[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10899-10910]
[From the U.S. 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 now report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Alexander/Murray amendment No. 2089, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Alexander (for Fischer) amendment No. 2079 (to amendment 
     No. 2089), to ensure local governance of education.
       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.
       Alexander (for Rounds/Udall) amendment No. 2078 (to 
     amendment No. 2089), to require the Secretary of Education 
     and the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study 
     regarding elementary and secondary education in rural or 
     poverty areas of Indian country.
       Murray (for Reed/Cochran) amendment No. 2085 (to amendment 
     No. 2089), to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 regarding school librarians and effective school 
     library programs.
       Murray (for Warner) amendment No. 2086 (to amendment No. 
     2089), to enable the use of certain State and local 
     administrative funds for fiscal support teams.
       Toomey amendment No. 2094 (to amendment No. 2089), to 
     protect our children from convicted pedophiles, child 
     molesters, and other sex offenders infiltrating our schools 
     and from schools ``passing the trash''--helping pedophiles 
     obtain jobs at other schools.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, as the Democratic leader leaves the 
floor, I thank him again for his cooperation and that of Senator Murray 
of Washington in creating an environment in which we can move ahead on 
this bill. I greatly appreciate that and so do other Senators. That is 
demonstrated with the fact that we have had dozens of Senators who have 
come forward with amendments. Dozens of amendments have been agreed to, 
and Senator Murray and I will be recommending to the full Senate that 
we adopt those amendments soon.
  I wish to take a moment to reflect on what we are doing in the Senate 
today. We spent a lot of time on national defense issues. The 
distinguished Senator who is presiding today is a member of our 
Intelligence Committee. He hears a great deal about ISIS, Iran, and the 
nuclear deal we might have and about what is going on in Syria and 
Lebanon, and we want to do our best to be strong militarily so we can 
defend ourselves in the world. We also want to be strong at home. We 
want to make sure we have a strong country.
  Almost all of us agree that the single most important thing we can do 
to ensure our future is to make sure our children and our adults 
continue to develop their educational skills, that they learn what they 
need to know and be able to do.
  I know in my home State of Tennessee we are trying to compete with 
the whole world. We are making cars, guns, trucks, all sorts of 
computers, and all sorts of manufactured goods that we sell not only in 
the United States, but we sell them around the world. You walk into the 
Nissan plant in Tennessee, which has 7,000 or 8,000 employees today, it 
is the largest auto plant in North America, the most efficient, and 
very important to our State. It has helped to raise our family incomes 
more than almost anything that has happened there. But 30 or 40 years 
ago, it would have had 20,000 or 25,000 employees; now it has 7,000 or 
8,000. Every one of those employees has to have considerable skills. 
They have to learn statistics and algebra and to speak English well. 
They have to learn to work with one another. In other words, they have 
to do well in schools, and they have to do well in postsecondary 
education, which is a separate discussion.
  So we are talking today on the Senate floor--and the House is talking 
tomorrow--about what we can do as the Congress to create an environment 
in which our children can succeed in schools. That is not always on the 
front pages in Washington, DC, but I can guarantee it is on the front 
pages at home. It is on the front pages in the rural areas of New 
Mexico, Indiana, and in the cities of New York and Tennessee because 
parents care about it, students care about it, and it is about our 
future.
  The Federal Government has a limited role in elementary and secondary 
education. The bill we are debating today is called the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. It funds only about 4 percent of what the 
Nation spends on kindergarten through 12th grade. The Federal 
Government funds another 4 or 5 percent through different programs, but 
States and local governments fund about 90 percent of what goes on in 
the schools.

[[Page 10900]]

  Not only is most of the funding action local, but so is most of the 
real work--most of the real work. We have 100,000 public schools. We 
have 50 million children in those schools and 3.5 million teachers. No 
one is wise enough to know what to do about helping a third grader 
learn in a native village in Alaska, in the mountains of Tennessee, and 
in the center of Harlem at the same time. The ones who are closest to 
the children have the most chance to make a difference. Now, does that 
mean we have nothing to do here about it? No, I don't think it does. I 
think education is a national concern. But that doesn't mean it has to 
be a Federal concern run from Washington and the U.S. Department of 
Education.
  The first President Bush, in 1989, called all the Governors together 
and established national education goals in math, science, English, 
history, and geography. But he didn't pass a law about that. He just 
created a consensus about that, and then he led the country in that 
direction, first through America 2000, which works State by State and 
community by community toward those goals. That was in the early 1990s.
  That was when we worked together to create higher standards for 
States. If you are going to have goals, you have to have standards. 
Where do you get those? Well, Governors worked together to create 
them--voluntary national standards. Then tests were developed to see 
how you were doing on the standards--voluntary tests. Then came more 
choices for parents and then more charter schools, which are public 
schools in which teachers have more freedom to serve the needs of 
children presented to them and parents have the opportunity to choose 
those. Those were the directions the States were going. The States were 
going in the direction of better teaching, higher standards, and real 
accountability.
  Mainly because of the advantage of age, I happened to have been in 
the middle of all that. I was Governor when ``A Nation at Risk'' came 
out in 1983 and Terrel Bell, President Reagan's Secretary of Education, 
said if a foreign country had done to our schools what we had done, we 
would consider it an act of war. So Governors went to work on that.
  In the mid-1980s, Governors worked together for a whole year to try 
to get better results, and then throughout the 1990s and then on into 
the last 10 or 15 years. Now, what has been different about the last 10 
or 15 years is that the Federal Government has gotten more involved. In 
2001, there was No Child Left Behind. The major contribution of No 
Child Left Behind was to say that we would like to know how the 
children are doing--all 50 million of them. So they each were to take a 
test, two in each year--third grade through the eighth grade, for 
example, and then again in high school--in reading and math, and then 
they would take three science tests. Through their career, there were 
17 tests.
  The testimony before our education committee says those tests should 
take about 2 hours each. It is not a lot of time. That should be 
publicly reported, and then you disaggregate those tests by various 
groups so we can see if we are leaving children behind. Are we leaving 
the African-American kids behind? Are we leaving the White mountain 
kids behind? That is information that we need to know as a society.
  The bipartisan legislation we are debating on the floor keeps those 
tests because we need to know those measures of achievement. But what 
our legislation does that is different is it says we are going to do 
something different about what we do about the results of those tests. 
We are going to restore that responsibility to the States, the 
classroom teachers, the school boards, and to the parents. That is 
where that belongs, and that has produced a remarkable consensus.
  Newsweek magazine said this week that No Child Left Behind is the 
education law that everybody wants to fix--a remarkable consensus about 
that. And that is true. We hear it from everyone. But what is even more 
remarkable is that there is also a consensus about how to fix it. That 
emerged during our hearings this year, as Senator Murray, the Senator 
from Washington and the senior Democrat on our Senate committee that 
deals with education, looked at the last two Congresses--as I did--and 
she said: Well, you know, we haven't done so well. We have broken down 
the parts and differences. So why don't you and I write a bill--Senator 
Murray and I--and present it to our committee for consideration.
  So we did that--a bipartisan bill. Now, our committee is not just any 
old committee, as the majority leader has said. It has on it some of 
the most liberal Democrats and some of the most conservative 
Republicans. So you would think we would have a hard time getting 
together, but we did pretty well. We listened to each other, and we 
adjusted our views. We considered a lot of amendments, and we adopted 
29. When it came time to decide if we had done well enough to bring it 
to the floor, the vote was unanimous. Every single Senator voted for 
that.
  So we are in a situation today where we have a chance to succeed. The 
House of Representatives, apparently, will vote tomorrow on No Child 
Left Behind--on their version of the bill. If things continue to 
proceed as they are today, we should finish our work next week. Senator 
Murray and I have stayed in touch with President Obama and Secretary 
Duncan, and we know that, in the end, if we get a result, we will need 
to have a Presidential signature. We want a result. We are not here to 
make a political statement. The lives of the children and the future of 
our country are too important for that. We are not here to play games. 
We can do that in other places. We are here to get a result and help 
move our country forward and do it together.
  I see Senator Murray is here. So I will conclude my remarks and give 
her a chance to say whatever she might like to say. I will conclude 
with these thoughts. One of the questions we hear is: Are the States 
really prepared to accept this much responsibility?
  Now, to a former Governor, such as I am, that is a strange question. 
I look up at Washington when I am home and I say: Are you prepared to 
accept all of this? I trust us. I trust the State much more than 
Washington. But it is a legitimate question. I would answer that, No. 
1, States are better prepared today than they were 15 years ago.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an op-ed from 
the Washington Post from last weekend written by Anne Holton, the 
Secretary of Education of Virginia.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, July 3, 2015]

      Revising--Not Eliminating--Tests To Make Va. Schools Better

                            (By Anne Holton)

       As the 12-year-old daughter of then-Gov. Linwood Holton 
     Jr., I helped integrate our formerly racially divided public 
     schools here in Virginia. I have spent much of my working 
     life focused on children and families at the margin, with 
     full appreciation of the crucial role education can and must 
     play in helping young people escape poverty and become 
     successful adults.
       As Virginia's education secretary, I oversee one of the 
     strongest public education systems in the nation. Our 
     graduation rates are well above average, and we outperform 
     most other states on the Nation's Report Card. A significant 
     factor in our success has been the Standards of Learning 
     (SOL) accountability system Virginia implemented in the 
     1990s. The rest of the nation followed in Virginia's 
     footsteps when No Child Left Behind was signed into law in 
     2001. Virginia led again when we moved several years ago from 
     assessing for minimum competency to our current college- and 
     career-readiness standards, complete with rigorous, high-
     stakes testing.
       Our successes have come with challenges. Parents, educators 
     and students resoundingly tell us that our kids are over-
     tested and over-stressed. Eight- and 10-year-olds suffer 
     through multi-hour tests that measure their endurance more 
     than their learning. Barely verbal special education students 
     whose individualized education plans are focused on 
     independent living skills are instead drilled incessantly on 
     a handful of facts for a modified SOL exam. Teachers are 
     teaching to the tests. Students' and teachers' love of 
     learning and teaching are sapped.
       Most troublesome, Virginia's persistent achievement gaps 
     for low-income students have barely budged. We have done a 
     good job of identifying challenges but have been less 
     successful in addressing them. An unintended consequence of 
     our high-stakes approach is that it is now even harder to 
     recruit and retain strong educators in our

[[Page 10901]]

     high-poverty communities. Many of the best opt instead for 
     schools where demographics guarantee better test scores; too 
     often fine teachers leave the profession.
       In Virginia, we are ready to lead the nation again. Last 
     year, Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) and our General Assembly took 
     bipartisan action to reform the SOLs. We eliminated five end-
     of-course tests and created an SOL Innovation Committee to 
     recommend further changes. This year--again with strong 
     bipartisan support--we are moving to credit progress and 
     growth more when we evaluate our schools.
       The parents, educators, school board members, legislators 
     and business leaders on the Innovation Committee are looking 
     more broadly at what our graduates need for success as 
     citizens and workers in the 21st century and at how we can 
     best guide our schools toward those outcomes. Business 
     leaders tell us they need students with skills such as oral 
     communication, teamwork and problem-solving as much as 
     substantive knowledge. As we work to grow and diversify our 
     economy, our Innovation Committee is looking at how our 
     schools can better meet those needs.
       This approach will probably generate even bolder proposals. 
     Strong accountability will continue to be a hallmark of our 
     system, but we have faith that, as has been said, 
     ``Responsibility and delight can coexist.''
       Students need congressional leaders to follow Virginia's 
     example of bipartisanship to enact common-sense changes to 
     federal education laws now. Those changes should focus on 
     enabling local and state educators to prepare every child for 
     success as adults and inspire and encourage states. But they 
     also should leave us sufficient flexibility to improve our 
     accountability systems, reintroduce creativity into the 
     classroom and better address persistent achievement gaps.
       Thankfully, leaders on Capitol Hill are also hearing calls 
     for reform. Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray 
     (D-Wash.) have co-sponsored legislation to reauthorize No 
     Child Left Behind. Republicans and Democrats on the Senate 
     Education Committee voted--unanimously--to send it to the 
     full Senate for consideration; it is expected to be taken up 
     soon. The same spirit of bipartisanship was demonstrated in 
     the House recently when Reps. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) and Richard 
     Hanna (R-N.Y.) introduced legislation to improve early 
     learning. I encourage every member of Congress to set aside 
     partisan concerns, find commonalities and take action this 
     year to fix No Child Left Behind so that we can move all our 
     children forward on the road to success.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Ms. Holton started out in a very prominent Republican 
family in Virginia, and she ended up in a very prominent Democratic 
family in Virginia. But as she points out in her remarks, their work in 
education is bipartisan. She makes the point about how much progress 
Virginia has made in terms of goals, standards, accountability, and 
testing. It is very impressive, and most States can say the same.
  What has happened in the last 15 years is that Governors, school 
leaders, educators, and parents have worked together and created 
standards, tests, and now accountability systems. In other words, what 
do you do if things aren't working out the way they should?
  Second, we have seen the limits of the Federal Government trying to 
do it. I think President George W. Bush and President Obama deserve 
credit for looking at our Nation and seeing this is an urgent problem 
and wanting to do more from here. That is an understandable impulse. 
But there are limits to what you can do from here. We have seen that in 
the backlash to common core--the academic standard which was 
incentivized or mandated from Washington. We have seen that in the 
backlash to teacher evaluation defined in Washington.
  The truth is that too much Washington involvement in setting 
standards in States and evaluating teachers in cities sets back teacher 
evaluation and higher standards, which to me are the holy grail of K-
through-12 education. The path to higher standards, the path to better 
teaching, the path to real accountability is not through Washington, 
DC. It is through the States.
  We can create an environment, we can make sure there is not 
discrimination, and we can send some money that will help low-income 
children. All those things we can do. But then we need to show some 
humility and recognize, as Carol Burris, Principal of the Year from New 
York, said: Moms and pops, teachers, and school board members cherish 
their children in their own communities, and you don't really get that 
much wiser and smarter by flying to Washington and passing a law.
  So this bill shows that humility. It shows a consensus. It is a good 
example of how the Senate can work together on an important issue. As I 
said, I am grateful to the majority leader for putting it on the floor. 
He had many choices, but he saw the importance of it. I am grateful to 
the Democratic leader for some work he has done behind the scenes to 
make it easier for us to succeed. I thank Senator Reid for that. And I 
am especially grateful to Senator Murray for caring about children and 
her prestigious leadership on this.
  We are moving well on amendments. I would encourage any Senator with 
another amendment to come to the floor quickly and let us know about 
it, because other Senators have--and Senator Murray and I have agreed 
on--a large number of amendments already that we are going to recommend 
the Senate adopt by consent. We will have a vote probably around noon. 
We will vote again this afternoon and again tomorrow morning. We want 
to finish as quickly as possible.
  Hopefully, the House will succeed, and we will put our bills together 
and present the President with a bill he can sign, and we will fix No 
Child Left Behind, which is the bill Newsweek magazine said is the 
education law that everybody wants to fix.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, again, I really want to thank my 
colleague, the senior Senator from Tennessee, for working with me on 
this bipartisan bill. Senator Alexander and I are both committed to 
fixing the current law known as No Child Left Behind.
  I am glad we are having this very important debate on the Senate 
Floor. Nearly everyone agrees that No Child Left Behind is badly 
broken. As I have traveled around my home State of Washington over the 
past decade, I have heard from so many of my constituents--from 
teachers in the classroom to moms in the grocery store to tech company 
CEOs--that we have to fix this law.
  Our bipartisan bill, the Every Child Achieves Act, is a good step in 
the right direction. It gives our States more flexibility while also 
including Federal guardrails to make sure all students do have access 
to a quality public education. I am looking forward to improving and 
strengthening this bill throughout the process on the Senate floor and 
beyond. I am going to continue working on helping our struggling 
schools get the resources they need, and I will be focused on making 
sure all our kids, especially our most vulnerable students, are able to 
learn and grow and thrive in the classroom.
  This bill could not be more important for students across the 
country, and it is critical for the future of our Nation. When all 
students have the chance to learn, we strengthen our future workforce, 
our country grows stronger, and we empower the next generation of 
Americans to lead the world. So I am looking forward to getting to work 
and hopefully moving forward on fixing No Child Left Behind and making 
sure all of our students can learn regardless of where they live or how 
they learn or how much money their parents earn.
  I join with Senator Alexander in encouraging our colleagues to file 
their amendments so that we can continue making progress on this very 
important piece of legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Nevada is one of the largest States in the 
country--the 7th largest, to be exact--but we have just 17 school 
districts. By contrast, California, has over 1,000 school districts.
  Among our 17 Nevada districts is the Clark County School District 
with over 300,000 students. It's the Nation's fifth largest district--
where two-thirds of the students are minorities, and one-in-five 
students is an English-language learner.
  For the past decade, Clark County School District has been one of the 
fastest growing districts in the Nation. In some years, Clark County 
was opening a new school every month to keep up with the growth.

[[Page 10902]]

  But northwest of Las Vegas and Clark County is another one of our 17 
districts--vast, rural Esmeralda County. Esmeralda County School 
District is huge, in terms of land. It covers almost 3,600 square 
miles, but has just four schools and about 80 students. And Esmeralda 
County is not unique in Nevada. There are other rural school districts 
in the State with schools that still have one teacher instructing 
multiple grades--much like the school I attended as a boy.
  This diversity of Nevada's school districts makes the State a 
microcosm of our Nation. So I understand the issues that overcrowded, 
urban schools face; and I understand the challenges that rural schools 
must confront. More importantly, I understand that in order to improve 
education at every school in America, we need a comprehensive approach.
  The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
that is before the Senate is a step in the right direction. This 
reauthorization has been a long time coming.
  Congress last reauthorized ESEA with passage of the No Child Left 
Behind Act in 2001. That expired in 2007. Despite serious efforts to 
pass a reauthorization in 2011 and 2013 under former Senator Tom 
Harkin's leadership, we were not able to overcome real policy 
disagreements on the best way forward. But thanks to the hard and 
determined work of the chairman and ranking member of the Senate HELP 
Committee, we are able to begin work on the bipartisan Every Child 
Achieves Act.
  I know it was not easy for the senior Senator from Washington or the 
senior Senator from Tennessee. I appreciate their efforts. Because of 
their work, almost 14 years after the last reauthorization, and 8 years 
after it expired, we finally have a bipartisan bill to strengthen our 
Nation's schools.
  I have many concerns with current Federal education law. It has 
caused schools to spend too much time testing and preparing for tests. 
It has led many schools and districts to reduce or eliminate many 
subjects--such as social studies, music, the arts, and physical 
education--that are important parts of a well-rounded education. It has 
led to too many schools--many making real gains in student 
achievement--to be labeled as failing.
  Despite these real flaws that need to be corrected, there are some 
aspects of current law we need to keep and improve upon. Schools, 
districts, and States must now make sure all students--including those 
with disabilities, or those not proficient in English--are making 
progress. We also have seen real gains in student achievement. Our 
Nation's high school graduation rate is the highest it has ever been 
and the achievement gap between minority students and white students is 
narrowing.
  This bipartisan bill does build off some of these successes and 
addresses many of the flaws in current law. It maintains annual testing 
requirements, but includes provisions to consolidate tests--helping 
reduce the number of tests and amount of time students spend taking 
tests. It continues to require student achievement to be reported by 
groups of children, including by income, race, English-language 
proficiency, and for students with disabilities. It makes early 
childhood education a priority, with a new grant to improve early 
childhood education access and quality for low- and moderate-income 
families. It makes important changes to a grant program to help our 
lowest-performing schools. Most notably, this bipartisan agreement also 
does not include many of the proposals included in earlier draft bills 
that would dilute the effectiveness of title I dollars or allow States 
to reduce their support for education.
  This bill is an important first step in strengthening our Nation's 
schools and ensuring that our children have a world class education. 
And it is a true compromise--with both sides making concessions to move 
forward.
  We all agreed that improvements needed to be made to our country's 
education laws. Although Democrats and Republicans have vastly 
different approaches, through compromise, Senators Murray and Alexander 
were able to craft a balanced bill.
  That is not to say that this bill is perfect. We still have work to 
do. I know that many Senators will have ideas for improving this 
legislation. I, for one, think we can do more to ensure that our 
lowest-performing schools make progress, or that we can do more to 
address schools with persistently low graduation rates. I believe we 
can do more to expand early learning opportunities and to do more to 
protect students from bullying. I will also strongly oppose efforts to 
weaken public schools through voucher programs.
  I look forward to a substantive debate on this important bill. After 
all, helping to ensure that every American child gets a quality 
education could be among the most important things that the Senate will 
do during this Congress.
  Mrs. MURRAY. 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 today to urge my colleagues to 
support the Hirono-Heller amendment No. 2109, which deals with Asian 
American and Pacific Islander, or AAPI, student data.
  AAPIs are the fastest growing population in the United States, but it 
is important to highlight that we are not all the same. I know this 
from my personal experience.
  Just a few months ago, I attended the White House state dinner for 
Japanese Prime Minister Abe. The next day, there was a nice photo in 
the Washington Post with a caption that said, ``Senator Mazie Hirono 
and her guest''--except it wasn't me. It was actually my good friend 
Congresswoman Doris Matsui of California.
  In my time in Congress, I have often been mistaken for other AAPI 
members. Just a few months ago, during the budget debate, when I was on 
the floor of the Senate, C-SPAN identified me as Senator Daniel K. 
Inouye. I have been mistaken for Judy Chu, who is Chinese, and others. 
I may be the only AAPI in the Senate right now, but we are not all the 
same. We come from different places and have vastly different 
backgrounds that make us who we are today.
  The same is true in education. Our current law and the Every Child 
Achieves Act use the broad ``Asian Americans/Pacific Islander'' 
category to cover all AAPIs. This AAPI group includes Chinese, 
Japanese, Vietnamese, Asian Indian, Filipino, Korean, Native Hawaiian, 
Samoan, and others.
  When we look at averages, the AAPI group does very well overall, but 
in fact there is a model minority myth. The current AAPI category hides 
big achievement gaps between subgroups. For example, 72 percent of 
Asian Indian adults have a bachelor's degree or higher, but only 26 
percent of Vietnamese adults do, and only 14 percent of Hmong adults 
do. This adult data comes from the 2010 census. But we don't have data 
on how AAPI children are doing.
  The Hirono-Heller amendment is simple. Today, we already have public 
report cards on how students in different groups are doing. Parents can 
look up a school district online and see what percentage of its White 
or Hispanic students are scoring well in reading or math. With our 
amendment, districts with large populations of AAPI students will 
simply add a piece onto their report cards to show how AAPI subgroups 
are doing. Our amendment uses the same 11 categories as the census. 
Parents are familiar with it because they filled out the census 
information just a few years ago.
  The Hirono-Heller amendment is a bipartisan compromise. Our amendment 
would only apply to large school districts with over 1,000 AAPI 
students. Let me be clear--not districts with 1,000 students total but 
districts with 1,000 AAPI students. Currently, that is only about 400 
school districts out of

[[Page 10903]]

more than 16,000 school districts nationwide. Less than 3 percent of 
school districts would have to do anything at all. These districts 
should want to know how their students are doing so they can help all 
students succeed.
  Currently, the following States would not be affected at all by our 
amendment: Delaware, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North 
Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
  I have heard concerns that adding this AAPI data would be overly 
burdensome. The bill we are considering today already adds new 
reporting on military-connected student achievement. Districts can 
update their data systems to add checkboxes for military-connected 
children and AAPI children at the same time. This is not overly 
burdensome. Just as we are adding a new field to cover military-
connected students, adding new fields that include AAPI subgroups will 
be just upgrading the software schools use.
  In fact, the Hawaii Department of Education, DOE, is a national 
leader in using AAPI data. Hawaii DOE collects AAPI data on student 
registration forms. They easily put the data in their computer systems, 
which all staff can access. Having AAPI subgroup data is helpful for 
Hawaii's school administrators and policymakers, who analyze 
achievement gaps in college and career readiness, set statewide 
strategy, and then hire staff and target extra help to the highest need 
students. Hawaii DOE also shares the data with the University of Hawaii 
system to collaborate on student outcomes, such as credit completion 
and reducing remedial ed.
  Principals who learn that a certain AAPI subgroup is doing poorly in 
their own school can choose to hire more staff for outreach to that 
community or can partner with community groups on afterschool programs, 
et cetera. Teachers can spend more time on parent outreach to help 
high-need students in their classroom. That is why the Hirono-Heller 
amendment has the support of the National Association of Elementary 
School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School 
Principals, and the National Education Association.
  Districts in North Carolina, California, Washington, and others are 
doing similar work. Other districts around the country can make the 
appropriate changes to their systems. There are automatic software 
updates for student data systems that can add new data fields.
  It is important to share the data publicly. Community groups can 
highlight best practices among schools that serve their students well 
and encourage other schools to improve. Parents deserve to have this 
data, too.
  In the coming days, we will be discussing traditional public schools, 
public charter schools, and private schools. No matter where you stand 
on these issues, parents deserve to know how their schools are serving 
the needs of their kids so they can best help their children succeed.
  Our amendment is endorsed also by school choice advocates such as the 
National Association of Public Charter Schools.
  Just like current law in the broader ESEA bill we are discussing, 
there is no reporting if a subgroup is too small to maintain student 
privacy.
  Our amendment was carefully crafted with the support of the National 
Coalition of Asians and Pacific Americans, the Mexican American Legal 
Defense and Education Fund, National Council of La Raza, the NAACP, and 
over 100 other civil rights, educators, and women's groups and the 
disability community. They worked together very closely on the language 
and agreed that data disaggregation for AAPI subgroups is a top 
priority.
  AAPI groups across the country are making their choices heard by 
posting photos of why they are more than just a large Asian population. 
They are posting these pictures on Tumbler, Twitter, and Facebook. In 
fact, I saw one of those postings where students were holding up 
placards that say: I am AAPI, but I am also Japanese. I am AAPI, but I 
am also Korean.
  Join them at hashtag ``All Students Count.''
  I thank Senator Heller and his staff for their support and hard work 
on this bipartisan compromise bill. I also thank Senator Reid of 
Nevada, Senator Baldwin, Senator Boxer, Senator Cantwell, Senator 
Casey, Senator Feinstein, Senator Franken, Senator Markey, and Senator 
Schatz for cosponsoring my stand-alone bill, the All Students Count 
Act, which goes further than this amendment we will be voting on today.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because, in fact, all 
students count.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
until 12 noon be equally divided between the two managers or their 
designees; further, that at 12 noon, the Senate vote on the following 
amendments, with no second-degree amendments in order to any of the 
amendments prior to the votes: Reed amendment No. 2085 on school 
libraries; Warner amendment No. 2086 on fiscal support teams; and 
Rounds amendment No. 2078 on education in Indian Country study.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. For the information of all Senators, we expect to need 
a rollcall vote on the Reed amendment, and the Warner and Rounds 
amendments will be adopted by voice vote.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Nuclear Agreement With Iran

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the deadline for negotiators to strike a 
deal with Iran on its illicit nuclear program has been extended yet 
again. The deadline was June 30. It was postponed until Tuesday, and 
that was put off again for a few more days.
  According to the Wall Street Journal, the chief negotiator said:

       We are continuing to negotiate for the next couple of days. 
     That does not mean we are extending our deadlines, we are 
     interpreting [the deadline] in a flexible way.

  What does that mean? You either have a deadline or you don't have a 
deadline.
  By the end of the week, the White House could announce that it has 
struck a deal or it could say once again it needs more time. If there 
is a deal, Congress will need to look very closely and carefully at 
what it actually says.
  There are some important things that I will be looking for in any 
agreement that is struck. First and foremost, any deal is going to have 
to dismantle Iran's nuclear weapons program. It is going to have to 
prevent Iran from ever developing a path to a nuclear weapon. It is 
going to have to ensure that Iran completely discloses its past work on 
nuclear weapons. Iran is also going to have to submit to an inspection 
and verification regime that is both extensive and long term--not just 
inspections when the Iranians want it, when they allow it, or where 
they say it can occur. That is the only way we can really confirm that 
Iran's promises are more than empty words.
  America and other countries should not suspend sanctions until all of 
these conditions are met. So far, I have not seen much to indicate that 
our negotiators understand how important these goals are.
  There appear to be a lot of questions that have not been resolved and 
a lot of foot-dragging by Iran to try to get additional concessions.
  On Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry said: ``We're aiming to try 
to finish this in the timeframe that we've set out.'' Well, that 
timeframe was 7 months ago, in November of last year. The Obama 
administration said it had reached what it called an interim agreement 
in November of 2013, and it

[[Page 10904]]

said that it had a deadline of 1 year to reach a final agreement. That 
would have been November of 2014. When November 2014 came along, Iran 
got 6 more months to bully this administration into giving up even more 
ground.
  The deadline has been pushed back time and time again. According to 
news reports today, it may be pushed back even further.
  The Obama administration started negotiating with Iran more than 5 
years ago. In 2009, President Obama said that we ``will not continue to 
negotiate indefinitely'' with Iran specifically. Secretary of State 
Hillary Clinton said that same year that the window of opportunity for 
Iran would ``not remain open indefinitely.'' I would love to know what 
their definition of the word ``indefinitely'' is.
  I think these missed deadlines are embarrassing for the Obama 
administration. The administration's willingness to keep extending the 
talks make it look desperate. You know what. The Iranians know it. That 
is a big problem.
  Iran is now demanding that the arms embargo be lifted as part of the 
negotiations. This recent last-minute demand shows that Iran knows how 
desperately eager President Obama is for a deal, any deal. This issue 
was supposed to have been settled already. In April, the White House 
said that ``important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic 
missiles'' will be a part of any final agreement. Now Iran is seeing 
that the President and Secretary Kerry are desperate for an agreement 
to build their legacy, so it is bringing up the arms embargo again.
  According to news reports, our negotiators have been willing to make 
a lot of concessions to get any deal. There was an article recently in 
the Washington Post about the negotiations. The headline was ``In final 
hours, Kerry says Iran talks can go either way.'' The article said that 
negotiators have ``a general feeling that they have come too far to 
fail.''
  I want to be clear. Walking away from these negotiations without a 
deal is not a failure. Failure would be signing a bad deal. Failure 
would be lifting sanctions before Iran has shown that it has begun 
dismantling its nuclear program. Failure would be a deal that does not 
automatically reinstate sanctions if it turns out Iran is not complying 
with the deal. Failure would be a deal that allows any money Iran gets 
from sanctions relief to end up continuing to support terrorism, which 
Iran does. Failure would be a world that is a much more dangerous place 
for all of us.
  So far it seems as if this administration is willing to make a deal 
at any cost. We have seen one point after another where the 
administration has apparently agreed to give the Iranians exactly 
whatever they want. The negotiations went from initially being about 
stopping Iran's nuclear program to now being an attempt to delay or to 
manage Iran's nuclear program.
  Even before the June 30 deadline passed, Senator Menendez said: ``For 
me, the trend lines of the Iran talks are deeply worrying; our red 
lines have turned into green lights.''
  That is from a Democratic Senator. It was that kind of concern that 
led Congress--this Senate--to pass a law in May saying that Congress 
would be able to review any deal with Iran before the Obama 
administration could lift sanctions. Remember, the Obama administration 
fought that law--a law with a bipartisan, veto-proof majority in this 
body. The President didn't want Congress or the American people to have 
any say at all. Actually, the White House said they were planning to go 
directly to the Security Council of the United Nations before going to 
the elected representatives of the people of the United States.
  Any deal with Iran on its nuclear program would have a huge effect on 
our security, and the American people do get a say. If somehow the 
administration manages to strike a deal and it sends over all the 
necessary materials, Congress--if it is done today--will get 30 days to 
review it. That is time we can use to make sure it really is in our 
country's best interest. If the administration can't get us the full 
text of an agreement before this Friday, the timeline jumps up to 60 
days to review it. That is what we said in the law we passed in a 
bipartisan way this spring.
  If our negotiators can reach a deal with Iran, whenever that happens, 
Congress will use the time to look very closely at every word. If our 
negotiators can reach a deal with Iran, whenever that happens, Congress 
will make sure that we look at every word and know what is in it. The 
goal--the entire reason we are having these negotiations--is not just 
to get Iran to say yes to something; the goal initially was and should 
remain to stop Iran's illicit nuclear program.
  If the Obama administration allows Iran to continue with that 
program, the world will be less safe, less stable, and less secure. Any 
agreement our negotiators come up with must be accountable, must be 
enforceable, and must be verifiable. If that is not the case, then it 
is a bad deal, and the Obama administration must not strike a bad deal 
with Iran. This Nation and the world cannot afford that, and Congress 
cannot allow it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be 
equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I thank the Presiding Officer, and 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 (Mr. Lankford). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, we are here today to consider the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the bill that has been known 
for years as No Child Left Behind. It is a bill the Congress was 
supposed to reauthorize more than 7 years ago.
  When school kids come to visit me in my office here, I often ask 
them: What would happen if you showed up and were told that your 
homework was 7 or 8 years late? That is how long it has taken us to get 
to this place.
  As the Presiding Officer may know, before I came to the Senate, I had 
the honor of being the superintendent of the Denver Public Schools 
district, which now has 95,000 children in it, 67 percent of whom 
qualify for free and reduced lunch.
  I should note that we got some sad news in the last month or two. For 
the first time in our country's history--for the first time in the 
history of the United States--over half of the children attending 
public schools in our country qualify for free and reduced lunch. That 
is due to two decades of stagnant middle-class family incomes and the 
effect of the worst recession since the Great Depression.
  What people in Washington need to understand is that when it comes to 
education in this country right now, our kids don't have a fair fight, 
especially our kids living in poverty. If you were born poor in the 
United States of America, you will have heard 30 million fewer words 
than your more affluent peers when you show up for kindergarten. Ask 
any kindergarten teacher in the country whether that makes a 
difference, and they will tell you it does.
  What are we doing as a country to fill that gap? Not much. By the 
time kids get to elementary school--their early years--only one out of 
five is reading proficiently of the kids who were born poor and 20 
percent are reading at grade level. Ask any middle or high school 
teacher whether that is going to make a difference when that child gets 
to middle school or high school.
  Where does it end in the land of opportunity for kids who are born 
into poverty in this country? If you are born poor in the United States 
of America, your chances of getting a college degree, or the equivalent 
of a college degree, is 9 in 100, which means--in this global economy 
of ours--that every year becomes less and less forgiving to people who 
have less of an

[[Page 10905]]

education. And 91 out of 100 of our kids are going to be constrained to 
the margin of the economy and the margin of the democracy from the very 
outset.
  There are 100 desks in this room. There are 100 chairs in this room. 
If we weren't the Senate but instead kids born into poverty in this 
country, not even those three rows of desks over there in that corner 
would represent people graduating from college. Everybody else in this 
room would not have the benefit of a college degree. We would never 
accept those odds for our own children. The people in the Senate would 
never ever accept those odds for our own children. If our kids faced 
the odds of showing up to kindergarten having heard 30 million fewer 
words than their peers and if you knew it was assured that your child 
had a 20-percent chance of reading at grade level when they got to 
elementary school, I guarantee you would leave this place. You would 
leave the Senate, and you would go home and address the problem.
  But when it comes to public education--especially when it comes to 
our kids who are living in poverty in this country--we stop treating 
them as if they were our kids. We are treating them as if they were 
someone else's kids. We are leaving it to luck as to whether a kid can 
fill that 30-million-word gap.
  I am sure the Presiding Officer knows this. There are entire cities 
in this country and rural areas in this country where school choice 
would be meaningless because there is not a good school to choose from. 
There is not a school in the neighborhood or in the city that anybody 
in this body would send their kid to. That is where we are.
  Over the last decade or so, we made progress in many places across 
the country. The Denver Public Schools is one of those places. It is 
the fastest growing urban school district in the United States.
  In 2005, the kids who attended Denver Public Schools were dead last 
in terms of student growth compared to any school district of any size 
in the State of Colorado. For the last 3 years Denver Public Schools 
has led the State in terms of its student growth, both for kids who 
receive free and reduced lunch and kids who do not receive free and 
reduced lunch. Thirty percent more kids graduated and went to college 
this year than in 2005.
  Now, I am the first to say that we have a long, long way to go in 
Denver to make sure that the ZIP Code you are born into doesn't 
determine the educational outcome you get, but we are making 
substantial progress. And I say that if we could say as a country that 
every single urban school district since 2005 showed a 30-percent 
increase in kids going to college, we would be feeling a lot better 
about where we are headed.
  There is a lot of debate in this body about what tax policy ought to 
be and whether we ought to think about redistributing wealth and who 
should pay what share of taxes. Some people view it as everything ought 
to be decided out there by the market. I understand that point of view. 
But if that is your point of view, you better be doing everything you 
can to be sure that every single kid in the country has an excellent 
shot at an education, because if you don't, then you are basically 
saying, if you have the bad luck to be born to a poor family in this 
country, you are on your own. You are on your own, and you have a 9-in-
100 chance of getting a degree that is actually going to allow you to 
compete in the global economy.
  One thing I know about kids who are born in this country, they don't 
get to pick who their parents are. They don't get to decide whether 
they are born into a ZIP Code that is going to fill that 30-million-
word gap by the time they get to kindergarten or that is going to give 
them excellent school choices or that will allow them to go to college.
  Today, while we are not talking about higher education, this is very 
much a part of this K-12 conundrum because college has become harder 
and harder to afford, even at a time when it is much more important for 
people to succeed.
  I saw some data the other day that said that for the average cost of 
tuition in this country, the average cost of college, a family in the 
bottom quartile of income earners, after you account for student loans, 
grants, and student aid, would have to consume 85 percent of their 
income to afford 1 year of college; whereas, if you are in the top 
quartile, it will cost you 15 percent of your income. Is that fair? It 
didn't used to be this way. In the 1970s, it wasn't this way. In the 
1970s, a Pell grant covered 76 percent of what it cost to go to the 
average college in this country. We are rolling up the carpet on the 
next generation of Americans, and I don't think it is fair. I don't 
think it is right.
  We should be having a debate about the size and scope of government. 
I believe that. We should have that debate. But as we are having that 
debate, we should keep in mind that we have an obligation to fulfill to 
honor the obligation our parents and grandparents fulfilled for us, 
which is to make sure that if you were willing to work hard, if you 
were willing to study hard, that college was going to be something that 
was attainable and it wasn't going to strangle you in debt.
  Too many families across Colorado are facing this challenge, and the 
saddest thing I hear in my town is when somebody comes and says: We 
can't afford to send our kids to the best college they got into. What a 
waste that is--what a waste for that student, what a waste for our 
society. So there is more for us to do on college affordability.
  But today we are talking about the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act. I think we actually make substantial progress in this bill. I want 
to say how pleased I am with the leadership of Chairman Alexander and 
the ranking member Patty Murray. They have done an exceptional job of 
managing this bill through our committee.
  We have a very diverse committee. We have the junior Senator from 
Vermont on the committee and we have the junior Senator from Kentucky 
on the committee, and because of Chairman Alexander's leadership and 
the work and leadership of the ranking member Senator Murray, the bill 
actually passed out of the committee unanimously. Imagine that--around 
this place, where we can't even agree on how to publish a report or 
what time we should come to work, we have a committee in the U.S. 
Congress where Republicans and Democrats unanimously agreed on a bill. 
Let me tell you, it wasn't easy. If it were easy, we would have done it 
on time. We would have done it 8 years ago when we were supposed to do 
it--when our homework was due--but I suppose it is better late than 
never, and I am very pleased with the product.
  There is more I would like to add, but I think--I know the teachers, 
principals, and school leaders across Colorado need us to fix No Child 
Left Behind, and I hope we can finally get it done this time.
  This bill is a good starting point. It eliminates NCLB's one-size-
fits-all approach to education, which we know will not work, and it re-
empowers those who are closest to our kids to make the decisions that 
need to be made for their benefit. This bill includes many key 
elements. Importantly, it includes the requirement for annual 
assessment. I know testing is not popular. I have three kids in the 
Denver Public Schools. My three daughters go to those schools. I get an 
annual report on what the testing looks like. I believe we are 
overtesting our kids, but I don't think that is because of the Federal 
requirement.
  I see the Senator from Tennessee.
  Does the Senator want to speak?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Just listening.
  Mr. BENNET. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I think there is a lot we can do to streamline those tests, but it is 
not the Federal requirement that is causing it, it is the way the 
Federal requirement works with State assessments and district 
assessments, and we have to do a better job. I also think we ought to 
think differently about the testing we are doing for teaching and 
learning, which needs to be continuous, ongoing, and inform a teacher's 
instruction and inform the principal's leadership at the school.

[[Page 10906]]

  The testing that is done for accountability should be a lot less. We 
heard testimony from the superintendent of the Denver Public Schools, 
Tom Boasberg, who told us he thought that for accountability purposes, 
probably all we need is 4 hours a year in reading and math. I know the 
Bennet girls would settle for that. They would agree with that. They 
would do that deal. But until somebody comes up with a better way of 
measuring where kids are, we need the annual assessments. We have to 
have them because it is the only way you can show growth.
  When No Child Left Behind started, it asked and answered a completely 
irrelevant question--a question that was so frustrating to the teachers 
I knew in the Denver Public Schools and to our principals. It asked: 
How did this year's fourth graders do compared to last year's fourth 
graders? This is a completely irrelevant question.
  Today, because of the work that has been done in Colorado leading the 
way, States all over the country now measure the growth of kids. What 
we ask is, How did this year's sixth graders do compared to how they 
did as fifth graders, compared to how they did as fourth graders, and 
compared to everybody else in the State who has a statistically similar 
test history? Why is that important? Because it allows you to establish 
growth or show growth. Then one can actually evaluate how well a school 
is doing, because it used to be in No Child Left Behind, under adequate 
yearly progress--which asked that long question of how did this year's 
fourth graders do compared to last year's fourth graders--it used to be 
we measured what was called status: How proficient were the kids, how 
lucky were those kids. You might have a school where kids were 
proficient but were actually losing ground in terms of academic 
proficiency, and we were rewarding those schools. We were calling those 
schools blue ribbon schools. There were also schools in poorer parts of 
town where teachers were killing themselves, students were killing 
themselves, and they weren't proficient because they started so far 
behind, but they were getting more than a grade level or two grade 
levels of increased proficiency during the course of the year. Do you 
know what those schools were called under No Child Left Behind? Those 
schools were called failing schools. We called those teachers failing 
teachers. We called those students failing students, those who were 
achieving 2 years of growth. Their more affluent peers might have been 
losing ground, and we were saying they were winners. We have moved past 
that. This bill now acknowledges that. I wish this bill required 
growth--which it doesn't--but I believe States and districts will use 
growth to measure data.
  The bill also continues to require that States and districts 
disaggregate data so we can actually understand where kids are. That is 
really important. Before No Child Left Behind existed, we had 
absolutely no idea. Now we know. The hard truth is that kids of color 
in this country aren't doing nearly as well as Anglo kids in this 
country. Kids living in poverty aren't doing nearly as well as their 
middle-class or more affluent peers. We need to do better.
  I run into people periodically who say to me that you can't fix it 
unless you fix poverty. You can't fix the education system unless you 
fix poverty. Don't tell kids in my city who are living in poverty that 
that is true. Outside of every one of our schools it says ``school.'' 
It doesn't say ``orphanage.'' It says ``school.'' We need to make sure 
every one of those schools is delivering for every kid in our 
community, no matter where they come from. Otherwise, what is left of 
us? What is left of this land of opportunity?
  Before No Child Left Behind existed, we had an impression, a vague 
sense of the inequities in our educational system. Now we understand 
how deep they are, how rooted they are, and we have to continue to 
build on the successes we have seen in high-quality schools working in 
poor neighborhoods that have actually delivered for kids all over the 
country.
  This new bill--and I see the Senator from Texas is here and I will 
yield to him as soon as he is ready.
  The new version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
importantly empowers States to design their accountability systems, 
giving them more flexibility while ensuring that essential information 
is included. I think that is an important recognition, led by Chairman 
Alexander, that there was a real overreach in No Child Left Behind.
  As a former school superintendent, I can say I used to wonder all the 
time why Washington was so mean to our teachers and to our kids. What I 
have realized since coming here is that it is not that everybody here 
is mean. They mean well. But this place is the farthest place in the 
universe--I mean that literally, I don't mean that figuratively--this 
is the farthest place in the universe from a classroom in the Denver 
Public Schools or a classroom anywhere in this country, and I think No 
Child Left Behind in many ways was an overreach. The last thing I want 
to be told as a superintendent is how to do my work in Denver. I want 
to insist that we do the work. I want to insist that children all over 
this country have a chance, no matter what State they are born into, no 
matter what neighborhood they are born into, but I don't want people 
here telling people how to do that work. There is a distinction.
  I have more to say about this, but I see my friend from Texas is 
here, so I will yield to him. Before I do, I just congratulate the 
chairman of the committee who is here on the floor, Senator Alexander 
from Tennessee, for his extraordinary leadership on this bill.
  Again, I remind my colleagues who are listening to this, what a 
rare--rare--occurrence this is. This is a bill that passed unanimously 
out of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and that 
would not have happened without the leadership of Senator Lamar 
Alexander and Senator Murray, the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for his 
graciousness. I come to the floor to speak about this important topic 
of early elementary education.
  I recall that when President George W. Bush was Governor of Texas--of 
course, education was one of his biggest priorities both at the State 
and the national level when he became President. He had an interesting 
observation. He said the more you talk about education, the more people 
realize you actually care about it. So I actually think it is important 
to talk about it, that we think our way through this legislation and 
figure out what we can do to equip our children who are increasingly in 
a competitive environment, not only locally in our States and Nation 
but globally.
  One of the real joys of the job of a U.S. Senator is getting to visit 
with students in our State, and I did so last week when I was back 
home. I met with a group of middle-school students in Amarillo, way up 
in the Texas Panhandle, at the tail end of a camp teaching students 
valuable skills in science, technology, engineering, and math, the so-
called STEM fields. I was very impressed with what I saw. First of all, 
the instructors found out how to make this fun, which is an important 
element in this education because some of this stuff can be pretty dry 
and boring, if my memory serves me correctly. They were literally 
building robots, and then they presented their final projects to 
parents and teachers in a friendly competition. Needless to say, I wish 
I had that kind of instruction. Maybe I wouldn't have veered into the 
legal profession. I would have done something more productive in a 
field of science. I am saying that with a tongue planted firmly in 
cheek, of course. But I wish I had instructors who would have inspired 
me to learn more about those important topics by using these sorts of 
tools.
  I also previously visited, for example, United High School in Laredo, 
where I was able to meet with high school students who were taking part 
in a first-of-its-kind program that teaches curriculum specific to the 
oil and gas industry in the region. Why is that? Well,

[[Page 10907]]

because the shale plays in Texas are the source--the reservoirs 
really--this huge volume of oil and natural gas is being produced from. 
Lo and behold, it is not just producing income for the people who are 
drilling those wells and completing them, it is creating a lot of jobs. 
What these students and the school districts, such as United High 
School in Laredo, have discovered is that this is really an opportunity 
for these students in high school to begin to learn some of the basics 
of petroleum engineering and other things that will prepare them for 
good, well-paying jobs later in life.
  This program included internships, training, and dual-credit courses 
at a local community college. These students were going to high school, 
but they were actually getting college credit at the same time at the 
local community college. Of course, they were getting real-world skills 
that they need to succeed in a burgeoning industry once they graduate. 
Importantly, graduates from the program will have, as I said, access to 
high-paying, good jobs right out of high school, which, unfortunately, 
the history has been in Laredo, TX, in South Texas, that that hasn't 
always been the case.
  So this is a very hopeful development, thanks to the innovation in 
the oil and gas industry and thanks to the foresight and the genius, 
really, of the local school district there in Laredo, TX.
  This is a great example of how local communities and the economy can 
work to shape education and provide a win-win opportunity for students, 
local industries, and the greater community. United High School was 
able to create this program because it had the freedom and flexibility 
to develop its own curriculum with tailored input from local leaders, 
teachers, parents, and industry leaders--the people who create jobs and 
who are looking for people with discrete skills that they would then 
bring to the table to provide the workforce they need.
  This groundbreaking program in Laredo was not thought up here in 
Washington, DC. It is a product of local ingenuity and a community 
response to the educational needs specific to its students. I think 
this type of mindset is very important in education because, as we have 
learned over the years, the bureaucracy in Washington can't tailor 
programs that will suit the needs of children in a wide variety of 
school districts across our States and across the country--not in 
Laredo, not in Amarillo, and not anywhere else in the country.
  That is why I am happy this week that the Senate is considering 
legislation that will help return a large measure of the responsibility 
for our children's education to those closest to them--their parents, 
their teachers, the local school boards--and not so much the Federal 
Government. The Federal Government does have an interest and we as 
Americans all have an interest in being able to compete in a global 
environment and in high standards, those that will cause our students 
to strive to attain skills that they can use to compete anywhere in the 
world. But in terms of its actual implementation, I am pleased that 
this legislation will push more of those decisions out of Washington 
and back home to local school districts and parents.
  This legislation is, of course, called the Every Child Achieves Act. 
It provides a roadmap to ensure that our children receive and retain a 
quality education. By giving the responsibility for actually 
implementing programs that will help students achieve these high 
standards--it will give each State and the districts the flexibility 
they need to design and implement their education programs and systems.
  This is really sort of another application of what Louis Brandeis 
called the ``laboratories of democracy'' when he was referring to the 
State government. I think he was referring to that important principle 
of our Constitution known as federalism, as ensconced in the 10th 
amendment in particular.
  There is an irreplaceable role that the Federal Government plays in 
some aspects of our life. National security is perhaps the preeminent 
one. But there is a lot of benefit to getting some experiments at the 
State level, and then we can learn without imposing a one-size-fits-all 
approach from Washington, DC. What works best? Then we can then learn 
and be informed by those practices in a way that improves the result. I 
am thinking of criminal justice reform as another example in my State, 
where we were an early participant in prison reform, which now has 
formed some of the basis for bipartisan legislation that we are 
considering here in the Senate.
  Because of the successful laboratory experiments back in Texas and 
Rhode Island and other States, we are now taking those best practices 
and those results and figuring out how we apply those to the benefit of 
other parts of the country.
  Under this legislation, States such as Texas can decide how to use 
federally mandated test results to assess performance of students, 
schools, and teachers. This gives the States much needed relief from 
pressure to teach to the test--something I hear over and over again 
back home, that teachers are finding that rather than a program where 
they teach STEM subjects using robots and inspire young, creative minds 
to engage and learn the science they need in order to play these sorts 
of games in a competition with robots, teachers are finding themselves 
in a position of teaching to the test in sort of a mind-numbing process 
that nobody would find particularly inspiring. So this takes some 
pressure from that teach-to-the-test mentality and also gives States 
additional freedom to provide students with a well-rounded education.
  Put simply, with this legislation, States can decide for themselves 
what standards they need to adopt, and, importantly, this legislation 
limits the power of the Secretary of Education to ensure that the 
Federal Government cannot dictate, direct, or control State curriculum 
or standards.
  How insulting is it to have the States come on bended knee to the 
Secretary of Education and ask: Will you please let us have a waiver so 
we can try this creative or innovative way of delivering an education 
to our students back home? How insulting is that and how contrary to 
the original scheme of our government as created by our Founders.
  So this bill, which was unanimously passed out of committee--and I 
congratulate the chairman, Senator Alexander, and the ranking member, 
Senator Murray, and all members of the Health, Education, Labor and 
Pensions Committee for voting out this bill unanimously. This is a 
great bipartisan process which has produced a very good product. It is 
also just one of more than 150 bills reported out of Senate committees 
so far this year--another sign that the Senate is back to work for the 
American people.
  I look forward to continuing the great progress we have made in this 
Senate by getting real education reform passed soon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Amendment No. 2085

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge all of my 
colleagues to support the Reed-Cochran amendment to encourage States 
and school districts to integrate school library programs into their 
plans for improving student academic achievement.
  I would first like to thank Senator Cochran for his longstanding 
partnership in supporting school libraries. He has been a steadfast 
champion for ensuring that students have access to these vital 
resources.
  Fifty years ago, when President Lyndon Johnson urged Congress to 
enact what would become the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, he 
specifically called for an investment in school libraries, saying that 
school libraries were simply ``limping along'' and insisting that we do 
better. Sadly, this ``limping along'' is still true for too many 
communities in our United States.
  This spring, the Washington Post ran articles on the inequitable 
access to school libraries in public schools in our Nation's Capital, 
reporting that one school library in a wealthy part of

[[Page 10908]]

town had 28,000 books in a library that spanned two floors, while 12 
miles away, in a school in a poorer part of the town, the school 
library had only 300 books along two walls. If that is not a stark 
example of one of the things we hope we can fix through this act, I 
cannot think of anything more direct and to the point.
  Recently, noted author James Patterson made a pledge to help school 
libraries. More than 28,000 applications came in.
  One librarian reported that school libraries in her State had not 
received any funding for three-quarters of a decade and that their 
collections and equipment were out of date and in disrepair. I suspect 
she is not alone in making such a report. We see this neglect despite 
the fact that evidence shows that effective school library programs, 
staffed by a certified school librarian, have a positive impact on 
student achievement.
  While I would like to see a much more robust school library-focused 
initiative included in the reauthorization, along the lines of the bill 
I introduced with Senator Cochran, I am very pleased that the 
underlying bill includes an authorization for competitive grants to 
help high-need school districts strengthen and enhance effective 
library programs. However, we need to do more to encourage States and 
school districts to integrate school library programs into their 
overall instructional programs.
  Effective school library programs are essential supports to 
educational success. If you understand how to use the library in 
school, that is not a skill that goes away; in fact, it will be a skill 
for the rest of your life that you will use time and time again, not 
only for your pleasure but for your progress and the progress of your 
family. Knowing how to find and use information is an essential skill 
for college, careers, and life in general. A good school library, 
staffed by a trained school librarian, is where students develop and 
hone those skills.
  The Reed-Cochran amendment will encourage States and school districts 
to ensure that students have access to effective school library 
programs.
  Once again, I thank my colleague, Senator Cochran.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bipartisan amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 2078

  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on my amendment to 
the Every Child Achieves Act, which is amendment No. 2078. I would like 
to thank Senator Udall for joining me in supporting this important 
amendment.
  Since my time working in the South Dakota State Legislature and also 
as Governor of South Dakota, education in Indian Country has faced 
incredible obstacles, especially in rural and high-poverty areas. This 
is true not only in my State but across the entire Nation. Because of 
these barriers, 10 out of 13 Bureau of Indian Education high schools in 
South Dakota have graduation rates below 67 percent, and 6 of those 
schools have graduation rates at or below 40 percent. Meanwhile, the 
national high school graduation rate is 80 percent. These graduation 
rates must be changed, and my amendment will help lay a foundation to 
fix the systemic problems Indian Country faces.
  To address these concerns as well as other States' concerns, an 
analysis needs to be conducted to more closely examine these 
educational downfalls. So today we are proposing an amendment to the 
Every Child Achieves Act that would direct the Departments of Interior 
and Education to both study and create strategies to address these 
challenges. This amendment is being supported by the National Indian 
Education Association, the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association, 
and the National Education Association.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, amendment No. 2078 will 
have no impact on Federal spending.
  This amendment would require the Departments of Interior and 
Education to conduct a study in rural and poverty-stricken areas of 
Indian Country in order to identify Federal barriers that restrict 
tribes from implementing commonsense regional policies instead of a 
one-size-fits-all policy directed from Washington. It requires that 
they identify recruitment and retention options for teachers and school 
administrators and identify the limitations in the funding source and 
flexibility for schools that receive these funds. It would study and 
provide a strategy on how to increase high school graduation rates.
  It is critical that we identify the limitations and barriers which 
tribal schools face and lay out a strategy to fix those problems. I 
hope my colleagues will join Senator Udall and me in supporting this 
straightforward amendment to help our students in Indian Country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, 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. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, while we wait on another colleague, I 
thought I would talk about another aspect of this bill that I think is 
very important.
  For the first time in this country's history, finally, the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act is going to require districts to report 
actual per-pupil expenditures, which will shed light on extraordinary 
funding inequities in this country.
  We are one of three countries in the OECD, because of the way we fund 
our public schools in the United States, that actually spends more 
money on more affluent kids than we do on kids living in poverty. That 
is not well understood, but that is a fact. That is the truth.
  We need to be concerned with closing the achievement gap in the 
United States, because if we look at the academic outcomes for kids in 
this country and extrapolate those outcomes against the changing 
demographics in the United States, we are not going to like what we see 
in the middle of the 21st century if we don't make these changes. One 
would think, if anything, that we would be spending more money on kids 
living in poverty, coming from disadvantaged backgrounds than we do on 
kids coming from advantaged backgrounds. But we do the opposite in the 
United States, and the Congress, for decades, has looked the other way.
  I believe we need to close this loophole. It is called the 
comparability loophole. We don't do that in this legislation, but at 
least the requirement where we move to reporting based on actual rather 
than average expenditures is an important step in the right direction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senate is 
still considering remarks with respect to the education legislation 
that is pending before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                           Amendment No. 2085

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am coming at this issue from a unique 
perspective. Both of my parents were schoolteachers. As I was growing 
up in Mississippi, my father was county superintendent of education of 
the largest public school system in Mississippi for several years. My 
mother was a mathematics educator, teacher. They had both earned 
graduate degrees as well as undergraduate degrees from colleges and 
universities in our State of Mississippi. My brother and I had the good 
fortune of growing up in this environment of learning and reading.
  So I have to confess I am biased in support of legislation that helps 
to strengthen the capability of our Nation's teachers and school 
administrators in providing opportunities for not only reading but 
complex learning at early ages, which would have been surprising to 
those of that generation to look around and observe the great strides 
we are making in education throughout America.

[[Page 10909]]

  Growing up with this perspective and my appreciation of the 
importance of good teachers in our schools makes me understand perhaps 
more than most the importance that education serves in the lives of 
students, their teachers, and their communities where they grow up.
  When I was a student, I went to the library to check out a book. Now, 
there are all kinds of ways to get in touch with the written words. 
Today, our school librarians are more often specialists with education 
and specific training that help students learn how to access 
educational material in every manner in which education is available in 
an increasingly digital society. Children who know how to read and are 
comfortable using information technology are more likely to grow up 
with a capacity to learn throughout their lifetimes.
  The amendment I have offered with my good friend, the senior Senator 
from Rhode Island, seeks to help equip school librarians to do an even 
better job. Our amendment would allow schools throughout the country to 
use Federal funds in the way they see fit to strengthen their 
libraries. My hope is that the use of these additional funds will 
improve education and literacy among children throughout America.
  It is my understanding the bill managers support this amendment. I 
appreciate very much not only the good assistance and friendship of 
Senator Reed but his help specifically with this legislation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. 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. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I come here today to speak about the 
bill pending before us, the Every Child Achieves Act. This is the 
successor to the No Child Left Behind Act, which is the successor to 
the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  Fifty years ago, in 1965, as part of Lyndon Johnson's wanting to end 
poverty in the United States of America and to lift people up, he asked 
Congress to pass the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It was the 
first legislative act where the Federal Government was involved in 
education. Up until that time, education was thought of as the purview 
of the States and local districts. President Johnson agreed with that, 
as did the Congress, but at the same time they knew there were children 
living in the abysmal situation of poverty, and at a time of national 
prosperity he wanted to lift those children up.
  Great legislation passed during the next 50 years ago, such as Head 
Start, which continues to be a hallmark of early intervention to help 
our children. Of course, programs such as Medicare were also passed at 
that time. But it was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and 
particularly title I, that would bring additional Federal resources to 
our local communities. Again, this was focused on helping poor children 
close the achievement gap and giving them the ability to fully 
participate in our society.
  Well, that bill went on until 2001, when President Bush said he 
wanted to make sure that children were out of poverty. President George 
Bush said: I am a compassionate conservative. I am concerned about the 
soft bigotry of low expectations of poor children, particularly poor 
children of color, and we have to do something about it. That brought 
about the experiments that occurred in the States relating to metrics 
and so on for highly qualified teachers, using words such as 
``evidence-based,'' and we passed No Child Left Behind.
  What happened, though, instead of helping poor children--we had many 
successes. We did face the fact that we did have low expectations. 
There was a soft bigotry. We agreed with the wonderful comments of 
Secretary Condoleezza Rice that were spoken at the Republican National 
Convention when she said that education is the civil rights issue of 
this time.
  Now, what do we have here? We have a bipartisan effort led by 
Senators Alexander and Murray to come up with yet one more reform of 
this historic legislative framework. I support their efforts. I want to 
salute their efforts. What they were able to do in this bill was to 
focus again on helping poor children achieve and supporting State and 
local governments not with intervention but with assistance in order to 
help.
  We do know that one of the legacies of having metrics was that we so 
regulated our teachers to make teaching almost inflexible, and we 
started to race for the tests instead of racing for the top. I believe 
the efforts of Senators Alexander and Murray deal with the mistakes of 
No Child Left Behind and move ahead to close that achievement gap.
  I support the general framework of this legislation. I am proud of 
the additions I have made to this bill, one of which was to really make 
sure there were allowable uses for something called wraparound or 
integrated services. While we insisted there be highly qualified 
teachers in the classroom, the teachers cannot deal with poverty. They 
cannot deal with the fact that 30 percent of our children who come to 
school every day are homeless. They have no home. The school is their 
educational home. They need a social worker. They need a school nurse. 
The mental health challenges of many of our children are astounding. So 
we were able to add that in.
  The other thing is we were overlooking a national treasure. I was a 
big supporter of something called the Javits bill. Senator Javits of 
New York many years ago realized we had an overlooked treasure in our 
communities, and it was the gifted and talented children, children who 
are of exceptional educational capacity.
  Again, coming back to the words of George Bush, there is that soft 
bigotry of low expectations. We often come with a latent bias that we 
don't believe poor children are smart. We don't believe--many times 
because of latent bias or overt bias--that they are capable of 
achieving. What I moved in this bill was, under title II, once again, 
acknowledgment that in poor schools with poor children, there are 
gifted and talented kids, many of whom have been identified by 
outstanding programs--in my own State, the Johns Hopkins school for 
gifted and talented children. We were able to put that in the bill.
  I look forward to moving this bill forward because I believe we 
support our teachers, we once again deal with low-performing schools, 
and at the same time we provide administrative and local flexibility so 
that we minimize national mandates and maximize local achievement.
  I salute Senators Murray and Alexander. I know there are some 
amendments which will be pending, such as Burr to title I, which I will 
oppose because every county in my State loses money and will lose up to 
$40 million.
  I note that the hour of noon is arriving and that a vote will soon be 
underway. I look forward to supporting the bill, provided that the Burr 
amendment is not included.
  I salute Senator Alexander for his leadership and for encouraging 
bipartisan participation. I thank Senator Murray for her leadership and 
for including so many of these important reforms in our bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for 
her remarks, her contributions to our committee, her bipartisan 
leadership, and her effective leadership both in higher education and 
in elementary and secondary education.
  I enjoyed listening to the remarks of the Senator from Colorado, the 
former Denver school superintendant, who has added so much to our 
committee.
  I congratulate the Senator from Mississippi for his contribution to 
the amendment on which we are about to vote.
  We will have one rollcall vote on the Reed-Cochran amendment, and 
then we will have two votes following that, which will be voice votes.

[[Page 10910]]




                       Vote on Amendment No. 2085

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Under the previous order, the 
question now occurs on amendment No. 2085, offered by the Senator from 
Washington, Mrs. Murray, for Mr. Reed.
  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 question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 222 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     King
     Rubio
       
  The amendment (No. 2085) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2086

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 2086, offered by the Senator from 
Washington, Mrs. Murray, for Mr. Warner.
  The amendment (No. 2086) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2078

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 2078, offered by the Senator from 
Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, for Mr. Rounds.
  The amendment (No. 2078) was agreed to.

                          ____________________