Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. For the information of Senators, within a few minutes we hope to have a cloture vote. We are still working out an agreement, but we hope to have that done within a very few minutes and may begin to move on that shortly after the Senator from Maine finishes his remarks.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, for the information of Senators, we have an agreement on the amendments to our legislation to fix No Child Left Behind. The agreement represents all of the amendments that we will be dealing with. The exact time of the final passage will be determined by the Republican and Democratic leaders. This is how we will proceed. First, we will propose and hopefully adopt by consent a managers' package of 21 amendments. Second, we will lock in an agreement by consent to vote on 24 more amendments. That voting will begin this afternoon, perhaps, at 2:30 p.m. or 3 p.m. There are slightly more Democratic amendments than Republican amendments in that group of 45 amendments. Following the reading of that, Senator Murray and I will each have 3 or 4 minutes of remarks that we would like to make, and then we will have a cloture vote, and that will be all we will do before lunch. Following lunch, as I said, at about 2:30 p.m. or 3 p.m., we will move to vote. I am now going to move to the managers' package, a list of 21 amendments that have been cleared by both the Republican and Democratic sides. Amendments Nos. 2111; 2141; 2145; 2149; 2150; 2151, as Modified; 2154; 2155; 2157; 2234; 2170; 2178; 2181; 2185; 2195; 2216; 2199; 2201; 2225; 2224; and 2227 to Amendment No. 2089 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up and agreed to en bloc: McCain-Reid No. 2111; Bennet-Ayotte No. 2141; Ayotte No. 2145; Udall No. 2149; Feinstein- Cornyn-Gardner No. 2150; Carper-Ayotte No. 2151, as modified with the changes at the desk; King-Capito No. 2154; Thune No. 2155; Flake No. 2157; Lee No. 2234; Booker No. 2170; Coons-Reed-Blunt No. 2178; McCain No. 2181; Whitehouse No. 2185; Blunt-Cardin-Mikulski-Collins No. 2195; Gillibrand No. 2216; Graham No. 2199; Alexander No. 2201; Bennet No. 2225; Booker No. 2224; and Cornyn No. 2227.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding rule XXII, on behalf of myself and Senator Murray, that if cloture is invoked on the Alexander amendment No. 2089, the following amendments be made pending en bloc: Coons No. 2243; Cruz No. 2180; Heitkamp No. 2171; Hatch No. 2082; Warren No. 2106; Burr No. 2247, as modified with the changes at the desk; Murphy No. 2186; Brown No. 2100; Wicker No. 2144; Markey No. 2176; Murphy No. 2241; Sanders No. 2177; Casey No. 2242; Schatz No. 2130; Nelson No. 2215, as modified with the changes at the desk; Manchin No. 2222; Boozman No. 2231; Baldwin No. 2188; Capito No. 2156; Thune No. 2232; King No. 2256; Schatz No. 2240; and Warren No. 2249. Following that, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader either today or tomorrow, the Senate vote in relation to the following amendments: Brown No. 2100; Heitkamp No. 2171, 60-vote threshold; Coons No. 2243, 60-vote threshold; Kirk No. 2161, 60-vote threshold; Burr No. 2247, as modified with the changes at the desk; Hatch No. 2082; Warren No. 2106; Wicker No. 2144, 60-vote threshold; Markey No. 2176, 60-vote threshold; Murphy No. 2241, 60-vote threshold; Sanders No. 2177, 60-vote threshold; Casey No. 2242, 60-vote threshold; Cruz No. 2180; Schatz No. 2130; Murphy No. 2186; Nelson No. 2215, as modified with the changes at the desk; Manchin No. 2222; Boozman No. 2231; Baldwin No. 2188; Capito No. 2156; Thune No. 2232; King No. 2256; Schatz No. 2240; and Warren No. 2249, with no second-degree amendments in order to any of the amendments prior to the votes, that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote; and that all after the first vote in each series be 10 minutes in length; also that the Warren amendment No. 2120 be withdrawn and that the following amendments in this agreement be subject to a 60- affirmative-vote threshold for adoption: Coons No. 2243, Heitkamp No. 2171, Kirk No. 2161, Wicker No. 2144, Markey No. 2176, Murphy No. 2241, Sanders No. 2177, and Casey No. 2242.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, in just a few minutes, after brief comments by Senator Murray and me, we will proceed to a cloture vote and then our next votes will be at 2:30. I think, from the reading of the amendments, that the Senators can see that we have had a fair and open amendment process. Just to give you an example, in our committee consideration to fix No Child Left Behind, we adopted 29 amendments, and the committee was pleased enough with the process that they reported the bill unanimously. The substitute amendment, one of the amendments I just listed, adopts the priorities of 52 Members into that substitute amendment. On the Senate floor already since last week, we have adopted 27 amendments, and I just read the two consent requests. The manager's package has 21 amendments in it, and those have been adopted. Then there are the 21 more votes that we just secured approval to vote on either by voice or in fact. So the vote we are about to have is a vote on whether to end debate on our bill to fix No Child Left Behind. I think the question before the Senators is this: Do you think there has been a fair process? Do you think it is open enough? Do you think the bill is worthy of having these votes and going toward final passage? I hope every single Senator will agree that yes, it has been. This is the way the Senate is supposed to work. Basically, we are concluding the bill by a unanimous consent agreement, which is to say that virtually every Senator who wants an amendment has had that amendment considered, and we are going to dispose of it one way or another. We are going to adopt it or vote on it, whatever the Senate likes. That is important for the country to see. This a bill that Newsweek magazine said is the education bill everyone wants fixed. There is a remarkable consensus that we need to do it. After 7 years, this bill is overdue and a ``yes'' vote today on cloture says: We recognize that Governors, teachers, school board members, and school superintendents have united in a remarkable coalition to support the way we propose to fix it. So we have a consensus that it needs to be fixed, and we have a consensus on how to fix it. This is a vote about whether we are ready to do that--to do our job. I thank Senator Murray principally for her leadership in this respect, making it possible to create this environment in which we have been able to have such a good process. I thank the majority leader for putting the bill on the floor and giving us a week of time--more than a week--to deal with it. I thank the majority whip for his efforts, especially in helping to bring this to a conclusion. I thank the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, as well as Senators Schumer, Durbin and Patty Murray, who is also part of that leadership, for creating the kind of working environment to give Senators on both sides of the aisle a chance to go home and say: We fixed No Child Left Behind. I had my say in it, and we are going to restore responsibility. We are going to keep the important measurements of student achievement, but restore to the classroom teachers, the Governors, the legislatures, the school boards, and to the parents the responsibility for student achievement. I thank the Chair, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on cloture so we can move toward these remaining 21 amendments on the bill.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time. Cloture Motion

Mr. ALEXANDER. I am fine.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, for Senators' information, I will be talking to Senator Murray in the next few minutes, and there is a good possibility we will have votes beginning at about 3 o'clock. But I will have more to report, hopefully, after the Senator from Vermont makes his remarks. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, we will have a vote on the Markey amendment. I would urge a ``no'' vote for the following reasons: If you love Washington getting involved in Common Core, you will love this amendment, because it gets the Federal Government involved in creating a curriculum for climate change in your local high schools and other schools. Based upon what we know about the U.S. Department of Education, as soon as we authorize this, it will begin to write regulations defining what we mean by climate change, and we would have to change textbooks in 100,000 public schools every time we have a Presidential election. Just imagine what the curriculum on climate change would be if we shifted from President Obama to President Cruz and then back to President Sanders and then to President Trump. There would be a lot of wasted paper, writing and rewriting textbooks. The Every Child Achieves Act prohibits officials of the Federal Government from getting involved with the instructional material in classrooms. If we want to have better climate science, the appeal should not be to a national school board that gets Washington involved in climate change. It should be to the local school board or the State school board. I say that as a Republican who believes that climate change is a problem and that human activity is a major contributor to that problem. But I do not want the Federal Government involved in local high school and elementary school curricula for climate science or anything else. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I urge a ``no'' vote. Of course, we should help and care about the mental health of children, but the Federal Government already funds at least 16 programs related to mental health. A new program isn't needed, and the Department of Education is not the best suited agency to administer it. It ought to be in the Department of Health and Human Services. It is unnecessary. The district may use funds already under the education bill and other health programs for this purpose. One of the problems we have as a Congress is we have a good idea and we appropriate and create a new program without realizing there are already 16 other programs there. We should stop that and focus our efforts on existing programs and giving States more flexibility to use that money. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I urge a ``no'' vote. This bipartisan bill on the floor is about reversing the trend toward a national school board. This amendment is about making the national school board bigger and more powerful. It would result in the Federal Government deciding for States which educational resources are critical. That would have the Federal Government deciding about licensing teachers, teachers' salaries, library books, wellness programs, school facilities, and it would produce new lawsuits. We need to go in the other direction. We need to keep the measurements of how children are doing but restore to States and local school boards the responsibility for making these decisions. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, yesterday the Senator from Montana, Mr. Tester, came on the floor and said he supported this bill because it got rid of adequate yearly progress. This is adequate yearly progress through the back door. Instead of fixing No Child Left Behind, it keeps the worst parts of it and restores those kinds of parts with new mandates. If you don't believe me, here is a letter dated yesterday from the National Educational Association on behalf of its 3 million members: After 13 years of witnessing firsthand the negative consequences [of] No Child Left Behind's one-size-fits-all approach to accountability . . . our members strongly oppose more of the same. . . . we believe the Murphy amendment would continue the narrow and punitive focus of NCLB. Our members are deeply concerned the amendment would mark an entire school for intervention if a single subgroup misses goals for two consecutive years--precisely the approach that misidentified schools under the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) provision of [No Child Left Behind]. We are reversing the trend toward a national school board, not establishing more of a school board. Governors, teachers, school board members, and superintendents agree with that. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 15 at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Semi- Annual Report to Congress.''

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 15, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a Subcommittee hearing entitled ``Examining the Governance and Integrity of International Soccer.''

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 15, 2015, at 4:45 p.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, we are continuing our discussion of legislation to fix No Child Left Behind. We are still hopeful that we may have an agreement that we will have one or two votes before lunch. I remind Senators that because of their cooperation we have done pretty well. We have adopted 29 amendments in committee, 22 already on the floor. Senator Murray and I have a large number of other amendments that we are prepared to recommend to the full Senate be adopted by consent. We have about two dozen amendments which we would like to have a vote on today and tomorrow. So the sooner we can move to those, the better, which will take some cooperation from all Senators. Senator Tester, the Senator from Montana, was here earlier. I thank him for his comments. He is a former school board member. He recognizes that the idea that we want to restore responsibility for student achievement to local school boards, to classroom teachers, to States, to chief State school officers is not just a Republican idea, it is a bipartisan consensus. We agree. We want to know whether the children are learning, but we want to restore to the States the decisions about what to do about the results of the tests the students take. As the New York Principal of the Year wrote to us, wrote to our committee: We cherish our children, too. What she was saying was just because we fly to Washington once a week doesn't make us any more caring or any wiser about how to deal with 50 million children in 100,000 public schools from Native villages in Alaska to the mountains of Tennessee. In fact, we are less able to deal with that because we are further removed from those students. The Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Scott, made that point eloquently. He said school choice is not a political slogan, school choice is an option, and we should look at it from the point of view of someone who is low-income or someone who is growing up in a home with a single parent, which he did. He talked from his own perspective. We shouldn't look down, we should be looking up. Look up at opportunity. Look up to the point of view of a single parent with less income and one or more children who is thinking: How can I help my children rise? How can they look up? Probably the one thing that almost all of us would agree on is, the better the educational opportunity is, the more chance that child has to climb the ladder. If you have money in your family, you have those choices. You may move to a different part of town or you may choose a private school if you have the money. If you don't have the money, you don't have the choices. So what Senator Scott proposes to do is to take $14 billion of Federal funding and allow States--this is not a mandate on the State; this will be up to the State--to say that money can follow the low- income child to the school the child's parent wants that child to attend, public or private. There is often a lot of talk about what is the proper Federal role for education. Some people don't think there is any. I was in that camp and probably still would be if I were the king. I remember going to see President Reagan in the early 1980s and suggesting that the Federal Government get completely out of elementary and secondary education and let the States do it all. In exchange, the Federal Government would take all of Medicaid. That would have been a good swap for the States, and it would have been good for education. But that is not where we are as a country today. But if someone were to say what is the single reason why the Federal Government ought to have something to do with education, one answer would be to prevent discrimination, and another answer would be to help low-income children. What is the best way to help the low-income child? This is what the Senator from South Carolina is saying: Why don't we take the money we have available, and let it follow that child to the school that the child's parent thinks is best? That is what we allow the wealthier parent to do. Why don't we do it for the child? Why do we send it through bureaucracies and let other people make that decision? Why do we look down when, instead, we should be looking up? As he also pointed out, it is not such an alien thought--this idea of letting money follow a student to a school. He pointed out that since 1944, with the GI bill for veterans, we have had great success in this country with allowing Federal dollars to follow students to the college of their choice. In fact, the GI bill for veterans is often described as the most successful social piece of legislation in our country's history. It helped to create the ``greatest generation.'' It said you could take your Pell grant or your student loan to Notre Dame, to the University of Arizona, to Maryville College in Tennessee or you can go to Yeshiva, you can go to Howard University. That is your choice. Public, for- profit or nonprofit, you go. If it is accredited, that is your choice. We also have vouchers, and that is a voucher at the other end of the scale. We have something called the child care and development block grant. It is a very big Federal program, maybe $8 billion. It says to low-income mothers--mainly mothers--that here is a voucher that you could spend at a daycare center while you work or while you go to school so that you can earn enough money so that you won't have to have a government voucher anymore. So we have vouchers for parents with 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-year olds. We have vouchers for students who are 18, 19, and 21 years olds, and somehow we think there is something wrong with having vouchers for elementary and high school students. That line is changing all the time. I was in Jackson, TN, recently, and the president of Jackson State Community College told me that 30 percent of the students at Jackson State Community College are also in high school. We call that dual enrollment. That means that while you are a junior or a senior in high school, you might be taking physics, mathematics or some program at the community college or some apprenticeship there that might better prepare you for a job. At Walters State Community College in Morristown, TN, I spoke at the graduation this year. A student there was graduating from Jefferson County High School and Walters State Community College in the same week. That student was going on to Purdue University, but he was going to enter Purdue at the second semester of his sophomore year. In other words, because he had been in both community college and in high school, he was able to save, he said, $65,000 by enrolling in the second semester of the sophomore year. So we have a voucher to help him pay, if he is low income, to go to Walters State Community College, but somehow there is something wrong with a voucher to allow him to choose among the public high schools he attends. That doesn't make a lot of sense based on our history. It would be rare that we have a social experiment or a social legislation offered in our country where we have these two good pilot programs: the GI bill for veterans, operating since 1944, and the child care and development block grant, operating since the first President Bush was in office and which was reauthorized just last year by Congress. We all vote for Pell grant vouchers. We all vote for child care and development block grant vouchers, and then we have a big argument when it comes time to talk about vouchers for elementary and secondary education. I think a way to resolve that is to take Senator Scott's advice. Instead of looking down on the students, let's look up. Let's look up from the perspective of Senator Scott--the Senator from South Carolina--when he was a child, when he was growing up in a home without much money, with a single parent, with limited educational options. He knows the value and option that a Pell grant gave him for college. He would like to extend that option to elementary and secondary education for students who grow up as he grew up, and I would like to do that as well. We have an opportunity to do that by voting for his amendment when it comes time for a vote on this bill. I intend to vote yes, and I hope my colleagues will too. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER. No objection.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Washington, I ask unanimous consent that the 4 p.m. vote begin now.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Excuse me. My fault, Mr. President.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I got a little ahead of myself. I should have checked with Senator Isakson to see if he wished to speak on behalf of his amendment. I see he is now here. Why don't we allow him to do that, and then I will ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 14, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 14, 2015, at 2:30 p.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Challenges and Opportunities for Small Businesses Engaged in Energy Development and Energy Intensive Manufacturing.''