Government 
to go to court in order to stop someone on the terrorist watch list 
from purchasing a weapon. As a default, we should all agree that if you 
are on the terrorist watch list, you can't walk out of a gun store with 
a gun and that it simply shouldn't be incumbent on the Federal 
Government to go through a court process in order to stop you from 
doing that. If you shouldn't be on the list, there are ways you can get 
off the list. But there is absolutely no reason to delay the process of 
stopping one of these would-be terrorists from getting a gun by 
requiring a complicated court process every time someone on the 
terrorist watch list walks into a gun store. For that reason, Mr. 
President, I object to the motion to modify.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am astonished by the proposition of our 
friend the Senator from Connecticut that you can be on a secret watch 
list by the Federal Government, and just by virtue of this secret 
listing of an individual on a government watch list, you can be denied 
some of your core constitutional rights without any necessity of the 
government establishing probable cause or producing any evidence that 
would justify the denial of a core constitutional right. I guess if it 
is good enough to take the government's word by this list without proof 
or showing of probable cause to deny a citizen their constitutional 
rights under the Second Amendment, then I guess that is good enough to 
deny a citizen's right to worship according to the dictates of their 
conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and all of the 
other rights enumerated in the Constitution. It is an outrageous 
proposition.
  I would say to my friend, if these people on this government watch 
list are truly dangerous, why isn't the Obama administration and the 
Obama Justice Department indicting them, taking them to court, trying 
them, and convicting them of crimes? Instead, you have this secret 
watch list, without any proof, without any evidence.
  I would just say that the Senator has mischaracterized the amendment 
which I proposed last week and which I have now offered by unanimous 
consent.
  What would happen is, if an individual on the watch list goes in to 
purchase a gun, there would be the National Instant Criminal Background

[[Page 19666]]

Check System, which would then access the watch list. If the Department 
of Justice was worried, based on that notice, that somebody was 
attempting to buy a gun, they could intervene for 72 hours to stop the 
individual from purchasing the gun. If they were further worried about 
this individual, they could go to court and, before a Federal judge, 
produce evidence to justify the detention of that individual to take 
them off the street. This is a complete response to the concerns raised 
by our friends across the aisle.
  But I will tell you what is really motivating all of this. First of 
all, the Feinstein amendment which was offered last week was a complete 
substitute to the ObamaCare repeal bill that we voted on and passed 
last week. As such, this was a surreptitious means to try to defeat our 
ability to repeal the abomination known as ObamaCare, which has only a 
37-percent approval rating, and our colleagues across the aisle knew 
that. Under the Senate procedures, a complete substitute to the 
reconciliation bill that we passed last week would have been 
accomplished if the Feinstein amendment had been agreed to.
  But they went even further and are trying to distract the American 
people from the fact that the President of the United States and 
Commander in Chief has absolutely no strategy to deal with the threat 
of ISIS here in the United States. I presume the immediate motivation 
was what happened in San Bernardino, the terrible tragedy, but our 
colleagues across the aisle are trying to capitalize on that particular 
tragedy in order to justify this unconstitutional attempt to deny 
American citizens their core constitutional rights without any proof 
and without any evidence.
  I would just add that if our friends across the aisle think this 
watch list is so perfect and so infallible, they ought to read an 
editorial that was produced by the New York Times in 2014 where the 
American Civil Liberties Union and others objected to the watch list as 
being a secret government list without any evidence or any proof. They 
cited a 2007 audit of the 71,000 people on the government watch list 
and noted that half of those 71,000 were erroneously included in the 
watch list.
  So we all understand what is going on here. This isn't about finding 
solutions to real problems; this is about trying to change the subject 
and to distract the American people from the fact that the President 
and this administration have absolutely no strategy to deal with the 
threat of ISIS and the President tells us merely to stay the course. So 
I understand what is going on.
  I also would say that the other main purpose of our friends across 
the aisle, other than to defeat our ability to repeal ObamaCare, which 
we successfully did in the Senate last week, is to create a ``gotcha'' 
moment for Senators and candidates who are running in 2016. Already, 
the Senator from Connecticut has appeared on national news shows, the 
President of the United States in his weekly speech to the Nation, and 
the Senate Democratic leader have already misrepresented what was in 
the Cornyn substitute to the Feinstein amendment last week to suggest 
that people who voted against the Feinstein amendment really, really 
wanted to make sure that terrorists got guns. That is an outrageous 
accusation, and it is as false as it is outrageous.
  So I think it is pretty obvious what is going on here. This is an 
effort to undermine our ability to repeal ObamaCare. It is an effort to 
distract from the fact that the President of the United States, the 
Commander in Chief, has no strategy to defeat ISIS. In fact, the 
Democratic leader said yesterday that really what we need is an ISIS 
czar. An ISIS czar? I thought that is the job of the Commander in 
Chief, the President of the United States, to fight and win the 
Nation's wars and to keep us safe here at home. Give me a break. Then 
this foolish idea that we ought to simply take the Federal Government's 
word without any proof or any necessity of producing evidence in a 
court of law and meeting some basic minimal legal standard before we 
deny American citizens their core constitutional rights is just 
outrageous.
  So, Mr. President, I think it is pretty obvious what is going on 
here, and I am happy to have the American people render their judgment. 
For that reason, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The Senator is correct that last week Senate Democrats thought that 
it was more important to talk about terrorism than it was to talk about 
the repeal of the Affordable Care Act for the 16th time in the U.S. 
Senate, 55, 60 times in the House of Representatives. We did think it 
was more important last week to talk about stopping terrorists from 
getting weapons. I am sorry we didn't find that bipartisan consensus 
last week.
  What we are talking about here today is a different threat than we 
have ever seen before, and what we want to do is to stop terrorism 
before it happens.
  The Senator from Texas is right that many of the individuals on the 
terrorist watch list have not committed a crime, but in order to get on 
the terrorist watch list, you have to have been in communication with 
those who are trying to create radical jihad here in the United States. 
By denying those individuals from getting a weapon, you are serving to 
prevent a terrorist attack from happening.
  Why would we wait until after the terrorist attack has occurred in 
order to stop that individual from buying a gun? It is too late at that 
point.
  This bill includes provisions to get off that list if you are not on 
it, so it is perfectly observant of our tradition of supporting the 
rights of law-abiding citizens to buy and purchase a weapon. But to 
suggest that the only pathway to stopping an individual from buying a 
weapon is a criminal prosecution when we know there are people right 
now in the United States who are in contact with radical ideologies and 
may be contemplating attacks against the United States misunderstands 
the way in which we are going to prevent future terrorist attacks from 
happening in this country.
  This notion that those of us who want to change the law in order to 
better protect Americans are capitalizing on a tragedy is ridiculous 
and it is insulting, frankly. There are a lot of people who say: Well, 
when it comes to guns, you can't talk about policy changes right after 
a mass shooting.
  On average, there has been a mass shooting every single day in this 
country. If you had to wait 24 hours or 48 hours to talk about 
strategies--such as preventing terrorists from buying guns--that would 
keep this country safe after a mass shooting, then you would never talk 
about ways to keep this country safe because every day there are mass 
shootings separate and aside from the 80 people who die each day from 
the drip, drip, drip of gun violence all across this country.
  I don't think any of us mean to suggest, as the Senator from Texas 
said, that those who oppose this bill, which is supported by three-
quarters of American gun owners and 90 percent of Americans, are 
rooting for terrorists to get guns. That is not what I am saying. What 
I am saying is that those who oppose this are more concerned with 
protecting the rights of potential terrorists than they are with 
protecting this country. That is what we are talking about.
  We are worried about the rights of people on the terrorist watch list 
more than we are about taking steps to protect this country. What we 
are talking about is a temporary inconvenience. If somebody is on this 
watch list who shouldn't be--and it is a very small number--then 
through this legislation they have a means to get off that list. They 
have to wait a couple of days, maybe a couple of weeks, in order to buy 
a weapon. A tiny number of people who are inconvenienced is the cost; 
protecting the country from a potential terrorist attack is the 
benefit.

[[Page 19667]]

That is a trade that my constituents would take in a heartbeat.
  I am sorry that we aren't able to proceed with debate on this bill, 
but I think I can speak for my colleagues that we will be back on the 
floor in the days, the weeks, and the months to come to continue to ask 
for a vote on simple legislation to make sure that potential terrorists 
cannot get their hands on dangerous life-ending weapons.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________