Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is necessarily absent.

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. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is necessarily absent.

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

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for bringing up a critically important issue. The need for counseling and mental health resources in our schools cannot be overstated. There are so many kids who appear to be slow learners and have problems that can be traced directly to these issues. I know that teachers aren't trained to be psychologists and psychiatrists. Many of them are struggling just to teach. So I think the resources that the Senator from North Dakota is talking about are absolutely essential, and I hope her amendment prevails. I will be happy to support it.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we come together every few years to debate education. Why does the Federal Government get into the conversation about grade schools and high schools? Because 50 years ago we created programs sending Federal money to these schools. In my State, about 5 percent of all the money spent on education comes from Washington. The rest of it comes from State and local sources. Sending this money to schools was part of a program for accountability back in the 1960s. The problems we faced were largely twofold, problems of poverty and the resulting difficulties that children had in school and problems with racial discrimination. So we tried to resolve these by sending resources to States and holding them accountable if they received Federal money to move toward improving test scores and performance for children and breaking down the walls of segregation. It is 50 years later. We have tried so many different approaches to this, and under President George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, there was a surprising new approach called No Child Left Behind. What was surprising is that a conservative Republican President actually called for a bigger role of the Federal Government when it came to education. President Bush felt that we should hold schools and teachers accountable, that we should test to make sure they were making progress, and frankly, call them out if they were not. It was a pretty bold and controversial idea. Now we come together years later in an effort to do it differently. This bill before us, the Every Child Achieves Act, basically shifts the pendulum to the other side and says that now we are going to give it back to the States to measure the performance and progress of schools and intervene where necessary. I think this is a worthy effort. We may find that we have gone too far in moving it all back to the States and away from the multiple tests that face school districts under No Child Left Behind, but we are engaging in this new approach in the hopes that it will be better and fairer and that more kids in America will get a good education. That is generally why I think we are here on this floor. There is one aspect of it which I think we should still maintain, and that is the question or issue of accountability. Senators Murphy of Connecticut, Booker of New Jersey, Coons of Delaware, and Warren of Massachusetts filed an amendment which I have joined with to insert meaningful accountability measures in this bill, including identifying the 5 percent lowest performing schools--high schools where less than two-thirds of the students graduate--and subgroups of students who are not doing well. There is a concern on the other side of the aisle, and even from some of my friends and supporters, that we are going back to the Federal accountability standards when schools or subgroups are not succeeding. That is not the case with this amendment. It allows the States to still decide which interventions are warranted, but it makes the information public as to how the schools are doing, particularly those that are really struggling, the lowest 5 percent of schools--high schools where two-thirds of the students are not performing. We should know this, and we should hold the States accountable now that it is their responsibility to intervene to make sure that they achieve this. To ignore it and turn our backs on it is not fair. It is to ignore a half- century commitment by this government with the title I program in particular and other programs in our government to really help the States to improve with Federal resources. We have gone away from overtesting in No Child Left Behind, but let's not reach the point where we ignore the results. Let's hold States accountable. Let them come up with the interventions as required, but let's do it in a way that is transparent so there is accountability. I support this amendment, and I hope it is called up soon. Mr. President, there is another amendment that may soon be before us offered by Senator Burr of North Carolina that would make changes in the title I funding program in terms of the allocations to States. Title I is the single largest source of Federal funding for elementary and secondary education. It helps States and districts address poverty and the needs of low-income students. Senator Burr of North Carolina has created a new formula to send money from Washington back to the States. Not surprisingly, his State does very well with that formula, others not so well. The Burr amendment, which we finally saw in writing last night, would be devastating to low-income students in Illinois. It would reduce my State's share of title I funds by $180 million a year. So 28 percent of all the title I funds now coming into the State would be eliminated by the Burr amendment. Chicago public schools are struggling. Mayor Emanuel, who is in charge of these schools, is trying to resolve decades' old problems with pensions, trying to put the money into the schools, and faces some extremely difficult choices. Under the Burr amendment, Chicago's public schools would lose $68 million. It is not just about the city of Chicago. Every district in Illinois that receives title I funds for low-income students would see a cut. North Chicago and East St. Louis are the two poorest school districts in the State. East St. Louis is my hometown and where I was born. North Chicago would see a 24-percent cut of money for low-income students, and East St. Louis would see a cut of 18 percent--one of the poorest towns in my State. Rockford would lose $5 million, a 31-percent cut. Rock Island would see a 43-percent cut with the Burr amendment, and Carbondale and Danville, 27 and 20 percent, respectively. Springfield, my hometown, would lose $2 million or 26 percent of their total funds would be cut because the Senator from North Carolina wants to take more money home to his State. These types of cuts to Illinois, divvied up among districts in other States, isn't a responsible Federal policy for making sure low-income kids in Illinois get a good education. It isn't responsible, and I have to say to my friend and colleague from North Carolina that he is in for a fight. He may think he has chosen just enough States to get a little more money to get a majority together, but my colleagues, at least on this side of the aisle, realize that tomorrow someone else could come up with a little different formula that would be devastating to their own States. This amendment is the most hurtful and damaging amendment that is before us in this bill as far as my State is concerned. Amendment No. 2093 Third, there is an amendment from my friend from Minnesota, Senator Franken, called the Student Non-Discrimination Act, also called SNDA. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. SNDA will provide critical protection for LGBT students by explicitly prohibiting discrimination in public schools based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. A few weeks ago the Supreme Court had a historic decision when it came to same-sex couples having the right to marry. While this decision is a major historic achievement, there is more that needs to be done. Students who are or are perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender continue to face extraordinary discrimination. A recent survey showed that 85 percent of these students reported harassment. The survey also found that these students didn't perform well when they were subjected to this harassment. That is no surprise. Research also shows that these teenagers are four times more likely to attempt suicide, and 40 percent of the homeless students and children in America are LGBT. I support Senator Franken's amendment. Let's end this discrimination. Finally, I support the amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Bob Casey, which is based on the Strong Start for America's Children Act, to improve and expand high-quality early childhood education for more than 3 million low-income kids. The Casey amendment would help 100,000 kids in low-income families in Illinois get into pre-K. How important is that? Well, I am a grandfather and proud of it. We have twin grandkids who are 3\1/2\ years old. My wife and I spend a lot of time talking with them and reading to them. These kids are doing just great. They have terrific parents and are heading to pre-K in just a few months. They won't even be 4 years old when they enter the pre-K program in the city of Brooklyn, NY. We are excited about it. We know they are going to do well. Their parents, and maybe even their grandparents, have helped them reach that point. What Bob Casey and his amendment try to do is to extend that opportunity to a lot of families--low-income families that may not have the luxury of being able to spend time with their kids the way other families can. Let's give those kids a fighting chance. Let's give them the pre-K education that gets them off to a good, strong start so they can learn and ultimately earn. I support the Casey amendment, and I hope my colleagues will too. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2093

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the No. 1 preventable cause of death in America today: tobacco. People who use tobacco--smoking or chewing-- develop a myriad of health problems, and many die prematurely. Tobacco companies are a big business in America. They have been for a long time. And they really try their best to recruit new customers when they go into junior high and high schools. Now they are in the e- cigarette business too, but I want to stick with tobacco for a moment. The notion, of course, is, if you can addict a child to nicotine, they will continue to smoke and eventually become a lifelong user of tobacco products. It has been a long time since I have engaged this industry in political contest. It was a little over 25 years ago when I was a Member of the House of Representatives that I boarded an airplane in Phoenix, AZ, at the last minute--a United airplane. I went to the ticket counter and said to the woman at the counter: Can I get on this plane? She said: If you hurry, you can get on there. Here is where you are going to be seated. And I said: Wait a minute. This is in the smoking section of the airplane and you have me in a center seat in the smoking section. Isn't there something you can do? She looked at my ticket and said: No, Congressman, there is something you can do. So I got on that plane and flew from Phoenix to Chicago in the smoking section of the airplane--there used to be such things--and thought to myself: This is madness. Here I sit, a nonsmoker, breathing in all this secondhand smoke, and there is an elderly person in the so- called nonsmoking section two rows away, and there is a lady with a baby, and why in the world do we have to be subjected to this? So I came back to Washington and introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to ban smoking on airplanes. After a lot of work and a lot of good luck, I found out that the largest frequent flyer club in America--the House of Representatives--did not much like smoking on airplanes either, and I won--it surprised a lot of people--beat the tobacco lobby. I called my friend Frank Lautenberg, the Senator from New Jersey, and asked him if he would take up the cause in the Senate. He did it masterfully. The two of us passed the law and changed the way America looked at smoking on airplanes. Neither Senator Lautenberg nor I knew this was a tipping point in history. I did not know it. But people started thinking: If secondhand smoke is dangerous on an airplane, why isn't it dangerous on a train, in a bus, in an office building, in a hospital, in a restaurant? Today, 25-plus years later, if you walked into someone's office on Capitol Hill and they had an ashtray in the middle of the table, you would think: What are they thinking? People do not do that anymore. It used to be standard and no one thought twice about lighting up. That was just your personal preference. Things have changed in America, and the number of people using tobacco products has declined because they have come to understand it is dangerous, it can kill you. But we are not the only country on Earth that has figured this out. Many other countries are ahead of us in terms of regulating tobacco. If you travel overseas, take a look at cigarette packages. Ours still look pretty fancy. They have a little label on them. But in other countries, the cigarette packages are very stark and very limited in what they can say about the product. Most of what they contain are health care warnings: Tobacco can kill you. Tobacco can harm a fetus in a pregnant woman. These stark reminders are to discourage people from using tobacco products because countries overseas, just like the United States, understand how dangerous they are. So it was in that context that I was amazed to read something a few weeks ago. The New York Times published a devastating series of articles on how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been playing a global strategy to fight against effective tobacco control laws in other countries--the U.S. Chamber of Commerce fighting tobacco control laws in other countries. Why would the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--once considered a pillar of the American business community--be a champion promoting the sale and consumption of a deadly tobacco product in another country? It does not compute. One reason? The power, the money, and the influence of Big Tobacco is still very strong. The stories and letters published by the New York Times made it clear that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has effectively rented out its letterhead to the tobacco industry, jeopardizing not only the reputation of the Chamber but all the member companies that belong to it. I stand here today to salute one company that has fought back at this revelation of this activity by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. CVS Health--you know them from their drugstores and pharmacies--announced it was going to quit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because the Chamber's efforts to promote tobacco conflict with the CVS corporate policy that decided over a year ago to stop selling tobacco products in their drugstores. I congratulate CVS Health. It is pretty bold when they decide they are going to walk out on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of these rotten policies they have in discouraging tobacco control overseas. Maybe this decision by CVS will give the Chamber of Commerce a reason to think twice about a policy that is going to result in deadly addictions and terrible disease. It should. The Chamber should end this insidious campaign as quickly as possible. Without question, CVS Health has shown again, as they did last year, that protecting the public health is good business and it is essential to good, responsible corporate citizenship. The World Health Organization estimates that tobacco kills more than 6 million people worldwide every year. In the 21st century, 1 billion people--1 billion--are expected to die as a result of tobacco. And many of these deaths are in the poorest nations on Earth--8 out of 10 of today's smokers living in low-income and middle-income countries. It is unconscionable that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is going after the laws to protect the people in these poor countries. More than a decade ago, the World Health Organization adopted an international treaty focused on reducing tobacco consumption. This treaty, supported by 180 countries, obligates nations to employ practices to reduce tobacco use. We have made a lot of progress in the last 10 years. Madam President, 49 countries have passed comprehensive smoke-free laws protecting over 1 billion people. Madam President, 42 countries have strong, graphic warning labels, covering almost 20 percent of the population that buys these products. These policies save lives and prevent cancer, heart disease, and lung cancer. It is hard to imagine how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce can rationalize policies that literally promote the death of innocent people from the use of tobacco. Hats off to the CVS Health corporation for stepping up and showing responsible corporate citizenship in resigning from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Maybe if the U.S. Chamber of Commerce comes to its senses, CVS might consider rejoining it.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, on the floor now when we return for debate is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which has been named the Every Child Achieves Act, and is before the Senate this week. We may finish it. The issue is our opportunity on a periodic basis to debate the future of K-12 education in America. Millions of Americans follow this debate. It affects their local schools and school districts. It was under President George W. Bush that there was an amazing bill passed called the No Child Left Behind Act. What was amazing, politically, was that President Bush--a Republican and a conservative-- called for a larger role by the Federal Government in evaluating school districts and teachers and in deciding whether they were succeeding. It was controversial from the start. Ultimately, we have moved away from it. This new bill takes a much different approach. Instead of testing, testing, testing and grading school districts, we are basically shifting the responsibility back to the States to do this. It remains to be seen whether this is or will be an improvement. We learned a lot under No Child Left Behind when we took a close look at test scores. To say what the average test score is at a school meant very little--or nothing--when we broke out the students at the school and found out that some were doing exceedingly well and some not so well at all. We could find groups of students--some minority groups, for example--who were not doing very well at school, but the other kids might have brought the scores up. So now, by disaggregating scores, we can target our efforts and make sure that some students have a fighting chance. It remains to be seen, under this Every Child Achieves Act, whether we have gone far enough or too far in shifting the responsibility back to the States. I will mention very briefly, because I see my friend and colleague from Vermont on the floor, that there is one amendment here that I have offered with Senator Capito. This bipartisan amendment would require States to include information on their State report cards about postsecondary enrollment rates at public and State institutions. It will allow States to go further and include information on private, public, and out-of-State enrollment as well. It would encourage States to produce and publish data on remediation rates on students, so we can better understand which high schools are truly preparing their students for postsecondary education. Much of the data is already collected by the States. So the additional burden would be minimal. Ensuring students coming out of high school are college and career ready is an important goal of the bill. Our commonsense bipartisan amendment would help track whether that goal is being met. The amendment is supported by the Business Roundtable, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Education Trust, National Center for Learning Disabilities, National Council of La Raza, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and America Forward. There is one other amendment I have, and I will close on this. When it relates to high school athletics, many of us are concerned about the incidents of concussions occurring in sporting events. I filed an amendment based on my Protecting Student Athletes from Concussions Act. It is supported by the American Academy of Neurology, American College of Sports Medicine, Illinois High School Association, NCAA, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, National Football League, National Hockey League, and many others. It directs States to develop concussion safety plans for public schools to protect student athletes from this dangerous injury. Most importantly, it would require the adoption of a ``when in doubt, sit it out'' policy, promoted by the medical community. This means that a student athlete suspected of a concussion would be removed from play and prohibited from returning to play that same day, no matter what. It doesn't make any difference how much he pleads or what the score of the game is or who is sitting in the stands. If you think you have evidence of a concussion, be safe. Don't put that student athlete back on the field. It would take the decision on when to put an injured athlete back in the game out of the hands of the coach, the athlete, and the parents. While I don't believe we will be able to get the adoption of the full amendment, I am pleased that a substitute includes a clear statement that allows funds to be used to develop these policies. I thank Chairman Alexander and Senator Murray for working with us to include that. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, over the Fourth of July recess, I joined with Senator Bill Nelson and we went to Haiti. It is not a popular spot for Members of Congress to go on a weekend, but we made a point of going. It was a return trip for both of us. Our visit the first time was 5 years ago, after the devastating earthquake that left the capital city of Port au Prince in ruins, claimed more than 200,000 lives, and more than 1 million people were displaced from their homes. I recall visiting the island that many years ago, 2 years after the earthquake, and witnessing the ongoing devastation--people still living in tents. So it was with some satisfaction to see that Haiti has come a long way. Buildings are being rebuilt, the overwhelming majority of those displaced have found housing, and the economy is starting to recover. The United States has been a major contributor to Haiti's recovery, and I want to praise the dedicated American Government officials who work in a challenging environment--notably under the incredible and tireless and amazing leadership of our U.S. Ambassador in Haiti, Pam White, a career employee of USAID and now our Nation's Ambassador to Haiti. I noted that the Senate recently confirmed a couple of President Obama's nominees to become Ambassadors. There are now dozens still waiting. Can you imagine the United States of America in our Embassies overseas with no Ambassador month after month after month, when worthy people have been nominated and the U.S. Senate refuses to even consider an Obama nomination for Ambassador? Many of these are not political. They are career. They spent their career working in the State Department. Now, at the end of their career, they are named Ambassador, and the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, under Republican leadership, refuses to call President Obama's nominees for these ambassadorial posts. In many countries, the foreign minister in those countries counts the days and weeks that the United States has not had an ambassador. It is an embarrassment. I hope the majority party now will at least give the President and our Nation the opportunity to put good representatives of our countries overseas. Madam President, I wish to say a few words about the current President of Haiti, whose term ends this year. His name is Michel Joseph Martelly. He is known as Sweet Micky, which used to be his stage name when he was a rock and roll singer. He has now been the President 4\1/2\ years and has done some very good things. He wisely guided his nation through the post-earthquake process and a lot of political change. The end of his term marks an important moment for Haiti and its future. Given that the Haitian Parliament dissolved in January, the success and timeliness of these elections cannot be overstated. I urge the political parties and candidates to renounce the use of electoral violence and to participate constructively in the upcoming election. And I hope that the neighboring country, the Dominican Republic, will join with Haiti in resolving some very vexing immigration problems between these two countries. These are problems which involve some of the poorest people on that island of Hispaniola. We need to find a way to treat them in a decent and humane fashion so they can ultimately be located in a place where they can maintain their dignity and their work.