[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11685-11702]
[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 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 Coons/Rubio) amendment No. 2243 (to amendment 
     No. 2089), to authorize the establishment of American Dream 
     Accounts.
       Alexander (for Cruz/Lee) amendment No. 2180 (to amendment 
     No. 2089), to provide for State-determined assessment and 
     accountability systems.
       Alexander (for Hatch/Bennet) amendment No. 2082 (to 
     amendment No. 2089), to amend the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 relating to early learning.
       Murray (for Warren) amendment No. 2106 (to amendment No. 
     2089), to amend title II of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 to include specialized instructional 
     support personnel in the literacy development of children.
       Alexander (for Burr/Bennet) modified amendment No. 2247 (to 
     amendment No. 2089), to amend the allocation of funds under 
     subpart 2 of part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       Murray (for Murphy) amendment No. 2186 (to amendment No. 
     2089), to establish the Promise Neighborhoods program.
       Murray (for Brown/Manchin) amendment No. 2100 (to amendment 
     No. 2089), to amend title V of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 to establish a full-service community 
     schools grant program.
       Murray (for Sanders) amendment No. 2177 (to amendment No. 
     2089), to provide for youth jobs.
       Murray (for Casey) amendment No. 2242 (to amendment No. 
     2089), to establish a Federal-State partnership to provide 
     access to high-quality public prekindergarten programs from 
     low-income and moderate-income families to ensure that they 
     enter kindergarten prepared for success.
       Murray (for Schatz) amendment No. 2130 (to amendment No. 
     2089), to amend title I to support assessments of school 
     facilities.
       Murray (for Nelson) modified amendment No. 2215 (to 
     amendment No. 2089), to include

[[Page 11686]]

     partnering with current and recently retired STEM 
     professionals and tailoring educational resources to engage 
     students and teachers in STEM.
       Murray (for Manchin/Ayotte) amendment No. 2222 (to 
     amendment No. 2089), to amend the State plan requirements of 
     section 1111 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 in order to support children facing substance abuse in 
     the home.
       Alexander (for Boozman/Gillibrand) amendment No. 2231 (to 
     amendment No. 2089), to support professional development to 
     help students prepare for postsecondary education and the 
     workforce.
       Murray (for Baldwin/Whitehouse) amendment No. 2188 (to 
     amendment No. 2089), to ensure States will ensure the unique 
     needs of students at all levels of schooling.
       Alexander (for Capito/Durbin) amendment No. 2156 (to 
     amendment No. 2089), to amend the State report card under 
     section 1111 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 to include the rates of enrollment in postsecondary 
     education, and remediation rates, for high schools.
       Alexander (for Thune) amendment No. 2232 (to amendment No. 
     2089), to allow extended services Project SERV grants under 
     part A of title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 to be available for violence prevention 
     activities.
       Murray (for King/Capito) amendment No. 2256 (to amendment 
     No. 2089), to amend the definitions of eligible technology 
     and technology readiness survey and to provide a restriction 
     on funds.
       Murray (for Schatz) amendment No. 2240 (to amendment No. 
     2089), to provide resources needed to study and review Native 
     American language medium schools and programs.
       Murray (for Warren/Gardner) amendment No. 2249 (to 
     amendment No. 2089), to amend section 1111(c) of the ESEA to 
     require States to provide an assurance regarding cross-
     tabulation of student data.

  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. AYOTTE. 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. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to speak 
about the bill that we have pending on the floor, a law that is long 
past due for reexamination and reauthorization, the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act.
  This law was last updated in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind Act. 
Fourteen years is far too long to go without updating the primary law 
focused on an issue that is so important to the future of our country, 
ensuring that children in New Hampshire and across this country receive 
a high-quality education.
  I am the mother of a 7-year-old and 10-year-old, and this could not 
be a more important issue to me and to, I know, other mothers across 
the country. Many parents, teachers, and school leaders in New 
Hampshire have expressed to me their concerns about No Child Left 
Behind, and so it is past time for us to update and improve this law.
  I believe education decisions are best made locally, including 
decisions about school curriculum and how education dollars are spent. 
While its goals of accountability were very important and laudable, No 
Child Left Behind, unfortunately, imposed a one-size-fits-all regime on 
every school in every State in this country.
  No Child Left Behind imposed unworkable mandates and unreasonable 
goals that led many schools in America to be labeled as failing, with 
no reasonable way to get off the failing list. Congress's inaction, up 
to this point has led to a system where the Federal Secretary of 
Education can dictate to States what priorities they must set in order 
to receive a conditional waiver from parts of this law.
  This Senate's bipartisan education reform bill, the Every Child 
Achieves Act that is on the floor right now, would return 
decisionmaking on education to where it belongs, back to States, local 
schools, teachers, and parents.
  I wish to thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray of the 
HELP Committee for conducting an open debate on this critically 
important legislation and working together. I am encouraged that 
Republicans and Democrats worked together and overcame disagreements to 
move this important legislation forward. That is how the Senate should 
work and that is what the American people deserve from their elected 
representatives.
  Like all Granite Staters, I want children in our State and across our 
country to have even better opportunities than our generation has had, 
and the foundation for future success starts with a quality education. 
Every parent knows that, and that is why this is such an important 
topic that we have been debating on this floor.
  Granite Staters have shared with me some of the biggest challenges 
facing our students because of No Child Left Behind, and the Every 
Child Achieves Act seeks to address them. For example, as I mentioned, 
No Child Left Behind created a one-size-fits-all system that ignored 
differences between different parts of the country and primarily used 
tests as the measure of accountability at the expense of other 
important measures of success, such as student progress, attendance and 
graduation rates, parent and teacher engagement, among others.
  We have seen what happened under this law over the last decade. 
Schools are overtesting and educators are teaching for the test as 
opposed to making sure our children really learn the topic matter. That 
is not how we should be educating our young people. We want to make 
sure they have a firm understanding of the concepts they are learning 
in school.
  The Every Child Achieves Act restores these powers to the States. It 
makes sure States have the flexibility they need to develop their own 
ways to test and measure accountability. I know from our local 
communities and our local school boards that they are focused every 
single day in their own communities on making sure their communities 
are delivering the best quality education and understand the geography 
and the different challenges facing their communities, and it is 
important we restore that decisionmaking to them.
  This bill will let States decide how to measure student achievement 
and school success within their own borders. What might be right and 
work for North Dakota may not be the right approach for a State like 
New Hampshire, and so this allows each State and locality to engage on 
what is best for the State.
  The Every Child Achieves Act also prohibits Washington from mandating 
or incentivizing any States to adopt any particular curriculum 
standards, such as common core. This is an issue many of my 
constituents have raised with me, and so this bill will, again, restore 
this decisionmaking to the States and the parents and teachers. In 
doing so, this bill reaffirms that it should be the State, not the 
Federal Government, that determines education standards. Each State is 
different and uniquely situated to determine the curriculum and 
accountability measures that best fit the needs of their students 
without interference from Washington. We don't need the Washington-
knows-best attitude. We know the best decisions are made locally.
  This bill includes additional reforms that will help strengthen our 
education system and better prepare our young people to join the 
rapidly changing and competitive global 21st century workforce. It 
ensures parents can still have access to data about their State, 
district, and school's education performance so they can make informed 
decisions about their child's education. It increases support for high-
quality charter schools, giving parents greater choice to determine the 
best learning environment for their children. It creates State-based 
need assessments to help identify low-performing schools and allows 
States, not the Federal Government, to determine how to best help low-
performing schools.
  All of these reforms are much needed, commonsense steps toward 
reforming and improving our education system, and I believe more can be 
done to specifically help students in New Hampshire. That is why I 
appreciate the willingness of Senators Alexander and Murray to work 
with me to allow votes on several bipartisan amendments that I have 
included in this bill,

[[Page 11687]]

and I know this has been a very open process. This is how the Senate 
should operate.
  I was able to work across the aisle on a number of amendments that 
addressed New Hampshire's priorities. The first of those is 
strengthening our mental health first aid training to ensure that 
school personnel have the critical mental health first aid training 
they need to improve the safety and well-being of students in schools 
in New Hampshire and across the country. This is something I have heard 
so much about from our local communities. That is why I was pleased to 
see the Senate adopted my amendment on mental health awareness training 
programs yesterday.
  I wish to thank Senator Blumenthal for working with me to include 
this important amendment that will help school personnel safely address 
mental health issues earlier, before they reach a crisis stage.
  I know an issue I have heard so much about in New Hampshire about 
that 21st century workforce is STEM education. When it comes to 
developing the high-skilled workers we need to compete, we must ensure 
that we have better STEM education in our schools for that next 
generation of American innovators. Promoting education initiatives and 
job training in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics is critical to ensuring that we stay on the cutting edge 
and that we ensure that our children have the skills they need to get 
those good-paying jobs when they leave high school, postsecondary 
education, and beyond with their college education.
  Over the last few years, an effort to increase students' proficiency 
and close the education gap between the United States and other 
countries has seen a renewed focus on STEM, and we have seen it in New 
Hampshire as well. One of the issues I have seen a focus on which I 
think is very important is including more women and girls in STEM 
education.
  At the college level, women are currently studying in the STEM fields 
at a lower rate than men, and many women who do earn STEM degrees 
actually end up working in other fields. Despite that fact, we are 
expected to see a 20-percent increase in STEM jobs we are going to need 
to build that workforce. Yet women only make up 25 percent of the STEM 
workforce. So we have a long way to go, and that is one of the reasons 
I worked with Senator Gillibrand on a measure to broaden student access 
to mentorship, tutoring, and afterschool activities to encourage 
interest in and develop STEM skills. Our amendment was focused on 
encouraging States to explore ways to increase participation in STEM 
programs by underrepresented groups, including girls, minority 
students, English learners, students with disabilities, and low-income 
students, so we can have a broad array of our students ready to take on 
those jobs and the workforce we need to grow our economy.
  Another area where we need to grow the economy in our country is in 
manufacturing. We are seeing the beginnings of a manufacturing 
renaissance. Last week, I was visiting a company in New Hampshire 
called Rapid Manufacturing in Nashua, NH. They have a partnership with 
a local community college to train their workforce and to bring them 
right from the community college into Rapid Manufacturing. They have 
more positions than they can fill right now. In fact, they are going 
into the middle schools and high schools to get kids excited about 
career and technical education. We really need this, and the jobs are 
there. I hear this from so many of our employers.
  I was glad to work across the aisle on an important amendment that 
did not get included but got quite a bit of support from Senator Kaine 
and gained support from Senators Portman, Capito, Graham, Boxer, 
Whitehouse, Casey, and Warner, and I wish to thank them.
  This would create a pilot program in our middle schools to get our 
children excited about career and technical education for those 
advanced manufacturing jobs where we need to grow our workforce. While 
I am disappointed this amendment was not included on this bill, I am 
encouraged that Senator Alexander said he would be open to working with 
us on this effort as a potential when we reauthorize the Perkins Act in 
the future, which will deal with higher education.
  In addition to the issues we see with workforce, STEM, and 
manufacturing, unfortunately, an issue too many of our States are 
dealing with--and New Hampshire has been hit hard--is substance abuse. 
As part of my ongoing efforts to combat the heroin and prescription 
addiction crisis in New Hampshire, I worked with Senator Manchin to put 
forth two measures to better assist students dealing with substance 
abuse issues at home. Our amendment would encourage local education 
decisionmakers to provide professional development, training, and 
technical assistance to schools and communities that are affected by 
the crisis of addiction, and this is something I know we are also going 
to address in an amendment I am supporting later today.
  New Hampshire has been a leader in what is called competency-based 
education. What that means is actually assessing students on measures 
other than tests. That is actually measuring students on innovative 
assessments and measures of accountability; for example, when students 
actually go out into their community and have real hands-on experience 
based on the career they are focusing on. New Hampshire has been the 
first State in the Nation to actually receive a grant on competency-
based education.
  I was very glad to work with Senator King to improve a section of 
this bill that would allow a greater ability for States to participate 
in alternative assessment pilot programs like we have seen in New 
Hampshire. This is, again, about transferring control from Washington 
of how we assess how our students are doing and how we ensure 
accountability in our schools to innovative local ideas like what we 
have seen in New Hampshire when it comes to competency-based education. 
So I want to thank Senator King for working with me on that.
  There are a number of other amendments for which I thank my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle and which I think are very 
important in this bill. I was very glad to work on them with my 
colleagues. They include working with Senator Booker on assisting 
homeless and foster youth; working with Senator Warner on including 
language ensuring better transitions from school to the workplace; and 
working with Senator Bennet on supporting the use of shared service 
alliances for early childhood education programs. For example, in New 
Hampshire we have the Seacoast Early Learning Alliance. I was very glad 
to work with Senator Bennet on that amendment. Also, improving 
oversight of the Early Learning Alignment and Improvement Grants 
Program--oversight of our programs is critical. I was glad to work with 
Senator Warner on oversight of these programs and, finally, work with 
Senator Isakson again on the local control piece, and that is putting 
the decisionmaking back with the parents. This amendment will better 
inform parents about their rights when it comes to mandatory 
assessments and the qualifications of their classroom teachers. I think 
we need to inform parents so that they can make the best decisions for 
their children.
  I am confident that the bipartisan, commonsense reforms in the Every 
Child Achieves Act will improve our education system and certainly make 
sure that the decisionmaking rests where it should--with parents, 
teachers, local school boards, and our States, rather than the 
Washington one-size-fits-all approach we have seen too often. In turn, 
it will help prepare students in New Hampshire and across our country 
for good careers and a brighter future. All of us here want to ensure 
that our children will have better opportunities than we have had in 
this great country, and we certainly owe that to our children. I am 
very glad we had this important debate on the floor.
  Again, I thank Senator Alexander and Senator Murray for working 
across the aisle on this important bill.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page 11688]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                EPA Rule

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, late last month, the Supreme Court 
issued a severe rebuke to the Obama administration and to his 
Environmental Protection Agency. It was a strong stand against 
Washington overreach.
  The Environmental Protection Agency had written what it called the 
mercury and air toxics standards rule. The rule was a key part of the 
Obama administration's war on coal. The Supreme Court said that when 
Washington bureaucrats were writing this rule, they failed--the EPA 
failed--to consider the overwhelming costs they were imposing on hard-
working American families. The Court said: ``One would not say that it 
is even rational, never mind appropriate, to impose billions of dollars 
in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health and 
environmental benefits.'' It wasn't even rational, never mind 
appropriate. The Court's decision was exactly right, and many of us saw 
it as a big step forward in reining in this out-of-control 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  Here is the problem. The rule came out in 2012, and the Supreme Court 
didn't make its ruling until 2015. That is 3 years. It is far too late 
for many Americans who work at coal plants and who have already been 
hurt by the EPA's ruling in 2012. That is because power companies were 
already having to comply with that rule while it made its way through 
the court process. They have already closed plants because of the rule, 
even though the Supreme Court now says that the rule was inappropriate, 
it was wrong. Now, unemployed workers won't get their jobs back now 
that the Court has ruled against the Obama administration. Because of 
these regulations, people are already paying higher electricity rates 
than they would have been paying otherwise. Consumers don't get their 
money back, either, now that the Supreme Court says the Environmental 
Protection Agency overstepped its authority.
  This isn't the first time this Agency has gone beyond the law and 
beyond what it is allowed to do. That is what it did when it put out 
its so-called waters of the United States rule. It is a recent rule--
waters of the United States. It is a new regulation. The Agency wants 
to use it to greatly expand government control over the Nation's land 
and water. Farmers, ranchers, hard-working families would no longer be 
able to decide what to do with their own land. States, counties, and 
towns would no longer be able to decide what regulations will be best 
to protect the streams and the waters and the lakes within their 
borders. That is the problem. These decisions would now be made by 
Washington bureaucrats no matter what the cost, no matter how small the 
benefits or how large the cost.
  Not only did the Agency increase its authority dramatically, it 
appears that it abused the rulemaking process to get the results the 
EPA wanted. What do I mean by that? Well, when Washington writes big, 
expensive regulations, it is supposed to have a public comment period 
so that people who might be harmed by the rules can have their say. 
According to news reports, when the EPA was writing the waters of the 
United States rule, the EPA twisted the public comment process into its 
own private, government-funded spin machine. This government agency 
ignored the negative comments by Americans who were actually concerned 
about the law and who were hurt by the law.
  That is not what I am saying; that is what the New York Times said 
when it reported on the scandal back in May. The New York Times said 
that the EPA used taxpayer dollars to lobby liberal groups to flood the 
Agency with positive comments. These were the same phony, ginned-up 
comments that it used to justify the dramatic overreach of its new 
regulations. It is incredible, it is unbelievable, and I believe it is 
also illegal.
  If my colleagues want another example of overreach by the 
Environmental Protection Agency, look at the regulations it wrote to 
restrict the amount of carbon dioxide produced by powerplants. It is 
called the Clean Power Plan. When the EPA was writing this rule, it did 
the exact same thing the Supreme Court just said was not even rational. 
The EPA counted up what it said would be the benefits of the regulation 
without caring at all about the true costs.
  So what are the true costs? Well, according to one estimate, the new 
regulations would add up to $366 billion in additional costs over the 
next 15 years. That cost will be passed on to consumers and will force 
more powerplants to close and more Americans to lose their jobs. For 
all of that expense, all of that damage to hard-working families, the 
benefits would be minimal.
  The Obama administration makes wild claims about environmental 
benefits of this regulation. They are the same kinds of claims that it 
made for the rule the Supreme Court just called unreasonable. The 
Agency exaggerates the benefits, the Agency ignores the costs, and it 
puts its thumb on the scale to come up with the policy that it wants.
  One of the big costs the Environmental Protection Agency has been 
ignoring is the damaging health effects of the unemployment caused by 
the regulations. When a powerplant closes, people in those communities 
lose their jobs and their health suffers. High unemployment increases 
the likelihood of hospital visits, of illnesses, of premature death. 
High unemployment raises health care costs, and it hurts children's 
health and family well-being. Those are real costs to families, to 
society, and the EPA continues to intentionally ignore them.
  The Environmental Protection Agency was wrong when it wrote its 
mercury and air toxics rule, it was wrong when it wrote its waters of 
the United States rule, and it was wrong when it wrote its powerplant 
rule.
  The Supreme Court has said the Environmental Protection Agency needs 
to take a more honest approach--the Supreme Court telling President 
Obama's EPA to take an honest approach--and it needs to take the true 
costs into consideration. That is what States across the country are 
already doing. Governors in Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Texas are 
refusing to be bullied by the Obama administration. They are refusing 
to give up their right to decide what is best for their own citizens. I 
believe these States are taking the right approach. They are waiting to 
get a true idea of the costs as well as the benefits before they rush 
to allow rules that would shut down powerplants and put thousands of 
people out of work. The Supreme Court says that is what Washington 
should be doing as well.
  Maybe now the Obama administration will finally listen and start 
basing its regulations on what the science says is true, not just on 
what the bureaucrats of the administration wish were true.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in my home State of Washington and across 
the country, students and parents and teachers and communities are 
counting on us to finally fix No Child Left Behind. I have been very 
glad to work with Chairman Alexander on our bipartisan bill called the 
Every Child Achieves Act. Our bipartisan bill gives States more 
flexibility while also including Federal guardrails to make sure all 
students have access to a quality public education.
  I am very proud of the bipartisan work we have done on the Senate 
floor--debating amendments, taking votes, and making this good bill 
even

[[Page 11689]]

better. It is not the bill I would have written on my own, and I am 
sure it is not the bill Chairman Alexander would have written on his 
own, but it is a good, strong step in the right direction. And it is 
not the last opportunity, of course, we will have to work on this bill 
before it is signed into law. In fact, after the Senate passes the bill 
today, we will go to conference, and then I will be looking forward to 
working closely with their ranking member, Bobby Scott, with the 
administration, and with Democrats and Republicans in the House and 
Senate who are interested in building on the Senate's bipartisan work 
and getting this done. I hope Chairman Kline and House Republicans will 
be willing to join us at the table to reach an agreement on the final 
product that works for our kids and our parents and our schools and our 
communities across the country.
  Strengthening accountability is extremely important to me and to 
Ranking Member Scott. Democrats, including 42 of our Senate Democrats, 
voted for Senator Murphy's accountability amendment yesterday. It is 
also important to the administration. We will continue to push for that 
in conference.
  We still have more work to do today before we wrap up and vote on 
final passage. The senior Senator from Pennsylvania has offered an 
amendment to expand access to high-quality early education. That is 
being offered by Senator Casey. Making sure kids can start kindergarten 
ready to learn is one of the best investments I believe we can make to 
help our kids succeed in school and later in life. I urge my colleagues 
to vote for that amendment when it comes up for a vote shortly. Then, 
of course, we will have a number of other amendments and finally 
passage, and hopefully we will be able to reach that in a positive way 
today.
  Mr. President, I said this many times on the Senate floor, but it 
bears repeating to emphasize how important education is for the future 
of this country. Providing a quality education isn't just good for 
students today, it is an investment in our future workforce, it is an 
investment in our future economy, and it is an investment in a growing 
strong middle class that will help our country grow stronger. As we all 
know, across the country today, parents, students, and teachers in our 
communities are looking to us to fix No Child Left Behind.
  So, again, I commend Senator Alexander for his strong work on this, 
for his willingness to work on a bipartisan basis and get us to where 
we are today, to be able to look very soon to passing the bill out of 
the Senate and continuing our work to fix this broken law.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
her comments. At 10:45 a.m., we will begin voting. We have six 
amendments--five or six that we expect to vote on, and then at 1:45 
p.m. we will have passage of the bill or cloture and final passage of 
the bill. So we will finish our bill fixing No Child Left Behind today. 
Of course, in the U.S. Senate nothing is done until it is done, so I 
don't want to anticipate that--but I think it is fair to make a few 
comments about the bill at this point, anticipating we will have a 
successful conclusion this afternoon.
  If we are able to pass a bill fixing No Child Left Behind this 
afternoon, it will be a remarkable accomplishment for a U.S. Senate 
filled with 100 experts on education. I said earlier this week that 
dealing with a piece of legislation about elementary and secondary 
education is a little bit like going to a football game at the 
University of Tennessee, where there are 100,000 people in the stands 
and every one of them is an expert on football, and they know exactly 
what the next play is to call. Consensus among experts is not easy, but 
consensus is necessary in the U.S. Senate if we are going to deal even 
with such a complex problem as this, and that is exactly what we have 
achieved.
  As Senator Murray said, we found a consensus first about the urgent 
need to fix No Child Left Behind, 7 years overdue. That is our 
collective thought in the U.S. Congress. We tried twice the last two 
Congresses, but we fell apart over partisan differences. I will give 
Senator Murray credit for coming up with the idea of how we began this 
process earlier this year, and that was for the two of us, consulting 
with our committee members and other Senators, to produce a draft that 
would be a starting point for our committee, and that worked well. We 
considered nearly 60 amendments in committee, adopted 27, I believe, 
and the committee reported unanimously to this body a bill to fix No 
Child Left Behind. That gave us a very good head start because members 
of our committee represent some of our most liberal Members and some of 
our most conservative Members. The fact that we could agree on how to 
take that step made a big difference, and that is one reason we will 
succeed this afternoon in passing the bill.
  So we found a consensus not only on the urgent need to fix No Child 
Left Behind but on how to fix No Child Left Behind, and the consensus 
is this: continue the law's important measurements of academic progress 
of students but restore to States, school districts, classrooms, 
teachers, and parents the responsibility for deciding what to do about 
improving student achievement. That theme runs through this bill.
  This change, in my opinion, should produce fewer tests and more 
appropriate ways to measure students' achievement. It is the most 
effective way to advance higher State standards, better teaching, and 
real accountability. We have had a lot of talk about accountability 
during this debate, as we should have, and the Presiding Officer, as I 
was, having been a Governor, watched over the last 15 years how States 
have become better prepared in dealing with student achievement, how 
they worked together to create higher standards State by State, worked 
together to create better assessments, tests State by State, and now 
work together to create better accountability State by State.
  This bill is a recognition of that preparation by the States and 
recognition also as the New York Principal of the Year said in a letter 
to us, that people closest to the children cherish their children, and 
we should not assume that just because we have flown to Washington, DC, 
for the week that suddenly we are so much wiser about what to do about 
children in 100,000 public schools and cherish the children more than 
the classroom teachers and the parents and the school board members and 
the community and the legislators and the Governors who are closer to 
them than we are.
  The next step, if we are successful this afternoon, is to go to a 
conference with the House. I have had numerous discussions with 
Chairman Kline at the House of Representatives. We have been on 
parallel paths. We know better than to try to make our institutions do 
exactly the same thing--that defies human nature--but we can 
communicate and stay in touch with each other, and our bills are not 
that different. The committee members are familiar with the bill. There 
are some important differences, and we will have to work those out, but 
our goal, if we succeed today, is to take the bill passed by the House, 
put it together with the Senate bill, produce a conference report, and 
send it to the desk of President Obama in a form he will be comfortable 
signing.
  I believe the President also sees the need to fix No Child Left 
Behind. He knows there is confusion and anxiety in most of our 100,000 
public schools that need to be settled, and we hope we have come up 
with a version of the bill that while it wouldn't be the bill he would 
write if only he were writing it--and as Senator Murray said, it is not 
the bill she would write if only she were writing it, and it certainly 
would not be the bill I would write if only I were writing it, but we 
had a consensus we needed to come to. Why do we need a consensus? 
Because that is how to govern in a complex society.
  I first came to the Senate at a young age in the late sixties, and I 
watched Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader, and President Johnson, 
the Democratic President, work together to

[[Page 11690]]

produce the civil rights legislation. That was more difficult than 
this--although this has been pretty difficult. It took 68 votes to get 
cloture at that time, and they did that. It was only because they had a 
consensus. Senator Russell from Georgia, who had opposed the civil 
rights bill, went home to Georgia the next day and said: It is the law 
of the land. We need to support it. The way to govern a complex country 
is through consensus, and the agency of our government that is the only 
agent for encouraging and achieving consensus is the U.S. Senate. I 
thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for creating an 
environment where we could do that.
  Senator McConnell has done that by putting the bill on the floor, 
giving us enough time to have amendments, and having a policy of 
encouraging amendments so Senators on both sides can have their say, 
both on the committee and on the floor. There have been more Democratic 
amendments considered and adopted than Republican amendments, and that 
is appropriate. Senator Cornyn, Senator Thune, Senator Barrasso on this 
side of the aisle have been very helpful.
  I have several times thanked the Democratic leader Senator Reid. He 
has helped to create an environment that permitted this to move in an 
orderly fashion. We basically conducted the end of the consideration of 
this bill by unanimous consent. Enough Senators had a chance to have 
their say that they agreed by unanimous consent that we can consider 
these amendments and only these amendments in a certain way, with a 
certain amount of time, and go all the way through to the end. That is 
a very good way to operate the Senate, and the Democratic leader made 
that possible, first by allowing the bill to come to the floor without 
a cloture vote and by working with us as we went through it, and 
Senator Schumer and Senator Durbin, who along with Senator Murray are 
part of the Democratic leadership, have done the same.
  Senator Vitter, Senator Lee, Senator Toomey, and Senator Burr have 
all stepped back a little bit on things they would like to do--so did 
Senator Franken and so did Senator Casey on that side of the aisle. In 
other words, a number of Senators exercised restraint to permit us to 
work toward a result. In a body that operates by unanimous consent, 
that is absolutely essential. So this has been a good process.
  We have six more amendments this morning, and we look forward to 
debating those and acting on them. At 1:45, hopefully, we will have a 
big vote in favor of fixing No Child Left Behind, reflecting the 
consensus that will keep the important measurements of student 
achievement, but we will turn back and restore to the State and local 
governments the responsibility for what to do about the results of 
those tests. That is the consensus in this bill that survived very well 
through the committee process and through the amendments so far, and I 
expect it to survive through the rest of the day.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2180

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the Cruz amendment 
No. 2180.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, there are a number of Members of this body 
who in good faith are moving forward to reduce the Federal burdens on 
States, on teachers, on education. Yet at the end of the day, this bill 
still mandates specific testing requirements. This amendment is a 
straightforward amendment to remove the testing mandates and to leave 
the substance of any testing that occurs to the States.
  This leaves power over choices in education in the hands of teachers, 
in the hands of school boards, in the hands of States, in the hands of 
government that is closest to the people. We have seen with the 
bipartisan objection to Common Core that the last thing we need in 
education is unelected bureaucrats in Washington dictating what is 
being taught to kids at home. This amendment simply takes out the 
Federal mandates and empowers teachers, school boards, and parents to 
control the education of their own children.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this 
amendment. This is the report card. The Federal Government is saying: 
We will give you $23 billion, and all we are asking in return is that 
you, State, write a test; that you, State, figure out what the 
accountability system is and you report it to the parents and the 
public.
  That would mean a third grader, for example, would take two tests a 
year. Each test would be about 2 hours. So it is a State test, a State 
assessment. In our Alexander-Murray bipartisan bill, we keep what works 
in No Child Left Behind, which is the report card, but we get rid of 
what does not work, and we give back to States responsibility for 
determining student achievement. This is the consensus that supports 
this bill.
  Keeping the important measure of student achievement is essential to 
maintaining that consensus. So if you want to get rid of the Common 
Core mandate, get rid of the waivers for 42 States, reverse the trend 
to a national school board, vote no and keep the requirement for 
important measures of student achievement, which are State tests.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2180.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 242 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--58

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Graham
     Nelson
       
  The amendment (No. 2180) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 2177

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the Sanders 
amendment No. 2177.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I applaud President Obama for visiting 
a

[[Page 11691]]

Federal penitentiary today to highlight the fact that, tragically, the 
United States has more people in jail than any other country on Earth. 
One of the reasons we have so many people in jail is that we have an 
obscenely high level of youth unemployment: for young White kids, 33 
percent; for Hispanic kids, 36 percent; for African-American kids, 51 
percent.
  The time has come for us to begin investing in jobs and education for 
our kids, not jails and incarceration. This bill, over a 2-year period, 
would create 2 million jobs for our young people. It is paid for by 
closing the carried-interest loophole that allows billionaires to pay a 
lower tax rate than working class Americans.
  It is high time we addressed this issue of high youth unemployment. I 
ask for bipartisan support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, the five remaining votes will be 10-
minute votes.
  I urge a ``no'' vote, No. 1, because this proposal is 
unconstitutional. You cannot start a tax increase in the Senate. It has 
to start in the House. No. 2, we already have three workforce programs 
that we created just last year: Jobs Corps, the youth bill, and 
dislocated workers. No. 3, it is a big tax increase. So because it is a 
big tax increase, because it is duplicative of existing programs, and 
because it is unconstitutional, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam 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 Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 243 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

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

                                NAYS--55

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

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


                           Amendment No. 2243

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the Coons 
amendment No. 2243.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, the bipartisan amendment I am offering 
today with Senator Rubio--and I am grateful to Senator Gillibrand for 
cosponsoring--this American dream accounts amendment is about one 
thing: giving every child the chance to go to college if they are 
willing to work hard for it. Time and again, we have seen in this 
country what kids can achieve when they know their dreams are possible. 
That is what this amendment and the American dream accounts help solve, 
ensuring that every child knows a college education is possible.
  The American dream accounts encourage partnerships in 10 
demonstration sites to develop secure, Web-based student accounts that 
develop information about each student's literacy and academic 
preparedness and then ties it to high-impact mentoring and a college 
savings account.
  I myself have seen over the years of working with the national ``I 
Have a Dream'' Foundation how sending the message to our kids that 
college is a real possibility for them can make a powerful impact, from 
elementary school, to middle school, to high school, to college, and it 
has an impact that changes their behavior and their outcomes in school.
  American dream accounts are a bipartisan idea whose time has come. I 
urge my colleagues to support it with a ``yes'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, if I could have the attention of 
Senators, we have four more votes before lunch. It is 11:40 a.m. What 
we would like to do is to have 10-minute votes. So if Senators will 
stay on the floor, we will have 10-minute votes or come as close to 
that as we can.
  Madam President, this is an interesting idea, but it belongs in the 
Higher Education Act, which we are about to take up in our committee, 
and here is why: It duplicates two existing Federal programs called 
Gear Up and TRIO.
  No. 2, we already have $30 billion of tax credits that we spend. This 
involves more tax credits. We already spend $30 billion. We should 
calculate the advantages of this program, along with the $100 billion 
of loans we make, the $35 billion of Pell grants we make, the $30 
billion of tax credits we have, and see where it fits into that. The 
time to do that is in the next big bill we have from our committee, 
which is the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining.
  Mr. RUBIO. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 244 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--30

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Burr
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran

[[Page 11692]]


     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Isakson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Tillis
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

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


                    Amendment No. 2247, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the Burr amendment 
No. 2247, as modified.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Madam President, in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson, when 
the ESEA was passed, said this: Financial assistance to school 
districts serving areas with concentrations of children of low income 
should be the target of it. We have never successfully targeted all of 
those kids in poverty.
  Let me say to my colleagues, if your State is in red, your poor 
students lose under the current formula.
  Now, we have come to a compromise, and though I don't think it 
reflects the best policy, compromise is at the heart of this 
institution. Therefore, with $14 billion worth of appropriations in 
title I-A today, this new formula would not take place until we have 
reached $17 billion, meaning for the next years--probably 10 based upon 
historical numbers--there would be no change in the distribution in any 
States. But after that point, this body, for once--for the first time 
in 50 years--would have the money follow kids in poverty, represented 
by the red States we see on this map.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is the right thing 
to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask that 30 seconds of my time be 
yielded to the Senator from Ohio.
  I oppose this amendment. I thank the Senators from Tennessee, 
Washington, and North Carolina for making it less onerous. We did come 
to a compromise. As he said, it starts at $17 billion, but there is 
still a major fallacy here.
  When we change formulas, we have always held harmless the States that 
would lose money, but we have been able to increase money. In this 
bill, we don't. We keep it flat. So we are robbing Peter to pay Paul, 
which will be an awful precedent which will bite every one of us.
  Second, my good friend said the money should go to people from 
poverty, but they also voted against the Merkley amendment, which 
required the money to go to people in poverty, and now it can go 
anywhere.
  So I respectfully urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, 
although it is improved from the original.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I appreciate the fact that we have 
delayed the impact of this, but the impact is still severe. In my State 
and many other States, we will see a significant cut.
  Do my colleagues know what it is? It is telling States that if you 
invest in children, you are going to be penalized.
  This legislation, the underlying bill, is about helping our children 
succeed. Yet, in this amendment, we are actually telling States that if 
you help your kids succeed, you are going to be penalized under a new 
formula. It is not part of the bill that came out of committee. It is 
not part of the underlying bill.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and ensure that 
the States that are helping our kids continue to be able to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 245 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--39

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coons
     Durbin
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kirk
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Graham
     Nelson
       
  The amendment (No. 2247), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
brief colloquy with my colleagues from the State of Tennessee and the 
State of Washington for no more than 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Madam President.
  As we stated, some of us had serious objections to changing the 
formula, but thankfully the modified amendment follows in a tradition 
of compromise. And I appreciate my colleagues from Tennessee, 
Washington, and North Carolina working on it. As a result, we will 
continue to abide by the ``do no harm'' principle. New York's funding 
will not be cut, and neither will the funding in any of the other 13 
States that would have been cut by the original amendment. We will not 
punish schools unfairly by using a formula that creates winners and 
losers. This takes the idea of losing school districts off the table. 
So, again, I would like to thank my colleagues for working with me to 
ensure that our students in New York and the 13 other States do not 
start the next school year at a disadvantage with fewer school 
resources.
  The title I changes we have agreed to reflect our commitment to 
increasing funding and supporting funding for low- and moderate-income 
students. I appreciate the commitment my colleagues from Tennessee and 
Washington have made, and I would like to confirm those here on the 
floor.
  I would ask my dear friend Senator Alexander--I would like you to 
confirm your commitment to maintain this title I funding proposal which 
we just passed which is contained in amendment No. 2247, as modified--
when the Senate and House convene a conference, that we will not go any 
lower than this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I would say through the Chair to the 
distinguished Senator from New York and the Senator from Illinois and 
the Republican Senators who are interested in this that the answer to 
Senator Schumer's question is yes, that my commitment is to work--to 
keep the Senate decision in conference.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, reclaiming the floor, I would just ask 
my

[[Page 11693]]

dear friend from the State of Washington whether she concurs in that 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, through the Chair to the Senator from 
New York, I will work in conference to keep the commitment of this 
amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I yield to my friend from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 
1 more minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield that minute to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my friend and colleague from New York.
  Madam President, the original core amendment would have cost Illinois 
$180 million in title I funds--$68 million cut to Chicago Public 
Schools. It was unconscionable. It would have been devastating. They 
have so many low-income students. I am glad there is a better approach 
now.
  I hope the title I funding will reach $17 billion soon. It is 
currently at $14.4 billion, and it has been at that level roughly for 
the last 5 years.
  I thank my colleagues from Tennessee and Washington for affirming 
that they are going to stand behind this protection during the course 
of the conference committee.
  I would like to commend the leaders of the HELP Committee for working 
with Senators to reach an agreement on Senator Burr's proposal to 
rewrite the formula for distributing title I education dollars to the 
States.
  Title I is the single largest source of Federal funding for 
elementary and secondary education. It helps States and districts offer 
the kind of teachers and extra services that help low-income students 
learn and succeed in school.
  The Burr amendment we just voted on would change the way those 
dollars are distributed and would hurt low-income students in 
Illinois--based in part on the fact that Illinois spends more per pupil 
on elementary and secondary education than the national average. That 
is neither fair nor good policy.
  The original Burr amendment would have cut Illinois' title I funding 
by $180 million next year. Every district in the State receiving title 
I funds would have seen a cut. With the modifications we were able to 
work out, Illinois' students won't be hurt until title I funding at the 
Federal level reaches $17 billion a year.
  While I hope Federal title I spending would reach $17 billion soon, 
is currently at $14.4 billion and has remained around that level for 
the last 5 years. Looking at history and understanding the fiscal 
challenges in Congress, it is unlikely that Illinois' title I 
allocation would be impacted by the new formula during the 5-year 
lifespan of this authorization bill.
  I am concerned, however, that the agreement we reached in the Senate 
could be undermined during conference negotiations with the House. I 
ask the leaders of the committee, through the Chair, for their 
assurance that the title I formula will not be further altered in 
conference.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2100

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the Brown 
amendment No. 2100.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, the Brown-Manchin amendment expands the 
full-service community schools model to schools across the country. 
Community schools are different from Promised Neighborhoods--two 
different approaches to what is a complex set of challenges. Community 
schools start with a focus on the school, engage partners in joint 
efforts to improve student achievement and development, and in the 
process work to strengthen family and community.
  Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Manchin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, all of us have challenged areas in our 
States. I have a county--one of the poorest counties in the country is 
McDowell County. These children have no chance whatsoever. It has the 
absolute worst statistics any child could be living in. And it is 
because of these programs that are bringing the compassion of public-
private partnerships that we are able to work through to reestablish 
the services these children won't get. The areas are so sparsely 
populated, and there is high unemployment.
  I would encourage all of you to support this amendment. It continues 
the program. It is worthwhile. We have McDowell County now with 125 
public-private partnerships that we would not have, and these children 
will not have a chance without them. I encourage your support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I urge a ``no'' vote because States 
may already do what the amendment says they can do in this new program. 
There is money in titles I, II, and IV to do that. All this does is 
take money away from existing programs and give it to a new program 
which States, if they choose, can already do.
  Second, we are approving today an almost identical program called 
Promised Neighborhoods which the Center for American Progress 
recommended Congress consolidate with the program this amendment would 
authorize and create. So we are creating two programs that do the same 
thing in the same day. In addition, the Education Department Secretary 
for the Obama administration said Promised Neighborhood in full-service 
community schools are much more similar than different.
  So we need to stop this business of doing well-intentioned programs. 
One well-intentioned program is enough. We don't need to create two 
that do the same thing.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. MANCHIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 246 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

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

                                NAYS--44

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

[[Page 11694]]



                             NOT VOTING--3

     Graham
     Nelson
     Rubio
  The amendment (No. 2100) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, for the information of Senators, this 
is the last vote before lunch. We will have two votes beginning at 1:45 
p.m., a cloture vote and the vote on final passage.


                           Amendment No. 2242

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the Casey 
amendment No. 2242.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, this amendment focuses on the link 
between learning and earning. We know that if we invest in our children 
in prekindergarten education, they will learn more now and earn more 
later. It is a State-Federal partnership. It is paid for. It focuses on 
4-year-olds. Three million 4-year-olds in the country will benefit from 
high-quality early learning.
  The best testimony about this issue comes from parents. Beth in 
southwestern Pennsylvania said--talking about an early learning program 
in Pennsylvania: Her daughter couldn't write any of her letters or even 
recognize them. Now she's improved so much since the first day of 
class.
  And then Megan in southeastern Pennsylvania said: When her son came 
into this program, he was shy and had very little verbal communication. 
He now talks nonstop and loves hearing.
  That is why we need this amendment to pass. I urge a ``yes'' vote on 
the Casey amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The amendment is unnecessary because the Federal Government already 
spends $22 billion on early childhood education through 45 programs. 
States spend money through the title I program on early childhood 
education. Our underlying bill has an important amendment on early 
childhood, fashioned by Senator Murray and Senator Isakson, to spend 
that money more effectively.
  This proposal has a familiar ring. It is like a Medicaid mandate, 
States would pay 40 percent. It is like a national school board, the 
Federal Government would define teacher salaries, class size, staff-
child ratios, and professional development. It is a national school 
board for 4-year-olds. That is the reverse of what we want to do in 
this bill.
  Another familiar ring is it would be Common Core for kindergarten, so 
I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 247 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

                                NAYS--52

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

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


                           Amendment No. 2232

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to make just a quick couple of 
comments on an amendment that I appreciate the floor managers, Senators 
Alexander and Murray, agreeing to accept by voice vote. It deals with 
an issue that is really important to my home State.
  This amendment would expand the authorized use of Project School 
Emergency Response to Violence--what we call Project SERV--grants to 
include violence prevention.
  Currently, Project SERV funds are used to restore the learning 
environment by addressing the disruptive effects of a traumatic crisis 
or event. However, these funds cannot be used to fund violence 
prevention activities, such as afterschool programs, mentoring, anger 
management or skills-building programs.
  My amendment would permit a limited and focused expansion of Project 
SERV to permit prevention activities as part of the efforts to restore 
the learning environment in cases where there is a continued risk of 
disruption. This would better tie prevention to a crisis or trauma that 
has already occurred and better restore and preserve the learning 
environment in cases such as the tragic suicide crisis in Indian 
Country or gang violence.
  For example, on South Dakota's Pine Ridge Indian Reservation alone, 
two high school and two middle school age students have committed 
suicide just since December. My amendment would help give these areas 
of crisis additional flexibility in restoring our schools to safe and 
positive environments.
  I have worked closely with Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member 
Murray to keep this expansion limited so as not to detract from Project 
SERV's current scope, and I appreciate very much their help and the 
Senate's support.
  Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that following the 
disposition of the Warren amendment No. 2249, all postcloture time on 
the substitute amendment be yielded back; further, that the cloture 
vote on S. 1177 be at 1:45 p.m. today, and that if cloture is invoked, 
all postcloture time, except for 4 minutes equally divided between 
Senators Alexander and Murray, be yielded back; and following the use 
or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on passage of S. 1177, as 
amended, if amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2082

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Hatch-Bennet amendment amends the early 
learning grant program to allow States to use Pay for Success 
Initiatives to improve the quality and coordination of the State's 
system of early learning and care services. My home State of Utah has 
the first-ever pay for success program designed to expand access to 
early childhood education for at-risk children. The Utah High Quality 
Preschool Program delivers a high-impact, targeted curriculum that 
increases school readiness and academic performance among 3- and 4-
year-olds. As children enter kindergarten better prepared, fewer 
students will need to use special education and remedial services in 
kindergarten through 12th grade, allowing schools and States to save 
money. We should build on this success and empower other States to do 
the same.

[[Page 11695]]

  I should reiterate that this amendment only allows government funds 
to be used if the program is successful, encouraging effective use of 
taxpayer dollars. We should be allowing States to use their funding to 
encourage ground-up, evidence-based practices. I look forward to seeing 
meaningful results.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Hatch 
amendment No. 2082.
  The amendment (No. 2082) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2106

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Warren 
amendment No. 2106.
  The amendment (No. 2106) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2130

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Schatz 
amendment No. 2130.
  The amendment (No. 2130) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2186

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Murphy 
amendment No. 2186.
  The amendment (No. 2186) was agreed to.


                Vote on Amendment No. 2215, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Nelson 
amendment No. 2215, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2215), as modified, was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2222

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Manchin 
amendment No. 2222.
  The amendment (No. 2222) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2231

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Boozman 
amendment No. 2231.
  The amendment (No. 2231) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2188

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Baldwin 
amendment No. 2188.
  The amendment (No. 2188) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2156

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Capito 
amendment No. 2156.
  The amendment (No. 2156) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2232

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Thune 
amendment No. 2232.
  The amendment (No. 2232) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2256

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the King 
amendment No. 2256.
  The amendment (No. 2256) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2240

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Schatz 
amendment No. 2240.
  The amendment (No. 2240) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2249

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Warren 
amendment No. 2249.
  The amendment (No. 2249) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
on the substitute amendment is yielded back.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2095

  The question is on agreeing to the Peters amendment No. 2095.
  The amendment (No. 2095) was agreed to.


                 Vote on Amendment No. 2089, as Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the substitute 
amendment, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 2089), as amended, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                           Amendment No. 2249

  Mr. GARDNER Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington and 
the Senator from Tennessee for their leadership over the past several 
days--last week and this week--as we talk about the future of education 
in this country. I commend them for creating a bill that takes away the 
Federal Government's mandates on curriculum and direction and makes 
sure we provide local control to school districts and teachers.
  As a father myself of a student who is going into the sixth grade, I 
have heard a lot about tests over the past several years, and I want to 
commend the leadership for making sure we are actually getting Congress 
out of the classroom. So I appreciate my colleagues' leadership.
  Today I want to talk about an amendment accepted in the education 
bill we are dealing with here today that deals with the use of title I 
funds for concurrent and dual enrollment programs at eligible schools 
throughout the country.
  According to the Georgetown Public Policy Institute, by 2020, 65 
percent of the jobs available in the country today will require 
secondary education. In Colorado, that number is even higher. Again, by 
2020, 65 percent of our jobs will require secondary education. In 
Colorado, that number is going to be greater. The Colorado Department 
of Education estimates it is not just 65 percent of the jobs that 
require a secondary education in Colorado by 2020. It will actually be 
74 percent of the jobs in our State that are going to require some form 
of postsecondary education.
  Ensuring that our students have the skills necessary to excel in 
college and in the workforce is absolutely and by far and away the best 
way to address this concern so we can make sure that we are providing 
our students with successful futures. Concurrent enrollment and dual 
enrollment programs have a proven record of success in this arena.
  I was in the State legislature in Colorado when we embarked on the 
first concurrent enrollment ideas that came out of the legislature and 
that have been greatly successful. But we know it is not just the 
anecdotes from Colorado, but it is the American Institutes for Research 
that finds that participation in concurrent and dual enrollment 
programs reduces the number of students dropping out of high school, 
increasing a student's likelihood of entering college, making sure they 
complete college, and getting through to a career.
  But our challenge today is that an astounding number of students need 
to take remedial courses when they enter college. Sitting down with 
junior college leaders and community college presidents and talking to 
our universities, they all tell stories about how many students come 
from high schools to their college or to their campus requiring 
remedial work in English or mathematics.
  According to a report by testing organization ETS, nearly one-half of 
U.S. millennials scored below the threshold that indicates proficiency 
in literacy, and two-thirds of U.S. millennials missed the cutoff mark 
in math proficiency.
  Students are discouraged from continuing college when they are 
required to take courses--nobody wants to go on to college and take the 
same course--that you thought you had completed in high school. But 
concurrent and dual enrollment will help solve this problem by allowing 
students to participate in college-level courses, which, upon 
completion, will ensure that these students are indeed proficient.
  Not only does concurrent and dual enrollment allow proficiency, but 
it allows students to get ahead of the curve and doing so while in high 
school.
  A study by the National Education Longitudinal Study found that 
concurrent and dual enrollment participants were 16 to 20 percent more 
likely to complete a bachelor's degree than their counterparts. 
Research shows that students who participate in concurrent and dual 
enrollment programs complete their degrees earlier than their 
counterparts as well.
  A study in 2010 by Kristen Klopfenstein, a Colorado native and 
graduate of the University of Texas, found that ``the results of taking 
one or more concurrent or dual credit class tripled the likelihood of 
graduating from associate programs in three years in relation to 
students who did not take such courses who typically graduate in four 
years.''

[[Page 11696]]

  ``Dual enrollment participation was also positively correlated to 
completing bachelor's degrees in four and five years, relative to 
students who did not take such courses who typically take longer to 
graduate.''
  These are the types of programs that reward students for their hard 
work and prepare them for their college career and success.
  Many people recognize that courses that provide college credit are 
typically taken by high-achieving students already on the path to 
college. A lot of college courses that we see are filled with people we 
knew were destined for college in the first place. But I think we have 
to talk about the times where that is not the case, where college 
courses were taken by people who perhaps never thought they had college 
in their future. I will share one such story today.
  We were visited in the office not too long ago by a young woman from 
Colorado who told her story about how concurrent enrollment in Colorado 
really opened the doors to a college future and a college degree she 
never thought was possible.

       The community where I come from is not one that promises a 
     bright future. I am from a low income area of Denver, CO, and 
     we weren't expected to go to college.
       I had always known I wanted to pursue higher education, but 
     was nervous that I wouldn't have the skills to succeed.
       Fortunately for me, because of concurrent enrollment I was 
     able to get ahead in college for free. I graduated high 
     school with all of my high school credits along with 15 
     credit hours of college credits.
       Concurrent enrollment has helped me in phenomenal ways. It 
     gave me the confidence to know I had the capabilities to 
     succeed in college.
       In addition, with the high cost of college I was able to 
     save money. I am now a student at Colorado State University 
     and made the Dean's list this semester.
       I am on track to graduate early and it would never have 
     been possible without the programs I participated in in high 
     school.
       I want to spread the word so other students can benefit 
     from concurrent enrollment the way that I have. Every young 
     person who wants to go to college should have the opportunity 
     to attend, and I'm thankful I had the opportunity to do so.

  Those aren't my words. Those are the words of a Coloradan whose 
future was made brighter by the fact that she was able to take 
advantage, while in high school, of college credit classes.
  Stories like this are why we have to make sure that, not just 
Coloradans, but everyone across this country, is able to use title I 
programs in the same beneficial manner.
  So the amendment we offered and that has been accepted, thanks to the 
work of Senator Alexander, our great chairman, and Ranking Member Patty 
Murray, would empower students to use these kinds of programs and would 
allow schools to use title I funds for concurrent and dual enrollment 
programs, enabling students to simultaneously receive college credit 
from courses taught by college-approved teachers in secondary 
education. It would allow eligible schools to use fifth-year program 
partnerships with institutions of higher education to allow students to 
participate in concurrent enrollment in the year directly following 
their senior year of high school.
  Earning a postsecondary degree has become a prerequisite for jobs in 
the 21st century. Going back to the statistics that we shared in the 
very beginning, 74 percent of jobs in Colorado will require, by the 
year 2020, a postsecondary education degree. As we face more 
competition in the global workplace, as we face more competition 
abroad, we have to have the kinds of education and educational 
opportunities that give the next generation of business leaders, 
innovators, and entrepreneurs the skills to succeed.
  I believe the concurrent and dual enrollment high school program not 
only gives them the types of skills they need while in high school but 
the opportunity to further a college degree and perhaps, as in the 
story I shared earlier today from that young Coloradan, the chance to 
go to college, the chance to receive a degree, and to prove they have 
that bright future. That is what this policy is about. That is what 
this amendment has been about.
  Again, I thank the chairman for the consideration and acceptance of 
the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 2222

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a problem that 
each one of us--all 100 Senators--knows. In any gathering we go to, in 
our State or around the country, people are affected by drug abuse, 
whether legal or illegal. In our personal families, immediate families 
or extended families, we know somebody whose life is affected.
  So today I urge my colleagues to support a commonsense amendment that 
I have introduced to the Every Child Achieves Act that addresses an 
epidemic that is devastating to my State and our country--and I know to 
the Presiding Officer's State also--which is substance abuse.
  Communities across the country, including many in my beautiful State 
of West Virginia, are seeing an alarming rise in substance abuse and 
addiction to legal prescription drugs. These are drugs we would find in 
the medicine cabinet of our home.
  West Virginia is No. 1 in overdose deaths--No. 1 in overdose deaths--
due to drug abuse.
  We have seen over a 600-percent increase in the number of people 
dying since 1999. Nationally, 21.6 million Americans are battling 
substance dependence or abuse. But as most of us know, we can't truly 
understand substance abuse by just listening to facts and statistics. 
It is one that can only be understood by hearing stories of those 
impacted.
  When I was Governor of the State of West Virginia, I traveled around 
the State, and I saw firsthand the effects that substance abuse can 
have. We tried to tackle many of these issues at the State level. But 
it is impossible. All of us have to be in this.
  But one of the most moving experiences occurred during my first trip 
back to the Mountain State after becoming a Senator. I traveled to the 
really beautiful little town of Oceana, WV.
  I went to Oceana Middle School, where I had expected to talk about 
the importance of receiving a good education and working hard to gain 
the necessary skills to be successful in the workforce. Instead, I 
heard personal stories from 11-year-olds who spoke candidly about the 
ways that drugs were tearing apart their families, their homes, and 
their community.
  As tears trickled down their faces, they shared how they rarely 
played outside because too many needles coated the streets and drug 
deals often took place right in front of them.
  It is one thing to hear about overdoses and addictions from doctors, 
medical experts or police officers who deal with substance abuse cases 
every day. But I can tell you that it is another thing to sit across 
from an 11-year-old girl who is fighting through tears to describe how 
her family and her family life have been destroyed.
  Her father was hurt in the coal mines and gradually became addicted 
to painkillers, causing her family to lose everything. As I listened to 
her story, I couldn't help but think that this young girl had to grow 
up so very fast and miss some of the pleasures of childhood.
  That is why I am doing everything in my power to fight this national 
problem. My commonsense bipartisan amendment with Senator Ayotte would 
simply require that, in States where this is a significant problem, the 
State education plan include a strategy for how the State will help 
local education agencies educate students who face substance abuse in 
their home.
  What we are saying is no child can be in a drug-infected home and 
have a normal childhood. They can't have a normal learning experience 
in the school system.
  To be clear, it does not prescribe or require any particular 
response. We are not saying you have to do this. The States that wish 
to have this done can. It simply gives the States the flexibility to 
craft proposals that meet particular local needs.

[[Page 11697]]

  That means if there is a child that basically needs extracurricular 
activity, extra help, extra support, preschool or afterschool, they are 
able to intervene and change the system that would meet the needs of 
that community.
  Substance abuse by parents and other caregivers can have a 
significant negative impact on the well-being of children, and it makes 
it more difficult for them to learn and thrive in schools, as we know.
  This amendment is a small step forward toward addressing that 
problem. But it will encourage the States to consider solutions that 
will enable local schools and communities to better help these 
vulnerable children and ensure that every child is ready to learn.
  Our country, our States, our communities, our schools, and our 
children need us to take action to protect them from the devastation of 
substance abuse.
  I am often reminded of the five promises we as adults should make to 
every child. Colin Powell started this--the five promises--and my wife 
and I have adopted it when I was Governor. We still have a foundation.
  The first promise is that every child has to have a loving, caring 
adult in their life--a loving, caring adult and unconditional love.
  Second, every child should have a safe place.
  Every child should have a healthy start in life.
  Every child should have an education and have a skill set.
  The fifth promise is what we can't teach. We can usually show it from 
example. Every child should grow to be a loving, caring adult and give 
something back.
  If we don't give children the chance to have that type of an 
experience and they know they don't have a loving, caring adult, and 
they don't have a safe place because the home has been ruined because 
of drug abuse, this is where we need to step in. If we are going to 
save a generation, this is where we do it. This is the frontline of 
defense today.
  The No. 1 thing that is killing our country is drug abuse, and it is 
basically coming from prescription drugs. It starts with manufacturing. 
It goes down with the FDA putting all these lethal drugs on the market 
that we never had before. It goes down to distribution and dispensing 
by doctors. Yet we don't have any treatment centers to cure people once 
they get into it.
  So I am asking all of you to please consider supporting this 
amendment. It is most reasonable, most responsible. It is not 
mandatory. It is optional. You can fit the needs and tailor this 
however your community, your State or your county might need.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                 Justice for Tularosa Basin Downwinders

  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, 70 years ago today, the first atomic bomb 
was exploded at the Trinity test site in New Mexico. For our Nation, it 
was the beginning of the nuclear age. For the residents of the Tularosa 
Basin, it was also the beginning--of great suffering, of generations of 
cancer and chronic illness. Seven decades later, their suffering 
continues and so does their fight for justice.
  Windows rattled hundreds of miles away. The people of Tularosa saw 
radioactive debris fall from the sky, not knowing what it was. The 
fallout killed cattle, and poisoned water, food, and the air. The 
damage was done. The destruction was real, and so is the sadness, 
disappointment, and anger. That is very real too.
  The Tularosa Basin Downwinders have not forgotten. They rightly ask 
that we not forget, either.
  I met with them and their families earlier this month in Tularosa, 
and they told me their stories, some of which I will share today.
  Henry Herrera was just 11 years old at the time of the blast. He is 
now 81. He remembers:

       I heard a very large blast and saw a very big flash of 
     light. I got so scared I thought the world was coming to an 
     end.

  He himself is a cancer survivor. He told me:

       I'm the only one alive to tell about it. Everyone else has 
     died of cancer.

  Edna Hinkle recalled so many in her family that had cancer, one after 
the other--aunts, uncles, cousins, mother, sister, and herself. She 
said: ``My oldest daughter . . . says it's not a matter of if you get 
cancer, it's a matter of when.''
  Marjie Trujillo told me that of nine members of her family, six have 
cancer, and three died from it. The loss is tragic and so is the 
frustration. She said: ``Many in our community feel our government has 
turned a deaf ear to our health issues.''
  I also heard from Virginia Duran. She was born in Tularosa in 1940 
and lived on Padilla Lane. She told me that on the street where she 
lived, at least 10 people have had cancer. That is just one block.
  Many families from the Tularosa Basin know this loss and pain. Nora 
Foltz is 71 years old. She is the only sibling of five who doesn't have 
cancer. Her sister, Helen Guerra, is 81 years old. Helen was diagnosed 
with kidney cancer 17 years ago. Helen's daughter Lupe had multiple 
illnesses and chronic pain and died at the age of 62.
  There are so many stories--far too many stories--like this. As Gloria 
Herrera said, the Tularosa community has ``shed enough tears to fill a 
lake.''
  It was my privilege to meet with these survivors. Their stories are 
courageous and troubling, but most troubling of all is the people who 
were not there, who were not able to speak, and those who have passed 
away over the last seven decades. We all speak for them now, and we 
will keep on speaking until justice is done.
  The Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium is doing critical work. 
They are organizing the community, telling their stories, and making 
sure people listen and understand what happened. Tina Cordova is one of 
the many great advocates who are dedicated, committed, and refusing 
give up. Tina summed up the feelings of many when she told me: ``We 
were the unknown, unwilling guinea pigs in the world's greatest 
experiment.'' I agree with Tina and the members of the consortium. 
Theirs is a tragic story. They suffered so that we could develop bombs 
and win wars. That is why I have again pushed for legislation with my 
colleagues--Senator Crapo and several others--to amend the Radiation 
Exposure Compensation Act and finally recognize the Trinity site and 
include New Mexicans who have suffered for decades. They deserve 
justice, they deserve compensation, and they are still waiting 70 years 
later.
  We can't change the years that have passed, nor can we erase the 
years of illness and the pain endured by too many for too long, but 
fair compensation will make a difference and will provide badly needed 
help.
  It took many years to create the original RECA Program. My father 
helped to lay the groundwork. He devoted many years to fighting in the 
courts for men, women, and children who were sick because they had 
lived downwind during nuclear tests. They were exposed to dangerous 
radiation. They should have been helped but were ignored instead.
  I remember going with him to meet folks in St. George, UT, in 1978. I 
was just out of law school. There were about 40 or 50 survivors there. 
They loved their country and trusted their government. They were 
hesitant to speak out. They did not seek special treatment, but they 
were wounded people. Caught in the fallout of the nuclear age, they had 
a right to be heard. My dad heard them, and he demanded that others 
hear them as well. He fought for them until the end of his life at 90 
years old, first in the courts and then in the Congress. He worked with 
Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch--an unlikely match if ever there 
were one--and they kept pushing.
  President H.W. Bush signed RECA into law 25 years ago in 1990. It was 
a bipartisan bill. It was driven by simple fairness and it was a 
historic step forward, but it left some folks behind, including the 
Downwinders in the Tularosa Basin.
  My dad would not give up, the families he worked with would not give 
up,

[[Page 11698]]

and we won't give up either. Our bill expands the downwind exposure 
area to include seven States from the Trinity and Nevada test sites, 
and it also includes Guam from the Pacific site. It would also allow 
compensation for post-1971 uranium workers and fund a critical public 
health study for those who live and work in uranium development 
communities.
  I will continue to push for this legislation. It is the right thing 
to do, and we should get it done, which is why I will again join my 
Senate colleagues in sending a letter to the Judiciary Committee to 
request a hearing on this important bill.
  Many families in New Mexico have been hurt, and they worry there is 
more harm to come. When I was in Tularosa this month, I spoke with a 
woman named Louisa Lopez. Her husband has mantle cell lymphoma. They 
know at least 17 other people who have cancer or who have died from it. 
She said, ``We fear passing this on to our children, future 
grandchildren, and other generations.''
  This weekend, there will be a candlelight vigil in Tularosa. Folks 
will gather, as they do every year now. They will stand together as 
candles flicker in the warm New Mexico night. They will remember those 
who have been brought down by cancer and other radiation-related 
diseases. They will remember those who have passed away. They will 
remember that a wrong was done and has yet to be righted. And they will 
offer prayers and support for those who continue to struggle.
  Rosemary Cordova told me in Tularosa:

       We can't bring back those we've lost, but we can support 
     those still suffering. All we're asking is that our 
     government face up to the wrong that has been done . . . that 
     someday soon our government will do what should [have] been 
     done long ago.

  It takes courage to speak out. It takes courage to speak truth to 
power. These folks are heroes, and on this 70th anniversary, I want to 
say to them: Thank you. Thank you for making your voices heard. Thank 
you for making your stories known. And thank you for refusing to give 
up. I will not give up, either. Together, we will keep working for 
fairness, and the day will come when we can stand together in Tularosa 
and light the candles of remembrance and finally say justice has been 
done.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. 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. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Corker, and I be permitted to engage in a 
short colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Shooting in Chattanooga

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the details are still coming in, but 
earlier today, between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., there was a violent attack 
in Chattanooga, where Senator Corker was once mayor. Right now Federal, 
State, and local officials are responding in Tennessee.
  I am deeply disturbed by the reports. We understand that the shooting 
took place at the Naval Reserve Center in Chattanooga and that a police 
officer has been injured. We also understand that other individuals at 
the Naval Reserve Center may have been injured as well. Many local 
businesses, schools, and hospitals are locked down.
  I have been in touch with Federal, State, and local officials and 
will continue to monitor the situation closely. My thoughts and prayers 
are with all of those involved.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to join our senior Senator in 
expressing our deep sorrow for those who have been affected and 
extending our thoughts and prayers to the families. Details are still 
emerging. We believe this took place in multiple locations, and I know 
the local representatives there are dealing with this effectively as 
they move ahead.
  I thank the Senator for having us take the time right now to express 
our sorrow and support for those who are dealing with this issue. I 
hope those who were injured will survive and end up having full lives, 
but we know some people were tragically injured. I appreciate the 
reach-out that has taken place at the local, State, and Federal level 
to ensure that we are aware of what is occurring.
  With that, I yield the floor.


                  charter school authorizing language

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a 
colloquy with Senator Alexander.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FLAKE. As the Senate prepares to vote on the Every Child Achieves 
Act, I wish to commend Senator Alexander for working with me to include 
language regarding charter school authorizers in the substitute 
amendment language.
  A charter school authorizer is an entity approved by the State 
legislature and is responsible for establishing charter schools' 
academic and accountability standards, among other things. State 
charter laws vary from State to State in regards to how and to whom 
authorizers are subject to accountability. For example, a State with 
independent or multiple authorizers gives entities other than local 
education boards or the State board, the authority to approve charter 
schools. These entities are typically outside the traditional education 
structure of a state and can include independent, statewide charter 
school boards, or colleges and universities. According to the Center 
for Education Reform, ``there is a direct correlation between States 
with multiple authorizers and higher student achievement.'' Out of 44 
State laws, 21 States have created independent authorizers.
  The language in the underlying Every Child Achieves Act encouraged 
States applying for grants to Support High-Quality Charter Schools 
(Sec. 5103) to establish authorizing standards of an authorized public 
chartering agency, despite the fact that some States don't have any 
explicit authority over charter school authorizing. This language 
didn't take into consideration the variation of State by State 
authorizing structures for charter schools and required that the 
Federal Government, not States, dictate how and what charter 
authorizing agencies must do to demonstrate success. In addition, 
subjecting charter schools to the same rules governing traditional 
public institutions would make them identical to the very entities that 
charter schools were meant to provide an alternative to.
  The language that Chairman Alexander and I worked with, and 
ultimately included in the substitute, recognizes that some States have 
elected to use multiple or independent authorizers and ensures that 
those States don't have to add an additional layer of bureaucracy to 
receive grants under the Every Child Achieves Act.
  This bill goes a long way in recognizing that Washington cannot be a 
national school board, and that is why it is imperative that the 
Federal Government continue to encourage States to determine their own 
authorizing standards and learn what works best for their students.
  The Center for Education Reform, a leading organization promoting 
charter education supported the language in the substitute explaining 
``. . . Charter schools are public schools, which are free from many 
onerous rules but accountable for performance to their authorizers, 
which vary State by State. The substitute ensures respect for those 
individual differences State by State as well as the hard work they are 
doing to ensure the proliferation of quality schooling option for all 
children.''
  I commend Chairman Alexander for his hard work on this legislation, 
and for working with me to ensure States, not the Federal Government, 
are determining charter authorizing standards.
  Senator ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Flake for his hard 
work to ensure that charter

[[Page 11699]]

schools and their authorizers continue to operate with the flexibility 
needed for them to thrive. Charter schools are public schools that 
provide more choices for parents to improve their children's future and 
more freedom for teachers and principals to increase the academic 
performance of their students. The Every Child Achieves Act supports 
charter schools in many ways by solidifying Federal support for 
expanding and replicating high-quality charter schools with a 
demonstrated record of success, giving States more flexibility to 
invest in new school models and encouraging them to strengthen charter 
school authorizing practices. The language championed by Senator Flake 
will promote quality charter authorizing activities without imposing 
layers of Federal bureaucracy and structures that are incompatible with 
State practices and laws. As we fix a law that has effectively resulted 
in 100,000 public schools being controlled by a National School Board 
in the U.S. Department of Education, it is important to recognize the 
variance in State laws governing charter schools and empower States to 
determine their own quality standards.
  Today, nearly 2.9 million students--6 percent of U.S. public school 
students--were enrolled in approximately 6,700 charter schools, and 
just over the past year, charter school enrollment has grown by over 14 
percent, or an additional 348,000 students. I commend Senator Flake on 
his actions to strengthen the program and to promote better State 
charter school policies and activities that help high quality charter 
schools continue to grow and flourish.


                           amendment no. 2161

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, when all students have the chance to 
learn, we strengthen our future workforce. Our country grows stronger. 
We empower the next generation of Americans to lead the world. We 
create more opportunities for more families, and we help the economy 
grow from the middle out, not the top down.
  But today, across the country, stark educational inequalities exist. 
The students in some schools simply don't have the same opportunity to 
graduate college-and-career ready like other students do. In our 
country, all students should have access to a quality public education, 
no matter where they live, how they learn, or how much money their 
parents make.
  So that is why I am glad our bipartisan bill to fix No Child Left 
Behind has Federal protections to hold schools accountable for 
educating all students. And I will continue to fight for stronger 
protections as the bill moves forward.
  But educating all students is a tall order if schools don't have the 
very resources that help students succeed. That is why it is so 
important to make sure States address inequalities in resources. 
Senators Kirk, Reed, Baldwin, and Brown offered a bipartisan amendment 
that would help schools and States address persistent inequalities in 
resources and opportunities. I strongly urged my colleagues to support 
it.
  Students do better in school when they have access to a well-rounded 
education. That includes rigorous coursework that helps prepare 
students for a college curriculum. It includes offering classes like 
arts, music, physical education, and STEM education. It includes 
setting up effective school library programs that can inspire in kids a 
love for reading. Those classes and those programs create a school 
environment where students can learn and thrive.
  But too many students across the country do not have access to those 
critical resources. And too often, it is students of color, kids with 
disabilities, English-language learners, and students from low-income 
backgrounds who have the least access to resources that can help them 
get ahead.
  Take experienced teachers, for example. Students of color are more 
likely to have a teacher who is new to the profession. These students 
often don't have access to advanced classes and classes like art and 
music. Students of color are more likely than their White peers to go 
to a high school that does not offer AP classes. In fact, 20 percent of 
African-American high schoolers go to a high school that does not offer 
AP classes. And in 2008, White students were twice as likely to have 
access to arts education as African-American and Hispanic students.
  The same inequality exists for access to technology. Students from 
low-income backgrounds often don't have access to the Internet or to 
computers, compared to their peers. A study from Stanford University 
put this into sharp focus. The researchers asked teachers if their 
students have the digital tools they need to effectively complete 
assignments at home. More than half of teachers from more affluent 
schools said yes. But just 3 percent of teachers from high-poverty 
schools said their students had access to tools like computers and the 
Internet.
  All of this inequality holds students back. It widens achievement 
gaps. It robs students of the chance to learn and excel in the 
classroom. And we need to do something about it, so all students have 
the opportunity to learn.
  We have made important progress in the Every Child Achieves Act. 
Under the current bill, school districts will already be required to 
report on: access to safe and healthy school environments, per-pupil 
expenditures, access to advanced coursework, the number of children 
enrolled in preschool, and teacher qualifications. And that is a good 
step in the right direction.
  But this bipartisan amendment would take the next step. First, it 
would expand the list of resource indicators to include things like 
access to art and music and dedicated school library programs. And it 
would give States a choice on which resources will be the most 
meaningful in their communities.
  Most importantly, this amendment would help States remedy opportunity 
gaps across school districts. It does this by requiring States to 
create a plan to improve access to resources in the schools that lack 
those tools. And because the plans will be designed by the States and 
must include input from the communities, these plans will be tailored 
to fit the needs of local school districts. And States would be 
required to disaggregate the data on how resources are distributed by 
income, race, language proficiency, and disability. That will shine a 
light on if some groups of students are not getting the kinds of 
opportunities as others. And it will help parents know which resources 
their local schools offer and where the gaps are.
  In short, this amendment will help strengthen our commitment to 
providing a quality education to all students. This amendment is also 
important for another key reason. Of course, nearly everyone agrees 
that the current law, No Child Left Behind, is badly broken. And one of 
the main reasons is that it placed an almost singular focus on test 
scores for reading and math. But test scores do not paint the whole 
picture of how a school is performing.
  This amendment would give parents and communities a more holistic 
view to determine if a school is providing a quality learning 
environment for all students. And most importantly, this will help 
States focus resources on traditionally underserved populations so they 
will get the supports they need to succeed.
  Now, some of my Republican colleagues have argued that we don't need 
this amendment because States and school districts should be 
responsible for solving resource disparities. But for too long, States 
and school districts have gotten off the hook for stark inequality. 
That is why we have seen the persistent inequality of some schools 
simply not getting the resources they need to help their students 
succeed. And that needs to end.
  This amendment would not tell States how to address inequality. But 
it would require them to identify the disparities that exist and to 
create a plan to address them. That is why this amendment would be a 
good step in the right direction.
  I know that others have argued that simply reporting the disparities 
between resources would be enough. But acknowledging the problem won't 
necessarily solve the problem. And on something as important as 
ensuring that students have equal opportunities

[[Page 11700]]

to succeed, we need action. And that is why I believe it is so 
important that this amendment would help States act to address 
inequalities.
  This isn't just important for student success in the classroom. It 
has long-term implications for our country. When some students don't 
have the chance to graduate from high school college-and-career ready, 
we lose out on the full potential of our Nation's future workforce, 
entrepreneurs, and leaders. In the years to come, our economy will rely 
on the students of today being able to take on and create the jobs of 
the 21st century economy. We can help States and school districts make 
sure all students have the resources that defines a quality education 
by supporting this bill and this amendment. These resources are 
fundamental to student success--in school and in the future. So I urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment to address resources equity.


                    Amendment No. 2247, as Modified

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I wish to talk about my reasons 
for voting against Senator Burr's amendment to change the title I 
formula and on cloture to cut off debate on the Every Child Achieves 
Act.
  The bill before us is not perfect, but it is a step in the right 
direction towards giving all kids a shot at quality education and 
fixing the failures of No Child Left Behind. I support a number of the 
provisions in this bill, including raising academic standards for 
students, supporting teachers with additional development tools, and 
providing resources to the lowest performing schools.
  However, the bill also includes an amendment offered by Senator Burr 
to change the title I formula, which would drastically and negatively 
affect Maryland. Every single school district in my State would have 
lost money.
  I could not let that happen. So I rolled up my sleeves and got to 
work. I formed a coalition with other Senators whose students--like 
mine--would lose under this amendment. The amendment was eventually 
changed. Now it says that any funds Congress appropriates for title I 
above $17 billion will be subject to a new formula. Since title I is 
currently funded at $14.5 billion, the new formula will not kick in at 
any time soon and Maryland won't lose any of its funds.
  I am happy that I saved Maryland from losing $40 million, but the 
language sets a terrible precedent. It penalizes States that do right 
by their students and their schools. As the Senator for Maryland, I 
can't support any formula that could cause Maryland to lose Federal 
dollars in the future--even one labeled a ``compromise.'' As vice 
chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I cannot support any 
disincentive to fully fund title I when additional funds would harm 
Maryland.
  As long as this amendment is included, I cannot vote to move this 
bill forward and will vote no on cloture.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the 
Every Child Achieves Act. I would like to thank Senator Alexander and 
Senator Murray for their hard work on this legislation. This bipartisan 
bill offers an opportunity for real progress in educating our children.
  The Every Child Achieves Act takes an important step forward in 
updating the badly broken No Child Left Behind Act. This 
reauthorization is greatly needed to support Washington State's 
students, educators, and families. Currently in Washington, our schools 
must still comply with the original and most onerous requirements of No 
Child Left Behind since our flexibility waiver was revoked in 2014. The 
Every Child Achieves Act would end the States' need for waivers and 
provide them with greater flexibility to come up with state-led 
education plans.
  I have visited a number of schools in Washington and I have heard 
from so many of my constituents about the need to improve this law to 
better support our Nation's teachers and students. I am pleased that 
the Senate was able to have this important debate that is critical to 
our Nation's progress.
  Today, we live in a global economy and our children are not only 
competing with other students in the United States but with students 
across the world. Therefore, I am particularly interested in science, 
technology, engineering, and math education to keep American students 
competitive in the 21st century. Washington State ranks first in the 
Nation in the concentration of STEM-related jobs, and it is essential 
that we invest in our future workforce.
  The Every Child Achieves Act includes an important dedicated funding 
stream to support partnerships between schools, businesses, 
universities, and nonprofit organizations to support student 
achievement and teacher training in STEM subjects. I am a strong 
supporter of these partnerships and I am pleased that the bill also 
includes a provision with an emphasis on increasing access to STEM 
subjects for women, minorities, economically disadvantaged students, 
and other groups that are frequently underrepresented in STEM subjects.
  Additionally, I am pleased that this bill includes a new competitive 
grant program championed by my colleague, Senator Murray, to enable 
States to improve early childhood learning. I long have supported early 
childhood learning due to its importance to developing young minds and 
intelligence. These grants would target resources for low- and 
moderate-income families.
  There are few programs more important than early childhood education 
in preparing children to succeed. I am proud to be a cosponsor of 
Senator Casey's Strong Start for America's Children amendment, which I 
regret did not receive enough votes for adoption. This would have 
established a partnership between the Federal Government and the States 
to fund high-quality kindergarten programs for low- and moderate-income 
families.
  Washington State has been on the fore-front of early education and 
since 2006, the Department of Early Learning has ensured that 
Washington students have access to high-quality learning opportunities, 
so that they are prepared for kindergarten and a successful school 
career. According to the Washington State Department of Early Learning, 
there is clear and convincing science that early childhood is a 
critical time for mental development. Economists and social scientists 
have found that for every $1 invested in high-quality early learning, 
at least $3 are returned in reduced costs for remedial education, 
public safety, health care, and other social spending. I would call 
this a good return on investment.
  In closing, I would like to commend my colleague Senator Murray for 
her leadership and for her steadfast commitment to ensure that STEM 
education and early childhood education were included in the Every 
Child Achieves Act. I was happy to partner with her on these efforts. I 
urge my colleagues to support these important investments in our 
Nation's education system.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. 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. ALEXANDER. 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. ALEXANDER. Is it time to vote?


                             Cloture Motion

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


[[Page 11701]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 
1177, an original bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965 to ensure that every child achieves, as amended, 
shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 79, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 248 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

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

                                NAYS--18

     Blunt
     Booker
     Cardin
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Gillibrand
     Lee
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murphy
     Paul
     Risch
     Sasse
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Vitter
     Warren

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Graham
     Nelson
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 79, the nays are 
18.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Under the previous order, there is now 4 minutes of debate equally 
divided between Senators Alexander and Murray.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I first want to thank Chairman Alexander 
for working with me on the Every Child Achieves Act. He has been a 
great partner in getting us to this point with this bill. This process 
started when he and I agreed that No Child Left Behind is badly broken 
and needs to be fixed. Our bill, the Every Child Achieves Act, is an 
important step forward to do just that.
  The current law overemphasized test scores. Our bill will give States 
flexibility to use multiple measures, not just test scores, to 
determine how well a school is performing. Our bill also eliminates the 
one-size-fits-all provisions of No Child Left Behind that have been so 
damaging for our schools and our districts. Instead, it allows our 
communities, our parents, and our teachers to work together to improve 
schools and ensure that every child can get a well-rounded education.
  Our bill maintains Federal protections to help students graduate from 
high school with the tools they need to compete and lead in the 21st 
century economy. This is a good bill. I will keep working, of course, 
to make it better--even after our vote today--in conference.
  I hope we can continue to build on the Senate's strong bipartisan 
work. I will continue to push to strengthen the accountability measures 
in our bill and address inequality in schools. But today I urge my 
colleagues to vote to pass the Every Child Achieves Act that will give 
all students the chance to learn and grow and thrive. Let's fix No 
Child Left Behind. Let's prove that Congress can break through gridlock 
and work together. Let's pass this bill for students, parents, 
teachers, and communities across the country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an extra 
minute if I need it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, Senator Murray suggested we work on 
this in a bipartisan way. I took her advice. It was good advice. This 
is the result. We have had 100 amendments in committee and on the 
floor. We have had excellent process. I thank the majority leader. I 
thank Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, for creating an environment 
to do that.
  Now, let me say this about the vote we are about to have. This is a 
law that everybody wants fixed. We have a consensus on that. We have a 
consensus on how to fix it: keep the important measurements of academic 
achievement and turn the rest of it over to the States, to classroom 
teachers, and others who are closest to the children. That is what the 
Governors, that is what the superintendents, that is what the teachers 
organizations have said to us. They want us to fix it. They support the 
way we are proposing to fix it.
  Now, in the last few years, we have created in this country, in 
effect, a national school board. It has made it harder to have better 
teaching, harder to set higher standards, harder to have real 
accountability in the States. So we changed that. We reversed the trend 
toward the national school board. We end the common core mandate. We 
end the waivers that the U.S. Department of Education is using to run 
public schools. We end DC evaluating teachers. We end adequate yearly 
progress.
  Some are saying vote no because you should go further. Well, we had a 
chance to go further. We voted for the Daines amendment, the Scott 
amendment, and the Alexander amendment. That would have gotten us 90 
percent of what we wanted. We got about 45 votes, so we didn't get 
anything. This gets us about 80 percent of what we want. A President 
named Reagan used to say: If you got 80 percent of what you wanted, you 
might take it and fight for the rest on another day. I am recommending 
we follow this advice.
  If we vote no today, that means we leave the Common Core mandate 
right where it is. That means the waivers are still running your 
schools. That means adequate yearly progress is determined from 
Washington, DC, not in your hometown, and that means Washington, DC, is 
evaluating your teachers. Everybody wants this law fixed. If you vote 
no, we fix nothing. We fix nothing. So no means we haven't fixed 
anything. So vote yes. Do what the Governors, do what the 
superintendents, do what the teachers say we ought to do. They all 
agree on that. This is the most important step in that direction we 
have had in 25 years. Let's not miss the opportunity. Vote to restore 
to the people closest to the children the responsibility for their 
education. Vote yes for local control of public schools.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the bill having been 
read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 17, as follows:

[[Page 11702]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 249 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

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

                                NAYS--17

     Blunt
     Booker
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Flake
     Lee
     Moran
     Murphy
     Paul
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Vitter
     Warren

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Graham
     Nelson
       
  The bill (S. 1177), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill, as amended, will be printed in a future edition of the 
Record.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.

                          ____________________