[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11353-11362]
[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 report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Alexander/Murray amendment No. 2089, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Murray (for Peters) amendment No. 2095 (to amendment No. 
     2089), to allow local educational agencies to use parent and 
     family engagement funds for financial literacy activities.
       Murray (for Warren/Gardner) amendment No. 2120 (to 
     amendment No. 2089), to amend section 1111(d) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 regarding the 
     cross-tabulation of student data.
       Alexander (for Kirk) amendment No. 2161 (to amendment No. 
     2089), to ensure that States measure and report on indicators 
     of student access to critical educational resources and 
     identify disparities in such resources.
       Alexander (for Scott) amendment No. 2132 (to amendment No. 
     2089), to expand opportunity by allowing Title I funds to 
     follow low-income children.
       Alexander (for Hatch/Markey) amendment No. 2080 (to 
     amendment No. 2089), to establish a committee on student 
     privacy policy.
       Murray (for Franken) amendment No. 2093 (to amendment No. 
     2089), to end discrimination based on actual or perceived 
     sexual orientation or gender identity in public schools.
       Murray (for Kaine) amendment No. 2118 (to amendment No. 
     2089), to amend the State accountability system under section 
     1113(b)(3) regarding the measures used to ensure that 
     students are ready to enter postsecondary education or the 
     workforce without the need for postsecondary remediation.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I believe that providing all of our 
students with a quality education is one of our most important national 
priorities. The workforce in the years to come will depend on today's 
students being able to create and take on the jobs of tomorrow, and 
providing students with the chance to learn, grow, and thrive will help 
our country continue to compete and lead in the 21st-century global 
economy.
  Today we are continuing our work on the Senate floor to make sure all 
of our students have access to a quality education by working to fix 
the badly broken No Child Left Behind law. I thank Chairman Alexander, 
the senior Senator from Tennessee, for working with me on this 
bipartisan bill. He has been a great partner throughout this process. 
The 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 have access to a 
quality public education. But I want to work, of course, to continue to 
improve and strengthen this bill throughout this process on the Senate 
floor. I want to make sure struggling schools get the resources they 
need. I want to make sure all of our kids, especially our most 
vulnerable students, are able to succeed in the classroom.
  Finishing this process and getting a bill signed into law isn't going 
to be easy. Nothing in Congress ever is. But students and parents and 
teachers in communities across our country--including in my home State 
of Washington--are looking to Congress to fix this broken law. We 
cannot let them down. We need to work across the aisle to provide a 
quality education for all students, regardless of where they live or 
how they learn or how much money their parents make.
  So I look forward to continuing to work with Chairman Alexander as we 
move this through the Senate floor and to conference--and I think he 
agrees with me--and, hopefully, to the President to get it signed into 
law. I see the chairman is here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I do agree with the Senator on our 
goal. We had a good week last week. We had a large number of amendments 
that were agreed to, a number were adopted in addition to ones we had 
in committee. We need to finish this week. We need Senators to do what 
members of the committee did, which is to pursue a result exercising 
some restraint. If we all insist on everything we have a right to 
insist on, nothing would ever happen.
  As Senator Murray said, teachers, Governors, school boards, and 
parents are expecting us to get this job done. We can do it. The House 
did its part last week. We can finish our work this week. Put it 
together and then she is correct, we want a result, not just a 
political speech, which means we need to have the President's signature 
in the end. So we have a bipartisan process. We are 7 years overdue. 
This is a bill everybody in the country who cares about education wants 
us to act on. We have had a remarkable consensus on what we need to do.
  Basically, what we are saying is that we want to keep the important 
measurements of student achievement so parents and teachers and 
communities can know how children are doing, how schools are doing, 
whether anyone is being left behind, but we want to restore to States 
and local school boards and communities and classroom teachers the 
responsibility for deciding what to do about the results of those tests 
and make sure they are appropriate and make sure there are not too many 
tests.
  We believe that is the real way to improve teaching, to improve 
schools, and to have real accountability. So we have taken lots of 
different opinions and we have put them together in a bill. I was 
thinking over the weekend, having a bill on elementary and secondary 
education is like going to a football game

[[Page 11354]]

at the University of Tennessee. There are 100,000 people in the stands, 
and they all are experts on football, whether it is Iowa or Washington 
or Tennessee.
  Well, we are all experts--and so are most of our citizens experts on 
education--but we need to have a consensus here. We are close to one. I 
thank Senator Murray and the majority leader and the Democratic leader 
for creating an environment in which we so far have been able to 
succeed.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam 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. DAINES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Nuclear Agreement With Iran

  Mr. DAINES. Madam President, as we speak, negotiations are ongoing 
between Iran and the P5+1 countries regarding one of the greatest 
threats to global security today; that is, a potentially nuclear-
capable Iran. If both sides reach a final negotiated agreement, this 
body will have to consider whether the agreement truly prevents Iran 
from becoming a nuclear state or whether it paves the way for the 
leading state sponsor of terror to obtain a nuclear weapon.
  Agreeing to a bad deal would pose a serious threat to the national 
security of the United States, to Israel, and our other allies. We 
cannot take this decision lightly. We should not base our votes on the 
legacy of the President. We will be dealing with the consequences of 
this potential agreement long after President Obama leaves office.
  There are specific terms of any final agreement that are vital to 
preventing Iran's nuclear weapons capability. One-hundred percent 
certainty is impossible in matters of intelligence, particularly with a 
regime like Iran's that has a history of being less than forthright 
about its nuclear program. In fact, on June 21, the Iranian Parliament 
voted to bar inspectors from military sites. As they were passing this 
resolution to bar inspectors from military sites, they were chanting 
``Death to America.''
  Let's not forget that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism 
in the world. It is critical that the International Atomic Energy 
Agency be able to conduct extensive inspections at all military 
facilities, including unannounced inspections, to ensure that Iran is 
upholding its commitments.
  A final deal must ensure that we have verifiable evidence that Iran 
is complying with the terms of the agreement before lifting sanctions. 
A final deal must permit international inspection to occur anytime, 
anywhere. A final deal must require Iran to disclose and dismantle its 
nuclear infrastructure, its uranium stockpile, and all other aspects of 
its nuclear program as specified in six--let me repeat--six U.N. 
Security Council resolutions.
  A final deal must ensure Iranians never get a nuclear weapon. If Iran 
does violate these terms, the deal must guarantee that strong sanctions 
go back into place immediately. It took years to get in place the 
sanctions we have today. It was largely because of these sanctions that 
Iran was forced to come to the negotiating table. The sanctions are 
working. I would also like to address the notion that we either come to 
a deal or we resort to military action. This is a false choice. In 
fact, accepting a bad deal now will make military action more likely 
down the road. A bad deal will provide Iran with an influx of cash to 
continue sponsoring terrorism around the world, while failing to 
prevent them from ultimately obtaining a nuclear weapon when this deal 
expires.
  Like so many Montanans I have heard from, I truly hope negotiations 
are successful. However, I am concerned the that based on the framework 
agreement that we have seen so far, the final agreement will ultimately 
fail to safeguard our national security and prevent a nuclear-armed 
Iran. No deal is better than a bad deal. If the final agreement the 
President presents falls short of the requirements I have talked about 
today, I will not support it.
  Over the past month, we have now blown through four deadlines. It is 
starting to look like Groundhog Day in Vienna.


                             safe kids act

  Madam President, on a separate note, this past week the Senate began 
debating legislation about our Nation's educational system. In the same 
week, we learned more about a major data breach at the Office of 
Personnel Management, which put more than 21 million American's 
personnel information at risk. Those events and the policy debates 
bring to light an issue that often does not gather a lot of 
information; that is, protecting our student's personal information and 
data in the digital age.
  As a father of four, this issue is particularly personal to me. To 
date, countless schools across the United States utilize electronic 
records to update student information and transfer data from one school 
to another. But as the data is collected, it is important students' 
privacy is maintained and that the data is being stored safely and 
securely. In 2014, a working group was formed to address the issue of 
student data privacy. This group produced the Student Data Privacy 
Pledge, which intended to set self-imposed principles to ensure that 
information collected from students is kept both secure as well as 
private.
  This week, I will be introducing legislation called the SAFE KIDS 
Act, that builds on these ideas by empowering the Federal Trade 
Commission to oversee and enforce the collection, storage, and usage of 
covered information. This bill will put important reforms in place to 
protect students privacy, to establish greater security and 
transparency measures, and to encourage innovation among education 
technology providers, and better ensure accountability in keeping our 
students' information safe.
  As someone who spent more than 12 years in the technology sector, I 
am excited to see technology being used in innovative ways in our 
schools. As a father of four, I also want to ensure that there are 
proper safeguards in place to protect our kids' personal data in an 
increasingly data-driven world.
  I also want to thank Senator Blumenthal for joining me this week to 
introduce this important legislation to protect students' personal 
information and for his continued work on this issue. With that in 
mind, I will yield the floor so we can hear more from Senator 
Blumenthal on this most important issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I thank my colleague Senator Daines 
for his extraordinarily valuable work on this bipartisan bill, which 
will help protect students, help safeguard the privacy of young people, 
which would be considered separately from the measure now before us, 
the Every Child Achieves Act, which will strengthen the Federal 
Government's commitment to ensuring that every child has access to a 
high-quality education.
  The bill Senator Daines and I are offering ensures that every child 
is protected during their education from invasive and intrusive sharing 
and selling of highly private information about their educational 
progress--all kinds of sensitive, personal data that are accumulated 
and collected by school authorities and the companies that contract 
with them in the course of that child's education.
  When a parent signs a take-home form permitting their children to use 
a learning application in math class, for example, they have no 
assurance right now--none--regarding what information the app company 
will collect or how the app company will protect that information. That 
kind of very personal, identifiable, confidential information is 
inadequately protected in many school systems around the country. If 
that app company fails to protect the personal information of the 
student and their family, it could be stolen by hackers. It could be 
breached. We have seen how Federal files have

[[Page 11355]]

been breached on a scale that none of us would ever have imagined--
supposedly protected information--and we are talking about companies 
leaving vulnerable children's information potentially on the same 
scale--millions of children being at risk of their data being breached 
and stolen by hackers. But we are also talking about that information 
being bought and sold, exchanged by companies. The current protections 
against that commercial exploitation are inadequate. Children and their 
parents and their families deserve better protection of their privacy.
  It is a big business. It is a huge and burgeoning business for those 
companies. They may serve a very worthwhile purpose for many of those 
children and for many school authorities who need someone to organize 
and apply software to the raw information that is collected in test 
scores or other kinds of educational data. But it is not data that 
belongs to the companies; it belongs to the student and the school 
authorities, and it ought to be protected not only because of who owns 
it but because of whom it belongs to. It belongs to students as a 
matter of morality, not just legality.
  We are introducing student digital privacy legislation, the SAFE KIDS 
Act. This week Senator Daines and I will introduce it to establish 
strong and vital protections that will give parents the peace of mind 
they need and deserve. Our bill would prohibit companies from reselling 
student data--something corporations should never profit from doing. 
The SAFE KIDS Act would also prohibit companies from using student 
data, including a personal profile of a student, for any targeted 
advertising. This kind of marketing goes on in our society.
  Our legislation also requires companies that hold student data to 
enact
robust protections, such as proper encryption of that data, which will 
prevent the theft of personal information.
  Under our bill, parents are empowered to access their children's 
information, request corrections of any erroneous information, and 
request deletion of certain student data.
  Our bill charges the FTC with the responsibility to implement and 
enforce the SAFE KIDS Act, and it enables States to enact stronger, 
more demanding protections if they choose to do so. It establishes a 
floor, not a ceiling. It does not preempt stronger measures if States 
choose to move forward.
  This measure is in no way incompatible with the provision and 
amendment on which we will vote tonight that deals with another aspect 
of this issue in establishing a commission. I support that amendment. 
The commission would issue recommendations on a number of specific 
topics, such as preventing targeted advertising, limiting data 
retention, and providing parents with complete information. Those 
issues are complex, and they need the kinds of studies and research the 
commission would provide. And the results of that commission would help 
to inform the FTC regulations that would be issued under the SAFE KIDS 
Act that Senator Daines and I are introducing this week.
  I look forward to supporting the Hatch-Markey amendment, voting for 
it, and I urge my colleagues to support it and the SAFE KIDS Act 
because they enable a comprehensive approach to student privacy.
  Make no mistake--this data is in danger and so is the privacy of our 
students. In a world that has become enormously invasive and intrusive 
and where personal information is so much at risk, our students, 
children, and their families deserve this protection. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.


                   Background Checks and Gun Violence

  Madam President, I wish to talk for just a moment about the 
disclosure last week that Dylan Roof, the alleged killer of nine 
innocent people in Charleston, SC, was able to buy guns without first 
passing a background check. The reason, very simply, was the default-
to-proceed loophole in the law, which allows--but does not require--
firearms retailers to proceed with a gun sale after 3 days if an 
applicant's background check is still pending.
  Undoubtedly, more facts will come to light. Certain facts are unknown 
now as we speak, but the FBI acknowledges that a completed background 
check would have uncovered Dylan Roof's prior arrest on a drug charge 
and his drug addiction. Those discoveries would have barred him from 
purchasing the .45-caliber handgun he used to take nine lives in that 
unspeakable, horrific tragedy.
  In effect, Dylan Roof's exploitation of this loophole is not an 
anomaly. In the last 5 years, the default to proceed loophole has led 
firearms retailers to proceed with 15,729 gun sales to prohibited 
persons--people who were deemed ineligible to purchase a firearm once 
their background checks were completed. In effect, those 15,729 people 
were able to circumvent the law because of that loophole that enabled 
them to do so on a default to proceed after 3 days.
  After that default-to-proceed loophole is exploited, the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives then has the difficult, 
dangerous, and often impossible job to retrieve the firearms that are 
sold. In fact, it is often impossible to even expect that they can once 
those firearms are sold without proper recordkeeping or any 
recordkeeping. We make that job harder every day by underfunding and 
hamstringing the work of the ATF in our appropriations bills. That 
creates that impossible task for them.
  Responsible gun retailers can act today. The law allows retailers to 
decide whether to permit gun sales to proceed after that 3-day default 
period has elapsed. They have a duty to ensure that their products do 
not get into the hands of dangerous individuals. They have that moral 
duty. They have that social responsibility.
  In 2008, Walmart, which is the Nation's largest gun store, agreed not 
to transfer firearms without a background check even if the 3 days have 
passed without it. The short-term inconvenience to retailers is 
minimal. In the vast majority of cases, a background check is completed 
within minutes and the retailer knows whether they may proceed with the 
sale.
  After the horror visited on the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, no 
responsible gun retailer should give the benefit of the doubt and hand 
over a gun without a definitive completion of that background check.
  Over the weekend, my colleague Senator Murphy and I urged the Senate 
Judiciary Committee to immediately review this failure in our 
background check system and potential remedies, lest this legislative 
body's silence on the matter be taken as a consent on the repeated 
failures we have witnessed. In the long run, this system must be made 
as effective and error proof as possible, and it should be extended to 
sales not covered now by the law.
  As Senator Murphy and I and many of our colleagues in the Senate have 
urged consistently and repeatedly, the failure to adopt a 
comprehensive, universal background check system is inexcusable, but we 
also have to make sure loopholes in the current law are eliminated, as 
the FBI and the Department of Justice have recommended, by extending 
that 3-day time period and otherwise increasing the efficiency and 
effectiveness of the background check system.
  Senator Murphy and I will be taking additional steps to try to make 
it more effective. Gun retailers can step up in the meantime to stop 
dangerous people from getting their hands on dangerous weapons and 
taking lives--innocent lives--as happened in Charleston. They can, very 
simply, stop selling guns to people who have not passed that background 
check even if the 3 days have expired, even if that default period has 
come and gone. They can do that on their own.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues, including continuing 
the great work Senator Murphy and I have sought to do together in 
making America safer and better and improving our background check 
system and making sure commonsense, sensible gun violence prevention 
measures become the law of the land.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Maryland.

[[Page 11356]]


  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, first, I compliment the Senator from Connecticut on 
his initial statement related to student privacy. I think it is an 
essential element to clarify that privacy is meant to protect but not 
inadvertently inhibit our ability to give help to those who desperately 
need it.
  Certainly, I wish to associate myself with his remarks on doing 
something about the background check, the timely response. I think the 
massacre at Emanuel AME Church deeply troubled the Nation, and the very 
least that can come out of this is not only the flag coming down and 
all that meant, but other barriers to safety should come down as well. 
I want the Senator from Connecticut to know that he has my admiration 
and my support.


                      Protecting Federal Employees

  Mr. President, while we are waiting for the vote, in approximately 15 
minutes, I know Senator Kaine will be coming to the floor to talk about 
an important postsecondary education remediation reform, but I want to 
comment on the 21 million Federal employees whose personnel records 
have been hacked by--it looks like--a foreign government. I am not 
going to go into the who and the attributing of who did the hacking, 
but I do want to say that, first of all, those Federal employees need 
to feel they have a government on their side to now protect them. We 
should have protected them in the first place with the security of dot-
gov and certainly our personnel records.
  Now, in addition to a bill I have introduced and cosponsored with my 
colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin, where we have put in 
additional credit protection, credit monitoring, and liability 
protection, I have also sent a letter to the President today.
  The President of the United States is not only the Commander in Chief 
but he is the Chief Executive Officer of something called the U.S 
Government dot-gov, and therefore, OPM is his HR operation. With all 
due respect to our President, I have called upon him, on behalf of the 
300,000 Federal employees and Federal retirees who I have in my State, 
that they take additional and immediate action to provide lifetime 
credit monitoring, lifetime credit protection and unlimited liability, 
and that we also get a new contractor.
  I know we want to get a new contractor that does security checks, but 
I want a new contractor that is supposed to be answering the phone. I 
want a new contractor answering the phone and responding to my Federal 
employees, and I have conveyed that to the new Acting Director of OPM, 
Beth Cobert. I think she has a lot of skill and a lot of knowledge. I 
know she comes to the White House from the private sector, McKinsey & 
Company, but I conveyed to her that it is outrageous what is happening 
to Federal employees. They try to call to get help to find out what has 
happened to them, and they are on the phone for 1 hour or 2 hours, and 
when they finally make contact, they get disconnected.
  These are our Federal employees, who we count on, many of whom to 
protect the Nation--many of whom to protect the Nation. Our cyber 
shield is down to protect them, and we are also not protecting them in 
terms of our response to our cyber shield being down.
  Who are these Federal employees in Maryland? Well, first of all, they 
are people who work at the National Institutes of Health trying to find 
cures from dreaded diseases and all of the laboratory staff and so on 
who support them. Or they are over at FDA or they are over at Goddard 
Space Flight Center helping to manage the Hubble telescope. In addition 
to that, we have people involved in and also who are direct hands-on 
with national security.
  Maryland is the home to many Foreign Service officers. They not only 
have the information about their own Social Security numbers and their 
own health information but that of their spouses and their minor 
children. We are also the home to the National Security Agency. Most of 
the National Security Agency is made up of civilian DOD personnel with 
the highest of security clearances.
  So my feeling is we have to get in there really quickly to protect 
them. We have to also do something about this contractor--that he ups 
his game or we tell him up and out. Up your game or up and out.
  The third thing is the President really needs to convene an all-
hands-on-deck on how we are going to protect dot-gov in this country.
  There will be more to say about this bill and so on, but I see 
Senator Kaine is now on the floor to discuss and present his 
postsecondary remediation amendment, so I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Maryland, and I 
second the comments she has made about the status of our employees who 
have been jeopardized. I am excited to work together on the legislation 
introduced last Friday to provide them some protection.


                           Amendment No. 2118

  Mr. President, I do rise on behalf of an amendment that will be voted 
on within the next hour, Kaine amendment No. 2118, which is a 
bipartisan amendment to the Every Child Achieves Act. It is an 
amendment to promote career readiness indicators and make sure our 
students, when they finish high school, are not just ready for college 
but they are ready for careers.
  This is part of a series of amendments I have worked on in a 
bipartisan basis, some of which have been included in the underlying 
bill and one of which was passed as a floor amendment last week.
  I thank the managers, Senators Alexander and Murray, for working 
together to support this bipartisan amendment. We need to work to make 
sure we help all of our students graduate from high school ready for 
postsecondary education and the workforce.
  Over the past 40 years, the percentage of jobs that require some form 
of postsecondary education has doubled from 29 percent to now nearly 60 
percent, but the education system hasn't kept pace with the demand for 
a more highly educated and skilled workforce. More importantly, we need 
to define what that is--highly educated and skilled--to incorporate 
career and technical training, which, for a variety of reasons in the 
last generation or so, was sort of an undervalued part of the spectrum 
of American public education.
  Within a very few years--by 2020, when our pages are now going to be 
out in the workforce--two-thirds of jobs will require at least some 
form of postsecondary education. But projections demonstrate that as a 
nation we will fall short by nearly 5 million workers. We are already 
seeing these shortages and having to deal with them, for example, 
through specialty visas. That is fine for the economy, but wouldn't it 
be better if we could train those in school right now to be skilled in 
the areas where the jobs are needed?
  The career readiness amendment addresses this problem by 
encouraging--not requiring but encouraging--States to include in their 
accountability systems the types of indicators that demonstrate 
students are ready for postsecondary education and the workforce. These 
indicators would include State-designed measures to integrate rigorous 
academics, work-based learning and career and technical education, or 
technical skill attainment and placement. That will be the core of this 
bill.
  By doing this, we send a strong message to schools, businesses, 
parents, and students that it is critical to be prepared for the 
workforce of the 21st century regardless of postsecondary education 
plans. As I have talked to educators, counselors, and parents, they 
have often commented upon the degree to which career and technical 
training has sort of been downgraded and that students aren't 
encouraged in that area, even though there are great professions to 
achieve in this area.
  Under the amendment, schools and districts would have an incentive to 
partner with businesses and industries to provide career pathways for 
students. It is important for State accountability systems. I say this 
as a

[[Page 11357]]

Virginian who is very proud of the Virginia accountability system. It 
is currently kind of managed by my wife, who is the secretary of 
education in Virginia. But it is important for these systems to measure 
and reward schools for helping students earn industry-recognized 
credentials or earn credit for college while in high school.
  Just as an example, if you are a Virginia student and you take the 
Virginia Standards of Learning Test and you pass, that doesn't 
necessarily mean anything in North Carolina, and much less Oregon. But 
if you are a Virginia high school student and you pass a Cisco Systems 
administrator exam, you can take that credential, move to Oregon and 
get a job tomorrow. These industry credentials are, in many ways, more 
known, more valued, and more portable than high school credentials 
State by State.
  Schools across the country are providing this kind of important 
learning opportunity. Here are just two examples, and then I will 
conclude. In Alexandria, just across the Potomac, the Academy of 
Finance at T.C. Williams High School instructs students in money 
management skills, financial planning, and business development. 
Students complete a 3-year sequential program, start working at an on-
site credit union in the school, and they get early college credit for 
that financial literacy.
  At the other end of the State--in southwest Virginia, in Vinton, near 
the city of Roanoke--William Byrd High School, after struggling during 
the 1990s to prepare students for college and career, sought input from 
nearby businesses and implemented programs in engineering, 
communication, business, and marketing to match local job needs. These 
partnerships are helpful in helping students find jobs, and they have 
also engendered student interest in the curriculum. The school has a 
90-percent graduation rate, and 83 percent of students go on to 
postsecondary education.
  I want to thank Senators Portman and Baldwin--I think Senator Portman 
was planning on speaking, and may still--for their involvement and 
working together with me on this particular amendment and on the Senate 
CTE Caucus.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan initiative, and 
again, I thank the bill managers for working together with us.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Capito). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to 
make a presentation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2080

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise in support of an amendment I have 
offered along with my friend, the junior Senator from Massachusetts. 
This amendment advances an important priority: protecting student 
privacy in an era of vast data collection and tenuous security 
protections.
  Advances in education technology are revolutionizing the way students 
learn in today's classroom. Going forward, it is important to balance 
the need for innovation to allow students to take advantage of the new 
learning tools with the need to make sure children's private 
information is protected. We must also ensure continuing to improve 
education through research, while not necessarily allowing researchers 
and their employers access to sensitive data.
  To this end, our amendment sets up a commission to come back with 
recommendations for how to update our outdated Federal education 
privacy law. The commission's membership consists of experts, parents, 
teachers, technology professionals, researchers, and State officials--a 
broad array of leaders capable of providing diverse perspectives on 
these issues. Within 270 days, the commission is required to report to 
Congress on the current mechanisms for transparency, parental 
involvement, research usage, and third-party vendor usage as well as 
provide recommendations on how to improve the law to better protect 
students. As we seek to identify the best ways of protecting student 
data, this commission will serve to outline some commonsense and 
effective options for reform that we ought to consider.
  This amendment has received support from a wide variety of 
organizations from Microsoft to the National PTA to the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, demonstrating how this is a commonsense, bipartisan idea that 
we can all support. I urge my colleagues to support this important 
innovation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Under the previous order, the 
question now occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 2080, offered by the 
Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, for Mr. Hatch.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), 
the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Illinois 
(Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator 
from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), 
and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 231 Leg.]

                                YEAS--89

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

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blunt
     Cruz
     Graham
     Kirk
     Murkowski
     Nelson
     Paul
     Risch
     Rubio
     Toomey
     Vitter
  The amendment (No. 2080) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2118

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on agreeing to amendment No. 2118, offered by the Senator from 
Washington, Mrs. Murray, for Mr. Kaine.
  The amendment (No. 2118) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, there has been some conversation on 
the floor. We are working out the order of proceeding.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wicker and Senator Shaheen be 
recognized first for a colloquy, followed by remarks by Senator Brown, 
followed by remarks by myself, followed by remarks by Senator Baldwin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page 11358]]


  Mr. ALEXANDER. Reserving the right to object, I ask the Presiding 
Officer, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, we are still on the bill.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Shaheen and I be allowed to enter into a colloquy concerning the 20th 
anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              20th Anniversary of the Srebrenica Massacre

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from New 
Hampshire today to speak about a moving and important commemoration 
that she and I attended over the weekend. We were part of the U.S. 
delegation led by former President Bill Clinton that traveled to Bosnia 
and Herzegovina to remember the victims of the Srebrenica massacre 20 
years ago. We were honored to be joined in this delegation by 
Representative Peter King from New York, and I think it is significant 
that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was part of that 
delegation.
  On July 11, 1995, more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys were 
brutalized and murdered by Serbian forces that overran a United Nations 
safe haven during the Bosnian war. It was the worst massacre on 
European soil since the horrors of World War II.
  Today, Senator Shaheen and I wear green and white flowers on our 
lapels. These flowers were crocheted by Srebrenica mothers and widows 
in remembrance of the lives that were lost 20 years ago. The white is 
said to symbolize innocence, and the green represents hope. It is said 
to be significant that the center is green because hope remains central 
to the country's future and to the region's future.
  Two decades provide us with a helpful benchmark for reflecting on the 
progress that has been made and on the progress that needs to be made. 
The decades have certainly not erased the deep scars left by the 
atrocities at Srebrenica, but the hurt continues to heal.
  International courts have recognized the massacre as a genocide, and 
a number of the perpetrators have been imprisoned. Peace is now present 
in the Western Balkans and we need to do what we can to help maintain 
this peace. The Bosnian and Herzegovinian leadership is now applying 
for membership in the European Union. We wish them well in making the 
progress that will be necessary to attain this status.
  Tough decisions still need to be made by the leadership, by the 
Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina with regard to governance, 
corruption, and combating extremes. There is still way too much 
rhetoric that centers on ethnicity and continues to divide Bosnians 
rather than unite them. But we can celebrate the fact that this region 
is no longer home to the suffering and violence that predated the 
historic Dayton Accords, and we can celebrate the contribution and 
achievement of the Americans in reaching the Dayton Accords and in 
getting us to where we are now with two decades of peace.
  I know that these views are shared by my colleague from New 
Hampshire. At this point, perhaps she would like to join in this 
colloquy.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I would like to join Senator Wicker from 
Mississippi in talking about what we saw and heard when we were in 
Bosnia.
  Unfortunately, the story that came out about that inspiring 
commemoration was about the attack by some of the Bosniaks who were 
attending on the Serbian Prime Minister, Aleksandar Vucic, who had 
attended the ceremony.
  But the larger story was one of reconciliation. The Bosniak mayor of 
Srebrenica, Camil Durakovic, condemned the attackers, and he was joined 
by the Tripartite Presidents in condemning the attackers. After the 
attack, the Serbian Prime Minister said that it should not distract 
attention from the innocent victims of Srebrenica. He said that his 
``arms of reconciliation remain stretched towards the Bosniaks.'' 
Fortunately, we heard the same from the mayor of Srebrenica, who 
actually had invited the Prime Minister.
  I am very proud of Mayor Durakovic because he is actually a Bosnian-
American whose family fled from Srebrenica in July of 1995, and they 
settled in New Hampshire. He went to high school there, and he got a 
degree from Southern New Hampshire University. He returned to 
Srebrenica in 2005 and was elected mayor in 2012.
  Aside from that isolated, unfortunate incident with the Prime 
Minister, the ceremony was a solemn tribute and remembrance to the 
victims of Srebrenica. There was a spirit of unity and harmony. The 
theme again and again was of reconciliation.
  As my colleague points out, it is particularly important for us to 
continue to support this reconciliation, for us to continue to support 
Bosnia and Herzegovina and their efforts to continue to look west to 
join the EU. Across many centuries, the Balkans has been a flashpoint 
for conflicts that have spread to the rest of Europe and the entire 
world. In fact, 101 years ago next month, World War I began with the 
assassination of Archduke Ferdinand right in Sarajevo. We walked by the 
block where he was assassinated.
  As we have seen most recently in Greece and as we are seeing in the 
Balkans and in other countries in Eastern Europe, the Russians are 
quick to exploit any trouble in the southeast corner of Europe in order 
to spread their influence and destabilize the West. Wouldn't my 
colleague agree that it is important for us in the United States to 
join the EU in supporting the Bosniaks, the Serbs, the Croatians, the 
Muslims, the Orthodox Christians, and the Roman Catholics so that they 
can come together and show the world that we really can create a multi-
ethnic, multi-sectarian state that can serve as a model for the Middle 
East and for countries around the world?
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I do agree. I would contrast the 
magnanimous statements of the Tripresidency and the gesture of the 
Serbian President in attending with the disappointing actions of the 
Russian leadership, under the leadership of President Putin, in 
actually vetoing a Security Council resolution simply to commemorate 
the 20th anniversary as a genocide. Russia refused to accept a well-
established fact, confirmed by international courts such as the 
International Court of Justice, such as the International Criminal 
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. They vetoed--they were the only 
vote against it, but it acted as a veto--thus keeping the United 
Nations officially from going on record as saying this was a genocide 
and that these acts should be condemned. Such defiance is a disservice 
not only to the victims at Srebrenica but also to relations in the area 
going forward. I would just contrast that with the very brave step on 
the part of the Serbian President, coming to Srebrenica and being part 
of the commemorative ceremony.
  I will tell my colleagues that former President Clinton spoke on 
behalf of this Republican and spoke on behalf of Democrats alike, 
making a very instructive and constructive address at the occasion, 
specifically commending the Serbian President.
  I would say, with regard to the rock throwing incident and what the 
President of Serbia actually did, his glasses were broken, and he and 
members of his delegation were brought to their knees. I would say that 
if the 50 or so people who threw those rocks had heard the remarks 
inside the ceremony, perhaps they would not have felt so bitter as to 
throw those rocks. I know there are wounds that need to be healed. But 
I think the conciliatory words inside, if they had been broadcast to 
the entire crowd, would have perhaps caused that incident, which got 
all the publicity, not to happen.
  This was about 50 people causing a disturbance in a crowd of, I would 
say, about 5,000 people gathered outside. It was a very important 
ceremony--actually, a funeral, you might say.
  So I would have to just say that the Russian leadership really should 
be

[[Page 11359]]

ashamed of standing in the way of international recognition of this 
genocide. They thought they were doing their Serbian neighbors a favor, 
but, on the other hand, the Serbian President stepped forward in a very 
brave way to create unity in this region, and I think my colleague 
would agree with that.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Absolutely, and I know Senator Wicker shared my 
gratitude as we walked through the streets of Sarajevo and as we met 
people in Srebrenica for the appreciation they showed the United States 
for our actions in helping to end that awful war in Bosnia and for our 
actions in supporting Bosnia as they try to look westward and as they 
try to keep their country moving forward, addressing the corruption and 
the democracy issues they face. I think it is in our interest as 
Americans to support those efforts to help them, as they continue to 
move their country forward, in every way we can.
  Mr. WICKER. The Senator from New Hampshire is exactly right. It is in 
the United States' interest that we care about the Balkans, that we 
care about Bosnia and Herzegovina. We owe it to the U.S. troops who 
were deployed there in 1995 and later, who kept the peace and made it 
work. There is no country on the face of the Earth that could have done 
that but the United States of America. We owe it to the memory of the 
leadership, not only of President Clinton, who basically hosted the 
Dayton Accords in the United States of America, but also Republicans 
such as Speaker Gingrich. It was Gingrich and Clinton who joined 
together and convinced this government to support the Dayton Agreement 
and support the necessary deployment to make sure this worked.
  As the Senator pointed out, we owe it to history going forward to 
remember that World War I broke out in Sarajevo, that the events 
leading up to World War II largely occurred in the Balkans, and to do 
what we can in the interest of U.S. citizens to say that this will not 
again be a flashpoint for conflict in Europe and conflict 
internationally.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I know the Senator shares my views that we owe it to 
the victims of Srebrenica. I look forward to continuing to work with 
Senator Wicker to do everything we can to support the efforts in Bosnia 
and Herzegovina.
  Mr. WICKER. I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis to make 
sure that this peace holds, to make sure that progress is made on the 
ethnic issues--that we give Bosnians and Herzegovinians every reason to 
continue to want to embrace Europe and to embrace the United States and 
to embrace fairness and anticorruption and all the work that it is 
going to take there.
  I appreciate the delegation. I appreciate Secretary Albright. I 
appreciate President Clinton leading the delegation. And I appreciate 
the indulgence of our fellow Senators in hearing this colloquy.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                   American Workers and Overtime Pay

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, too many Americans are still struggling in 
today's economy. Despite comments by some candidates for President, 
Americans work hard but still have trouble getting by. We know that 
Americans on average are working longer hours than workers in almost 
every other rich country in the world--significantly longer hours. 
Simply, they are not getting the pay they have earned and the 
compensation and the lifestyle to which they aspire and have worked so 
hard toward.
  For many workers, it feels as though the harder and longer they work, 
the less they have to show for it. And they are not imagining things. 
Since the 1970s, middle class wages have been stagnant while the number 
of hours spent on the job has gone up. In short, Americans are working 
more for less.
  The middle class has shrunk in every State in this country. The Pew 
Research Center studies show that the share of adults in middle-income 
households has fallen from 61 percent in 1970 to 51 percent in 2013. In 
Ohio the share of families that are middle class is now below 50 
percent. We need to do more to build on-ramps for middle-class hard-
working Americans instead of saying that Americans are not working hard 
enough, instead of asking workers to do more and more for less money.
  It is not uncommon today for salaried workers--salaried workers, not 
millionaire salaried workers but lower income and middle-income 
salaried workers--to work 50-, 60-, 70-hour weeks without getting a 
cent in overtime. When workers put in extra time, it should be 
reflected in their paychecks. Right now a number of employers are 
gaming the system to avoid paying overtime, and American workers are 
losing wages as a result.
  It is past time for overtime hours to mean overtime pay again. That 
is why my colleagues and I sent a letter to the President earlier this 
year urging the administration to restore the strength of overtime 
payrolls. Forty years ago, we as a nation decided that most workers, 
whether they were paid hourly or a salary, should receive overtime pay 
when working more than 40 hours a week, but the teeth in that law have 
been eroded. The strength of that law, the power of that law, and the 
effectiveness of that law have been eroded over the past 40 years.
  In 1975, 65 percent of all salaried workers were covered by overtime 
pay rules. Currently, just 8 percent of salaried workers are covered. 
That could be a night manager in a fast food restaurant making $30,000 
a year classified as management--classified because that person is 
salaried--and asked to work more than 40 hours and still only making 
$30,000 a year. So 40 years ago, 65 percent of salaried workers would 
have been paid time and a half for those extra hours beyond 40 for that 
night manager, but today they don't get paid over time. They may work 
50 hours, they may work 60 hours, but they simply are not compensated 
for it.
  The salary threshold of $23,600 a year has remained static for 
decades because it hasn't been indexed for inflation. So in 1975, 
somebody making $23,000 a year was paid overtime for beyond 40 hours. 
Today someone making $23,000 a year isn't. If they are making $30,000 
or $40,000, they aren't paid overtime. So we see what has happened. The 
salary threshold was put in place to exempt highly paid executives, but 
because it hasn't increased in 40 years--they didn't build an inflation 
number into it or a cost of living adjustment--instead of hitting CEOs 
and lawyers who shouldn't get paid overtime in hours excess of 40, 
workers earning as little as $455 a week now go without overtime pay 
just because they are salaried and just because they are called 
management. It allows employers the opportunity to put somebody on 
salary, work them many more hours, and then fail to compensate them.
  The current threshold is now so low that it is below the poverty line 
for a family of four. So a salaried worker making a few dollars below 
the poverty line and working 50 or 60 hours doesn't get paid overtime. 
That is actually what has happened. The American public is starting to 
understand this, and that is why so many people are calling on the 
President to do this.
  Overtime pay should be available to everyone who puts in the extra 
time--not just those earning a poverty level wage. That is why I 
applaud the Department of Labor's proposed rule that would strengthen 
overtime standards and take them back--not quite even as good, but we 
are pretty satisfied with this--to the 1975 level. The new rule will 
more than double the salary threshold for earning overtime pay from 
$23,000 annually to $50,000. That would mean that 40 percent of 
salaried workers are now eligible for overtime. In my State, as a 
result of this rule, 160,000 Ohioans would get a raise, as would 5 
million Americans in States such as Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, 
and all over this country.
  This means more money in the pockets of American workers. The rule 
proposes lengthening the threshold to the 40th percentile of income for 
full-time salaried workers instead of setting a raw number. This means 
that the strength of the rule is less likely to erode over time. Not 
only will this rule

[[Page 11360]]

help families make ends meet, it also boosts consumer spending, creates 
jobs, and bolsters the American economy.
  Just like raising the minimum wage, when more money is put in the 
pocket of somebody making $8 an hour or $9 an hour or when you put more 
money in the pocket of a midlevel manager making $30,000 a year in a 
fast-food restaurant--if you put more money in their pocket--they are 
going to spend that money. They are not going to invest that money in a 
Swiss bank account. They are going to spend that money in the 
community, buy more groceries, go into the hardware stores and do more 
to fix up their houses and do more to generate economic activity and 
create jobs for our economy.
  But there is still more we need to do to support American workers. 
This is an important step toward building our middle class. There is 
still more we need to do to support American workers. We need to give 
hourly workers a raise by raising the minimum wage. The legislation a 
number of us on the floor have worked on, the Raise the Wage Act, would 
increase the minimum wage incrementally to $12 an hour by 2020, giving 
a raise to 1 million Ohioans, 28 million people across the country--1 
million Ohioans.
  Tipped workers shouldn't have to struggle to get by. They deserve to 
earn a living wage to help put food on the table. Lots of people in 
this body are unaware, as some Americans are. People here should be 
more aware of it, but people here tend not to know people that work in 
diners. People who work in diners as waitresses and waiters in diners 
can be paid as little as $2.13 an hour. The minimum wage for working in 
a diner in a so-called tipped wage or for the people who push 
wheelchairs in airports or in some case for many other kinds of jobs is 
$2.13 an hour. It is not $7.25, which is the minimum wage for everyone 
else. That is why we need to move on raising the minimum wage, on 
bringing the tipped wage up to at least 70 percent of the minimum wage.
  Workers will be happier and they will be more productive when they 
are healthy, when they are making decent salaries, making a little bit 
better wages. Americans also deserve a day off when they get sick. 
Forty-three million Americans--2 million in my State--have no paid sick 
leave at all. They are faced with impossible choices. Do they stay home 
to care for a sick child or go to work so they can put food on the 
table?
  Workers are happier and more productive when they are healthy. 
Guaranteeing paid sick leave would save precious health care resources, 
it would give employers safe and stable workplaces, and it would give 
families peace of mind. It would mean that workers are not going to 
work when they are sick, infecting other workers and affecting 
productivity and profits at that business. That is why we should pass 
the Healthy Family Act. Overtime is important. Minimum wage is 
important. The Healthy Family Act for sick leave days is important. All 
are steps that we need to support hard-working American families.
  We know what has happened in the economy the last 10 years. We know 
the wealthiest 5 percent are doing better and better and better. 
Profits are up for companies. Executives are making bigger and bigger 
bonuses. But working class, lower-middle-class workers are simply not 
getting ahead or even able to tread water to stay even, for that 
matter. The minimum wage will help, paying overtime will help, and the 
Healthy Family Act will help.
  The Toledo Blade put it well last week: ``America's widening income 
gap isn't an inescapable outcome of the free market, but a political 
choice that can be mitigated with intelligent public policies.''
  This is a political choice. We have seen this body and the body on 
the other side of the Capitol continue to give more tax cuts for the 
wealthiest Americans. We won't invest in infrastructure, we won't 
invest in working families, we won't help raise wages, we won't help 
with overtime, and we won't help with workers who just need a few sick 
days off, as people in bodies such as this typically have.
  I urge the Department of Labor to finalize their strong overtime 
proposal as quickly as possible. It will make a huge difference in the 
lives of millions of Americans.
  With that, I yield back.


 20th Anniversary of the Normalization of Diplomatic Relations Between 
                     the United States and Vietnam

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here to recognize a historic 
milestone: the 20th anniversary of the normalization of diplomatic 
relations between the United States and Vietnam. This occasion has some 
personal significance for me and my family. My father served as Deputy 
Ambassador to Vietnam; in effect, the chief operating officer of that 
conflict. I lived with him in that country for several months during 
the Vietnam war. If he were alive today, he would be proud of the work 
both countries have done to reconcile our past.
  It took immense courage on both sides to look beyond the scars of 
that war and envision a future in which our two countries could become 
partners and friends. No one embodies this courage more than our friend 
John McCain, who played a major role in establishing diplomatic 
relations between our two countries, and Secretary of State John Kerry, 
then a Senator, who was his Democratic partner.
  Given Senator McCain's experience as a prisoner in Vietnam, his 
subsequent efforts to strengthen the peace and forgiveness between our 
two Nations are an enduring inspiration, the power of which I was 
privileged to see firsthand when I traveled with Senator McCain to 
Hanoi in 2012 and 2014.
  Senator McCain said 20 years ago, ``I believe it is my duty to 
encourage this country to build from the losses and the hopes of our 
tragic war in Vietnam a better peace for both the American and the 
Vietnamese people.''
  Today, the American and the Vietnamese people can be proud of the 
progress made to forge a lasting peace and friendship. Two years ago, 
President Obama and Vietnamese President Truong Tan Sang launched the 
U.S.-Vietnam Comprehensive Partnership, opening a new phase of 
bilateral relations between our nations based on mutual respect and 
common interests. I met recently with Nguyen Phu Trong, the General 
Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam to 
discuss our shared interests and opportunities for closer collaboration 
on a range of issues, including regional stability, economic 
cooperation, and the lingering human and environmental consequences of 
that war.
  I had the honor of meeting with General Secretary Trong while 
traveling to Vietnam with Senator McCain last summer. I am pleased he 
has made this historic visit to the United States. I am hopeful Vietnam 
will bring our interests and values into closer alignment, particularly 
on human rights, the rights of civil society, transparency, and good 
governance issues.
  To that end, I look forward to working together to achieve closer 
ties. As the United States and Vietnam continue to deepen our 
relationship, we should continue to address the legacies of that war, 
particularly the health effects and environmental contamination 
associated with Agent Orange and other herbicides. Here at home, we 
take our commitment to caring for our veterans very seriously. Although 
the war has ended, many American veterans and their families still 
battle a range of health problems and serious diseases associated with 
their service in Vietnam.
  We must ensure that veterans get the care they need to combat the 
long-term health problems related to exposure to Agent Orange. Those 
contamination and health problems are also serious in Vietnam. I am 
grateful for Senator Leahy's leadership on the Appropriations 
Committee, which has enabled the United States to pursue remediation 
projects to clean up the dioxin contamination at Da Nang International 
Airport and other hot spots and to support related health and 
disability programs.
  I urge all of us that we continue to support these initiatives which 
strengthen our bilateral relationship.

[[Page 11361]]

Considerable work remains. According to initial assessments of Bien Hoa 
Air Base, the contamination there is more severe and cleanup is 
expected to be more complex and costly than at Da Nang. In addition, 
health-related problems and disabilities persist in areas sprayed with 
Agent Orange or otherwise contaminated by dioxin.
  In 2008, actor, advocate, and long-time friend Dick Hughes brought 
this issue closely to my attention and he has shared with me compelling 
stories about Vietnamese families who have been affected by diseases 
and disabilities related to Agent Orange exposure. Some of the 
suffering ascribed to Agent Orange has been harrowing and 
heartbreaking. Dick has years of experience working on humanitarian 
issues in Vietnam and is a compelling witness to that suffering.
  We first met when I was a teenager in Saigon and Dick had established 
a program called the Shoeshine Boys Project, to care for homeless 
children who had been orphaned or left alone during the war. He brought 
them together and sent them on the streets with shoeshine boxes as a 
way of making a living and finding something they could do and provided 
them care and a home when they came home at nightfall.
  Over 8 years, that project helped thousands of children in cities all 
across Vietnam. Dick attributes the success of that project to close 
partnerships forged with local communities and the project's management 
by Vietnamese citizens. When Dick returned to the United States, he 
continued to advocate for postwar humanitarian causes and he started a 
foundation to raise awareness about the effects of Agent Orange on the 
Vietnamese population. Dick remains a trusted friend and tireless 
advocate to the Vietnamese people.
  As our two countries work together on a new and more engaged future, 
we should expand our efforts to improve the health and well-being of 
the Vietnamese people. We can learn from Dick's experience about the 
power of partnership and the value of local leadership, and together we 
can continue to repair the damage--physical, psychological, and 
political--of the path we share.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                           Amendment No. 2093

  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Student 
Non-Discrimination Act, which Senator Franken is offering as an 
amendment to the Every Child Achieves Act. The Student Non-
Discrimination Act would help protect our students from bullying, 
harassment, and discrimination. I am a proud cosponsor of this 
amendment and hopeful the Senate will agree to this amendment this 
week.
  As we consider the Every Child Achieves Act, as we did in committee 
back in April, and as we have discussed it on the floor over the last 
week, I have been guided by a core principle: that this law should 
ensure that every child, regardless of his or her background, 
regardless of his or her family's income, has access to the 
opportunities provided by a great education, a high-quality education.
  Now, part of providing that opportunity is ensuring that every 
student is able to come to school and succeed in an environment that is 
safe, supportive, and free from discrimination. While the Every Child 
Achieves Act helps advance opportunity for students in numerous ways, 
it falls short in addressing a significant problem limiting the 
achievement of some of our most vulnerable students.
  Unfortunately, there are still far too many stories of harassment, of 
bullying, and of discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and 
transgender students at the hands of their peers but also, sadly, 
sometimes at the hands of their teachers or administrators as well. 
There remains no Federal law that explicitly protects these students 
and provides them and their families with recourse when they face 
bullying and harassment that limits their educational opportunities.
  No student can achieve if he cannot feel safe at school. No student 
will excel if she spends each day in fear of just being herself. I hear 
from so many students in my State about the need for us to stand up 
against bullying. For example, a young woman in Madison wrote to me, 
and I quote from her letter:

       [A]s a student myself, I hear the words ``gay'', ``faggot, 
     ``queer'' and others get tossed around . . . daily, and I do 
     what I can to deter these words from being used in negative 
     ways by others, but one voice can't make much of a 
     difference. . . . I'm asking you to help raise awareness in 
     schools anyway that you can.

  I would tell this young woman in Madison that her voice speaking out 
on this matter can make a difference. Another young woman from 
Kimberly, WI, contacted me about her friend who committed suicide after 
suffering bullying. She wrote:

       He made everyone else come alive and be the better people 
     that they were inside. But he killed himself because he 
     thought he had no way out of the pain, no way to make those 
     kids stop, other than to make sure he was not living anymore.

  Across the country, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender or LGBT 
youth experience bullying harassment at school more frequently than 
their non-LGBT peers. According to a national survey by the Gay, 
Lesbian & Straight Education Network, in the past year, nearly three-
quarters of students were verbally harassed and more than 16 percent 
were physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation.
  More than 60 percent of students who reported an incident of 
harassment said that school staff did nothing in response. It is 
unsurprising, then, that nearly one-third of students reported missing 
school at least once in the last month because they did not feel safe. 
I believe we must fix this immediately. That is why I support including 
Senator Franken's Student Non-Discrimination Act as an amendment to the 
Every Child Achieves Act currently being debated before the Senate. 
Senator Franken's amendment would provide real and strong protections 
for LGBT students in public, elementary, and secondary schools. It 
would also provide recourse through the Department of Education and, if 
necessary, in the courts to help students vindicate their rights.
  This amendment is closely modeled on existing Federal education 
protections, which have helped ensure that students have remedies when 
they face unfair treatment based on race, ethnicity, sex, and 
disability. LGBT students are just as deserving of the opportunity to 
succeed in the school environment that is supportive and nurturing 
rather than discriminatory and unwelcoming.
  If we are truly to ensure through this legislation that every child 
achieves, we must act to address the bullying, harassment, and 
discrimination that limits educational opportunities of too many 
students. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for 
the Alexander substitute amendment No. 2089.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The senior assistant 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 Alexander 
     amendment No. 2089 to S. 1177, an original bill to 
     reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 to ensure that every child achieves.
         Mitch McConnell, Orrin G. Hatch, Lamar Alexander, Cory 
           Gardner, Steve Daines, Pat Roberts, Johnny Isakson, 
           Susan M. Collins, Michael B. Enzi, Kelly Ayotte, John 
           Cornyn, Lisa Murkowski, Tim Scott, Richard Burr, Thom 
           Tillis, Lindsey Graham, John Hoeven.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for 
the underlying bill, S. 1177.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented

[[Page 11362]]

under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The senior assistant 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 S. 1177, an 
     original bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 to ensure that every child achieves.
         Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Pat Roberts, Lamar 
           Alexander, Cory Gardner, Steve Daines, Johnny Isakson, 
           Susan M. Collins, Michael B. Enzi, Kelly Ayotte, John 
           Cornyn, Orrin G. Hatch, Richard Burr, Thom Tillis, 
           Lindsey Graham, John Hoeven, Bill Cassidy.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum calls under rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate with respect to the cloture motions be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________