-- propose a simple solution to a problem that is also fairly simple. so this bill requires that schools continue to assess student performance while getting rid of these annual high-stakes tests. that was unquestionably bad for schools and for students. no child left behind was a bad bill for citizens united and for the nation, so i'm glad -- for was a bad bill for my state and for the nation, so i'm glad that the senate has come together. thethe problem is this: when schools are failing or when minority or disabled students are falling way behind their peers, the bill doesn't require or even ask states or school districts to do anything to fix it. nothing. now, as a civil rights matter, that's unacceptable. now, no child left behind left -- said a lot on this

issue and most of it wasn't helpful or productive. nclb made the measurement of schools and subgroups a test and only a test. and prescribed in adeemed way what schools had to do to turn around student outcomes and nclb punished schools that didn't hundred around thought outcomes quickly enough. we've learned a lot from that approach the from this washington knows best attitude. that's why the amendment we're offering today takes a very different approach to accountability for vulnerable kids. under our amendment states are required to identify the bottom 5% of performing schools according to their measurement of performance. they've got to identify the dropout factories the high schools where less than two-thirds of the students graduate and identify, again according to their own measurement, schools where subgroups of students, low-income students, students of color students with accountabilities english learners aren't meeting their own set of criteria.

this amendment ensures that schools are identified based on a measurement that sets, is set by the state not by washington. and it has to include multiple measures not just that test score alone. let me say that again. the measurement is determined by the state and cannot be based on test scores alone. then the amendments the once you've identified those schools or those student groups in need of improvement according to your own measurements the state needs to come up with a plan to improve outcomes. period stop. identify your achievement gaps, according to your own comprehensive measurements, come up with a plan to fix the gaps. no federally dictated measurement, no federally set intervention no federal penalty if you don't succeed. just identify your problems and come up with a plan to make the problems better. the accountability then will happen naturally as students and parents and community members have input into that plan and the ability to watch to see if it's working.

local solutions local oversight, local accountability. now, 2006 as a candidate for congress i ex dore yachted no child left behind wherever i went. i come from a family of teachers i married a former teacher, i have two kids, one in the public school system and one on his way there and i watched firsthand has nclb failed teachers and parents. but a month after i was swore into the the house of representatives i received a visit from the children's defense fund. they heard how vocal i was in my criticism. they wanted me to know not every state was like connecticut. they told me where prior to nclb kids were sent for magnificent a day for -- quote -- quote vocational training with the janitor. nothing was expected of these kids and more often than not these kids lived up to the low expectations that were set for them. so maybe the only redeeming quality of no child left behind was that it did expose these

inexcusable gaps in performance between disabled and nondisabled kids. it forced us to talk about why black students year after year were 30% behind their white peer students in achievement tests. it caused embarrassment for school systems with schools where the majority of kids got so little out of school they dropped out before graduation and put pressure on all of us to do better. mr. president, this is an education bill but it's not a worthwhile bill unless it's also a civil rights bill. every single child no matter their race or geography or income or disability deserves a first-rate education. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital amount that continues our march away from the requirements of no child left behind while ensuring that all of our students receive the support they need to be successful. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you mr. president. i rise today to talk about a couple of aspects of the legislation. i'll do it in summary form, i'll submit a longer statement for the record. but i first want to say how much i appreciate the work that's been done not only this week but over mean weeks and months that led up to today. we were working a number of months ago in the health, education and labor pensions committee to get a bill out of the committee and after it was completed, of course, it looks easy but i know how hard senator alexander worked, the chairman of the committee and ranking member senator murray, to reach this point. the vote that day was 22-0 and now we're considering the bill on the floor. so that's significant. and noteworthy especially in these times in the senate. i just wanted to talk about a

couple of aspects of this legislation. for far too long, states have had to deal with the uncertainty of federal waivers and one aspect of the legislation that we're focused on is that we need one law that provides states and districts with more flexibility. sometimes we'd hear all across the country i certainly heard in pennsylvania that among the concerns people had was a lack of flexibility. sometimes a one-size-fits-all regime that comes from washington. so that flexibility is important, and we also want to make sure that we are recapturing the original intent of the elementary and secondary education act. the bill acknowledges the anxiety that parents students and teachers often feel about

teaching -- about test, i should say but it realizes and contemplates that we must at the same time have a way to determine what students are learning each year. so i'm pleased to see that the legislation strikes the balance by maintaining annual testing while taking significant steps to reduce the high-stakes nature of testing. while there is more to be done to ensure that all our children -- all our children -- have access to high-quality early childhood education, i'm encouraged that the bill builds on decades of research on early learning by requiring that states align their early learning guidelines with their kindergarten through 12th grade standards. this will help educators from head start, child care, and other early childhood education programs in elementary schools work together so young children

have a successful continuity of learning over time that sets a strong foundation throughout the kindergarten through 12th grade years and beyond. that's something i pushed for over many years in the so-called continuum of learning act and i'm pleased that it's been included in the bill. i wanted to move to two other topics i know we may have limited time. the first is on the question of bullying which we have begun to address in the debates we've had leading up to this legislation we had a vote i guess just yesterday now on senator franken's student nondiscrimination act i supported that, i want to commend him for his work but even with that vote, we have a long way to go on this issue. bullying, of course, is not what my generation understood it

to be. it's a much worse problem today, it's more severe, it's more damaging, it's destroying lives all across the country. more students than ever are not in school every day for one reason bullying, because of the impact that bullying has on their lives. if a child is gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender they are often and disproportionately the victims of bullying. if a student has a disability, he or she is often the victim of bullying and again it's disproportionate. so you're more likely to be bullied if you're disabled, if you have a disability, or if you are gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender. that's an abomination that's an insult to our country. and unless we begin to do something about this, we'll still see those numbers soaring. bullying, of course, is the ultimate betrayal.

it's the betrayal by adults to -- with regard to children and it's a betrayal of everything we claim to stand for in america. because we say to our children, we say if you go to school every day and study hard and go to class and do your homework and study hard for tests and quizzes, if you do that, you will succeed. but, of course, often children are betrayed because in between there, they're bullied and when they go home, they're bullied and when dinner is over at night, they're bullied and all throughout the night they're bullied often because of technology and because of vicious students that go after one student and use social media or other tools to harass and bully that person. we've got to do something about this. we've got to do more than just debate it and talk about it and talk about it. we need to do something.

and i'm hoping that shot efforts that i've -- some of the efforts i've undertaken in my legislation will be the subject of not just more debate but action and progress and results when we get through the conference committee because i think this overall legislation should reach the point of getting to conference. i wanted to conclude because i see our chairman here who will want some time before we start but -- you're good? okay, thank you. i wanted to give one example of a particular individual, a real-life example of when we talk about bullying what it means and i'll have some comments as well about prekindergarten education. here's a real-life story. brandon bitner, 14 years old pleasant mills pennsylvania. walked 13 miles from his home on an early friday morning in

november of 2010 to a busy intersection and threw himself into an oncoming tractor trailer. after leaving a suicide note at his home. so that's what happened to a 14-year-old pennsylvanian just can't even imagine the horror of that what led to that action that he took when he took his own life. it's unfortunately not an isolated example. there are too many of those today. it would be too many if there were one but unfortunately it's many more than one. so it seems to be little doubt in our minds but certainly in the minds of those who knew brandon why he did what he did on that day in november of 2010. i'm quoting a friend takara jo

falk. quote -- "it was because of bullying" -- unquote. that was written in a letter to "the daily item" a newspaper in central pennsylvania. i'm quoting again from that letter. quote -- "it was not about race or gender but they bullied him for his sexual preferences and the way he dressed which she said in her letter, they wrongly accused him of" -- unquote. brandon's suicide note reportedly explained that he was constantly bullied at midwest high school in middleburg where he was a freshman. bullies at that school allegedly called brandon names names which i will not repeat on the floor of the senate. he statedded in the note that a humiliating event in school this past week was the -- quote --

"straw that broke the camel's back" -- unquote. brandon was an accomplished violinist, having been a member of the susquehanna orchestra in 2009 the year before he took his own life. that story unfortunately and tragedy, is emblematic of the problem. we read these stories all the time. they may not be every single day in every single newspaper but not more than a week can go by in the united states of america where you don't read something like that. and i have others i could read as well. but i think folks within the sound of my voice know this. we all know this. so what are we going to do about it well, we all have a role to play. parents have to do a lot more. parents haven't done enough. schools haven't done enough. you could go down the list. at a minimum -- and that's why which introduced legislation that we want to get back to and be able to reach consensus -- but at a minimum we should say

to school districts look, if you're getting federal money and you don't have a policy in place that deals with bullying and harassment and you don't specifically define or list or enumerate what is unlawful conduct, what is prohibited, then there should be a consequence for that. you should have to prescribe what is wrong by a set of conduct you should enforce it, you should keep data and if we take those kinds of steps, at least -- at least we can say that in a school or a school district there is a heightened consciousness about this problem that it's everybody's problem. this isn't the problem of the person bullied and the person engaging in bullying. it's all of our problems, whether we're parents or taxpayers or public officials or whatever. we all have an obligation. and so i hope we can get back to this in addition to continuing

the good work that senator franken and others have started. because this is a betrayal, it is a betrayal of our children, and we're all diminished by our allowing this problem to persist. the only good news here -- and it's significant -- is that in a lot of places, we have parents who are taking responsibility, teachers school administrators, school board directors and, of course students themselves, taking on the responsibility of making sure that in their school, there will be zero tolerance for bullying, to the best that they can implement that kind of a policy. so you have students that are working with other students to resolve disputes, to help someone who might be the victim before something goes wrong and someone becomes a tragedy after being a victim of bullying. so we've got a ways to go on

this issue. we've got more to do. let me conclude with just some thoughts about what we'll be voting on likely tomorrow, which is prekindergarten education. it is a very rare vote on the floor of the united states senate where the entire senate will cast a vote on a very basic program, and that's a program to make sure that if a state wants to join together in partnership with the federal government to build upon or expand, enlarge or even to start from scratch an early learning prekindergarten program for 4-year-olds this legislation will give them that opportunity. it's paid for. we have an offset for the cost of t it is it. it is the right thing to do for 3 million american children. meaning if this were enacted this prekindergarten education program were enacted that -- and if were implemented by every state, if every state took

advantage of that, 3 million children in the country would have prekindergarten education. 93,930 in pennsylvania alone. the state of texas, for example has the opportunity upon passage of this kind of a program into law to have 300,000 children in the state of texas get the benefit of early learning. and let me say finally, this is not just any program. we want high-quality early learning and all the experts know out there and have known for years and have told us for years what works. if you have a high-quality program, that child will learn more now and she will earn more later. it is not just a rhyme. it is the truth. 50 years of data making that direct linkage between learning and earning. and all we need to do is give states the opportunity to work with us to develop a nationwide

strategy so that the united states can say that we are preparing not just our children for that bright future that we hope that they have but that we're preparing our workforce and our economy. so when you make that linkage between learning and earning you are literally not just approving the life of that -- improving the life of that child, but ira you're improving our economic prospects as well. i think our economic destiny is tied to these kinds of strategies. so we have a long way to get there, but tomorrow we should have a vote, and we're looking affordlookforward to that. and again i want to commend senators alexander and murray for their work on the legislation overall. with that, i would yield the floor. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. alexander: would the senator yield for a moment? mr. sanders: of course. mr. alexander: mr. president i'm -- for senators' information, i'll be talking to senator murray in the next few

minutes, and it is a good possibility that we'll have votes beginning about 3:00. i'll have more to report hopefully after the senator from vermont makes his remarks. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president one of the amendments that will be offered is an amendment that i have introduced regarding a major crisis in this country that we just don't talk about enough and that is the frighteningly high rate of youth unemployment in america. mr. president, i am delighted that the elementary and secondary education act is on the floor for debate today and i want to thank senator alexander and senator murray for their hard and constructive work on this important legislation. ii can tell you that in my state of vermont we have held town meetings on the one hand no child left behind, -- and on no child

left behind, and the people of vermont want to leave no child left behind behind. if we go forward on this legislation, i think we will be taking a very important step forward for the children of america. but, mr. president when we talk about the needs of our young people, it is not just a a dysfunctional child care system that we talk about and the need to make sure that working families all over this country have good-quality, affordable child care; it is not simply that college is increasingly unaffordable for millions of working-class families; it is not just that the united states of america tragically and embarrassingly has the highest rate by far of childhood poverty of any major industrialized country on earth -- we talk about the future. we talk about family values.

but the truth of the matter is that we have significant significantly ignored the needs of our children and that is not what a great nation does, not a nation that looks forward to the future. mr. president, this country has got to come to grips with the reality that we have not a high rate of youth unemployment but a tragically high rate of youth unemployment in this country. this is an issue that we don't discuss. it is literally swept under the rug. we have got to bring it out in the open. we've got to discuss it, and we have got to address this issue. mr. president, last month the economic policy institute released a new study about the level of youth unemployment in this country. this study took a close look at census data on unemployment among young people between 17 and 20 who are jobless those

who are working part-time when they need a full-time job and those who have given up looking for work altogether. the results of this study should concern everybody in our country and every member of the united states congress. and, by the way, i have mentioned these facts in the past. "politifact," who seems to check every statement that i make, check ited it out and said, these facts are basically accurate. here's what the economic policy institute found. from april of 2014 to march of 2015 the average real unemployment rate for young white high school graduates between the ages of 17 and 20 was 33.8%. high school graduates high school dropouts, white -- 17 to

20 33.8%. the jobless figures for hispanic kids in the same age group was 36.1%. and incredibleably, the average real unemployment rate for african-american high school graduates was 51.3%. high school graduates or dropouts between the age of 17 and 20, african-american, over 50% unemployed or underemployed. mr. president, today in america over 5.5 million young people have either dropped out of high school or have graduated high school and do not have jobs. it is no great secret -- not to any parent, not to any member of the senate -- that when kids are not in school, when kids have no jobs, that is when kids get into trouble, when they get into drugs, when they get into self-destructive activity. and the results of kids not

being in school, kids not having jobs is that tragically today we in this country have more people in jail than any other country on earth including china a communist authortarian quun with a -- authoritarian country with a population four fipples times our size. we have more people in jail than china does. incredibly over 3% of our country's population is under some form of correctional control. according to the naacp from 1980 to 2012, the number of people incarcerated in america quadrupled -- quadrupled -- from roughly 500,000 to 2.2 million people. a january 2014 study published in the journal "crime and delinquency" found that almost half of black males in the

united states are arrested by the age of 23. that is an unbelievable statistic and a tragic statistic. and if this current trend continues, one in four black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime. what a tragedy this is. we cannot ignore it. we have got to deal with this reality. but this crisis is not just a destruction of human life and of potential, it is also very, very costly to the taxpayers of our country. in america we now spend nearly $200 billion on public safety, including $70 billion on correctional facilities, each and every year. mr. president, it is beyond comprehension that we as a nation have not focused attention on the fact that millions of young people are unable to find work and begin their careers in a productive economy. that's what young people want to do.

they want to get out, they want to get a job, they want to earn some money, they want to become independent from their parents they want to become a crier -- a career ladder. but for millions of these young people, that is not taking place today. and let me be as clear as i can be and that is, it makes a lot more sense for us to invest in jobs and education than more and more incarceration and more and more jails. the time is long overdue for us to start investing in our young people to help them get the jobs that they need, to help them get the education that they need. this is not only saving human life, it is saving dollars. it is a very expensive proposition to put people into jail. and many of the people who go to jail come out of jail, they go back to jail. they don't get jobs, they don't pay taxes. the their lives are destroyed. their families are destroyed

and it is high time we understood that. we've got to invest in jobs. we've got to invest in education education, not more jails not more incarceration. mr. president, i have offered an amendment which will be voted upon either today or tomorrow which is pretty simple and pretty straightforward. it stays to us, now is the time to keep kids out of jail, to get them jobs, to get them education. this amendment would simply provide $5.5 million in immediate funding to states and cities throughout the country to create one million jobs for young americans between the ages of 16 and 24. this amendment would also provide job opportunities for hundreds of thousands of young adults. the frankly this amendment doesn't go far enough. but it is an important start in trying to save the lives of countless numbers of young people who if we do not address their needs are going to end up

in jail with destroyed lives. specifically under this amendment, the u.s. department of labor would provide $4 billion in grants to states and local governments to provide summer and year-round employment opportunities for economically disadvantaged youth with direct links to academic and occupational learning. this amendment would also make sure that young americans have access to transportation and child care services they may need in order to participate in job opportunities all over this country. this amendment would also provide $1.5 billion in competitive grants to local areas to provide work-based job training to low- and moderate-income youth and disadvantaged young adults. mr. president, i would hope very much that we could have bipartisan support for this amendment. because what we are talking

about is not just saving countless numbers of lives not just saving taxpayers substantial sums of money; because it is much more cost-effective to invest in kids so they have productive lives rather than seeing them go into jail and into jail and into jail and see their families being destroyed. it is high time we addressed this issue. this amendment is an important first step, and i look forward to seeing bipartisan support for it. with that, mr. president i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: i ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff joseph hillby be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this debate on the every child achieves act. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

you quorum call: quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president yesterday the president announced an agreement -- i beg your pardon. i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

partnership without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president yesterday president obama announced a deal with iran, one that will send billions of dollars to a regime with a long history of violently oppositing the united states and its allies i want to come to the floor and express again my deep skepticism with how the obama administration has approached these talks and my great concerns about what has been revealed about the deal so far. recognizing that we should all perhaps reserve our judgment for the process that will unfold over the next couple of months by which we will actually be able to read the text of the deal and then to show to the american people what it contains and express our concerns publicly and debate those. that's going to unfold over the next couple of months. but i think we can all agree that bringing iran to the negotiating table and securing agreement that prohibits 100% of

their ability to gain the capacity to create a nuclear weapon would be a tremendous legacy for any president to accomplish. preventing iran from becoming a nuclear power would have been a legacy item for president obama or any president. but these negotiations have been particularly concerning because in spite of the fact that the iranian regime has given us no reason to trust it, the president has been operating under the assumption that any deal is better than no deal. and i'm afraid the president has demonstrated the old adage: if you want a deal bad enough, that's exactly what you're going to get. a bad deal. in so doing the president's abandoned long-standing u.s. policy and our policy has always been to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons. and instead the administration has said, well, it's okay, we

will allow you a plan forward. and in the words of prime minister netanyahu pave the way toward your acquisition of nuclear weapons. this is an outcome that is irresponsible, unacceptable and exceedingly dangerous. i found it interesting that during his announcement, the president said u.s. engagement in iran was built upon -- quote -- "mutual interests and mutual respect." the theocratic iranian regime is a government that just last week encouraged its citizens to shout slogans often heard from the streets of tehran. "death to america" they say. "death to israel." i don't see how the president can consider such actions a sign of mutual respect. just the opposite. but i should be fair to the president. he is of course not the only person who supports this deal. we hear that russia's president

vladimir putin has endorsed it. so has syria's president bash share al-assad who called the agreement a -- quote -- "major turning point." our enemies think this is a great deal and they strongly support it. but i hope the administration is aware that the optimism that they have surrounding iran and this deal is not universal and our staunchest ally in the middle east, the nation of israel stated its clear opposition yesterday. president netanyahu like he did in a short session of congress a few short months ago said in crystal clear language that this agreement represents an historic mistake for the world. that's likely because the iranian regime has regularly even throughout the ongoing negotiations called for the destruction of israel.

so while our enemies like bashar al-assad of israel called the deal a major turning point our greatest ally called it an historic mistake. that should give all of us pause. what other warning signs do you need can -- can a deal that is wholeheartedly endorsed by our adversaries and simultaneously sustained by one of our closest allies possibly be in the best interests of the united states of america? i'm interested in hearing the answer to that question during the course of our review and debates, because that's the question we will have the chance to answer for ourselves at the end of this next 60-day period of time. and although i've seen several headlines talking about republican opposition to the agreement, i'd like to point out that there are a number of our democratic colleagues who have been quick to voice their concerns as well. this should not and i pray will

not become a partisan disagreement. what we ought to be doing in the best interests of the united states of america and our national security and those of our allies, we ought to be getting to the bottom of this agreement, raising concerns and asking questions. the president perhaps would like for this to become a partisan debate because then he wins, and in so doing america and our allies lose. yesterday, the ranking member of the senate foreign relations committee said there is no trust when it comes to iran. that's the distinguished senator from maryland, senator cardin. and similarly another democratic colleague, the senior senator from new jersey, the former chairman of the foreign relations committee said the deal doesn't end iran's nuclear program, but instead it preserves it. so this deal submits many of the long-standing concerns that i

and many of my colleagues have had. instead of ridding the world of an iranian nuclear weapon once and for all this simply kicks the deal down the road. when by the way, president obama will no longer be in office. but it preserves completely the nuclear infrastructure required to create a nuclear weapon in as little as one year. we can't afford to sit back, cross our fingers and wait for the regime to resurrect its nuclear program after their main obligations under the deal have expired. so that let me just be clear. the american people are not so desperate to cut this deal with the iranian regime, and i think we'll be even less supportive than they have been so far once the details of this get vetted. and i wholeheartedly reject the

suggestion the president has made on numerous occasions that there is two alternatives. there is this deal or it's war. that's ridiculous. that's a false choice. what it should be is a choice between this deal and something better something that actually denies iran nuclear weapons. it doesn't unleash billions of dollars for them to fight their proxy war against the united states and our allies. again, the number-one state sponsor of international terrorism is iran, and we're going to unleash the sanctions on the oil that they will now be able to sell in global markets and reap windfall profits perhaps, along with release funds that have been sequestered in american banks and other institutions so that they can now prop up their economy and again pay for the war they are fighting against israel and the

united states and other allies. the bipartisan sanctions regime that congress has put in place over decades should not and cannot be undone through an executive agreement between president obama and the head of the world's leader -- the head of the world's leader in state-sponsored terrorism. as elected representatives of the american people, we, all of us in addition to the president, we're committed to securing a good deal for the people who sent us here, and that means making sure iran will never have the ability to build a nuclear weapon. protecting our interests and our allies against a threatening regional power and first and foremost ensuring that the american people are safer tomorrow than they were yesterday. now that the white house has submitted the first 109 pages of this deal to congress, we're in the process of reviewing it, but there's more to come, classified

annexes and all and i look forward to reading this agreement word for word, understanding it better and asking many of the similar type questions which i have posed here today which need good and solid and reliable answers. we can't base this on a policy of hope or even trust in the rogue regime in tehran. we need answers to these questions, and even more importantly so do the american people. mr. president, i yield the floor. i'd suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you mr. president. mr. president, our nation had always held the ideal of providing education for all but a half century ago we put that ideal into action with the elementary and secondary education act or e.s.e.a. -- or esea. that law aimed to close education gaps between rich and poor black and white kids from rural areas and kids from big cities. today we are debating an amendment to strengthen accountability in our bill to reauthorize esea to do even more to make sure schools are

delivering on the promise of quality and equality to every student in america. across the country, too many schools today have failed too too many of our children for too long and that has got to change. now our bipartisan bill removes the unrealistic goals and one-size-fits-all mandates of no child left behind, but we still have strong accountability without going back to those requirements. senator murphy's amendment which we will be voting on shortly, would shine a light on the persistent uninequality and achievement -- inequality and achievement gap that still exists and do something about it and it would make sure that children from low-income backgrounds, kids of color kids who still are learning english the students with disabilities, have access to a high-quality education. under his amendment states would identify the bottom 5% of schools. states would identify the high schools that are failing to graduate a third or more of

their students and states would identify schools that have failed to help sub groups of -- subgroups of students make progress. of course accountability is more than just about identifying the schools and the districts that need help. we've got to make sure that those schools get the resources they need. the every child achieves act allows districts to design interventions tailored to the individual needs of low-performing schools. this amendment doesn't change that but this amendment would give parents and teachers and communities important measures to hold schools accountable for delivering a quality education to every child. mr. president, i do want to note that in our bipartisan bill, we've done a lot to help the adults in the school get the support they need from professional development to easing the burden on school administrators. i was very proud to work on all of those provisions. but this amendment isn't about the adults. it's about the children in our schools. so i urge my colleagues to vote

yes on the murphy amendment so we can do even more to make sure all of our students learn no matter where they live or how they learn or how much money their parents make. let's fix no child left behind. let's continue to improve this bill by strengthening accountability, and let's reaffirm our nation's commitment to providing a quality education to every student in america. thank you mr. president. and i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. hirono: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: mr. president i rise today to discuss the every child achieves act s. 1177, which replaces the education law better known as no child left behind. i wanted to thank help committee chairman lamar alexander and ranking member patty murray for their hard work on today's bipartisan compromise bill. today's every child achieves act isn't perfect but it makes good progress. for years, i have heard from hawaii's teachers, educators

parents, administrators that no child left behind or nclb is broken. it's time to leave nclb behind. i have been working to fix this broken law first as a member of the u.s. house of representatives committee on education and labor committee in 2007 and now as a senator. i also began to work on education reform when i was lieutenant governor of the state of hawaii. let me start with one of the biggest problems with nclb, which is the testing requirements. i've heard from teachers in hawaii loud and clear that nclb brought us too much testing. teachers and students in some schools spent so much time on testing and test prep that they didn't have enough time for teaching and learning. today's bill includes senator baldwin's smart act legislation which i cosponsored to cut redundant state and local tests and it also includes senator

bennet's amendment that sets a cap on the percent of time spent on testing. i also strongly support the early education parts of this program as negotiated by senator murray herself a former preschool teacher. i urge my colleagues to expand on this work by also supporting the strong start for america's children amendment led by senators casey murray, myself and others. the strong start amendment would invest significant resources in high-quality preschool grant programs which would serve some 16,000 hawaii children in my state alone. it would expand early head start, child care partnerships like hawaii parents and children together and would strengthen the maternal infant and early childhood home visiting program supporting programs like the hawaii home visiting network. quality early education helps

kids enter kindergarten ready to learn, a recipe for success in school and in life. studies show that by age 3 there's a 30 million word gap basically a two to one gap between low-income children and their wealthier peers with regard to their language skills. quality early education can help close this gap early. kids then are more likely to succeed in school, avoid crime or teen pregnancy graduate from high school and college earn more income, pay more taxes and need fewer public services. why? first, they have the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in a changing economy. business and financial leaders in hawaii, hawaii's executive director of hawaii's business roundtable gary kai, is a huge supporter of quality early

education. former federal reserve chair ben bernanke they all agree that early childhood education is a key investment in u.s. competitiveness. second military leaders have also stressed the importance of quality early education as a national security issue. the department of defense it was estimated that 75% of americans ages 17-24 are ineligible for military service due to poor education, physical unfitness or criminal records. hundreds of retired admirals and generals know that quality early learning can reverse this trend. third, early education investments make financial sense for taxpayers. a study by the university of hawaii and good beginnings alliance estimated a return of more than $4 for every $1 invested in early education. national studies are even higher. some show a return as high as

$17 for every dollar invested in quality early education. and that depends, of course, on the quality of the program and particularly if we target the highest need students. finally, the parents themselves are demanding quality affordable preschool for their children. i visited kauai community college which reopened after a few years of innovations. this center trains early childhood educators while providing high-quality early learning services to children of faculty, staff and the community. their lead teacher and coordinator, gina medrano said -- quote -- "so far no one has cried since we opened. they only cry when it's time to go home" -- end quote. evidence of how important early education is to our kids themselves. currently the center can only

serve 20 children and there are wait rise for this program and for quality early learning programs in kauai all across hawaii and nationwide. we can and should do much better. the strong start for america's children amendment would make learning the priority it deserves to be. it would provide quality preschool to three million children nationwide. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment when it comes to the floor. so men of us recognize that education is a continuum that continues throughout life. therefore coordination of effort is important so i'm pleased that this bill before us includes provisions to foster coordination between existing early childhood programs and their local elementary school. in 2011, senator casey and i introduced the continuum of learning act and today's bill on the floor includes many pieces from that legislation.

on balance the every child achieves act before us makes good progress for our children and i hope we can pass the bill before us in a bipartisan way. our country is at its best when all students have access to high-quality education from birth to college and career. improving our education system through evidence-based reforms will help every child achieve so that our next generation can compete and lead in the 21st century global economy. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president on behalf of the senator from washington senator murray, and myself i ask unanimous consent that at 3:15 today the senate vote on the following amendments in the order listed. markey 2176, 60-vote threshold, heitkamp, 2170, 60

vote threshold. kirk 2160, 60-vote threshold. murphy 2161, 60-vote threshold. i ask that the wicker amendment 2144 be withdrawn. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. amendment 2144 is withdrawn. mr. alexander: i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: mr. president i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: and mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak up -- for up to two minutes on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. markey: thank you mr. president. mr. president, my amendment is very simple. it would create a competitive grant program to support the development and improvement of educational materials and teefn training on -- and teacher training on climate change, science, and solutions. the scientific evidence of climate change is long-standing and wide-ranging. the national academy of sciences and numerous american science

professional organizations all recognize the reality of climate change and human activityies influence upon that. the children of our country deserve the best scientific education they can get on this topic. they are the future leaders of our country and the world. they must be equipped for this generational science. this is, without question, one of the overarching issues of the 21st century. we have to ensure that we provide the best science training available for this next generation the green generation. they are going to have to confront this problem. they should have the best scientific evidence available to them. mr. president, on this amendment, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? mr. alexander: mr. president?

i'm entitled to -- the presiding officer: there does not appear to be a sufficient second. the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: thank you. thank you mr. president. mr. president, we'll have a seat on-- a vote on the markey voament. am i going to urge a "no" vote. if you like washington d.c., getting involved in common core in your state you're going to 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 it, it'll begin to write regulations de-fiewning what we mean -- 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 in the instructional materials in classrooms. so 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 border or the state school board. i say that as a republican who believes 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. markey: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: i renew my request for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: order in the chamber. are there any senators yet to vote, wishing to vote or to change their vote? on the vote the yeas are 44. the nays are 53. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to heitkamp amendment number 2171. ms. heitkamp: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota.

ms. heitkamp: i rise to urge my colleagues to support my amendment. if you go to the -- the presiding officer: order in the chamber. ms. heitkamp: as you've been talking to your school districts and as you've been talking to the school personnel if they don't mention the challenges that they have dealing with children -- mrs. murray: mr. president the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. ms. heitkamp: -- who need services beyond education services, who have come unready to learn because of behavior and mental health problems, we have a program that is' existed for a number of years. i understand it's been underutilized. but if there's ever been a time as we talk about behavior and mental health challenges that we have within our communities and in our schools if there has ever been a challenge for a grant program that develops best practices, it is today. and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and integrate these behavior and mental health programs into the schools and into the education system so that we can better address the concerns, so that we

can in fact begin to challenge our society to deal with these issues at the school level. and schools should not be in this alone. we need to integrate the behavior health and mental health systems into our schools. mr. alexander: mr. president? the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. alexander: mr. president i urge a no vote. of course we should care about and help with 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's 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. mrs. ms. heitkamp: do i have any time remaining? the presiding officer: all time is expired. the question is on the amendment 2171. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator wish to vote or change their vote? the yeas are 58, the nays are 39. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to kirk amendment number 2161. mr. reed: mr. president i urge all my colleagues to vote aye on the kirk-reed-brown amendment. essentially -- a senator: mr. president the senate is not in order.

the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you mr. president. i commend the chairman and the ranking member for all the work they have done. they have established lofty goals, but without adequate resources, all our students can't succeed. this legislation would encourage the states to develop and report on measures of access which is critical to students' success identify disparities in districts for those resources develop plans so the school districts could have adequate resources and include this report in a requirement already in the bill of a state report on the success of their efforts to implement the legislation. again, very -- it's a very simple concept. lofty goals without adequate resources will not give opportunity to american students. we hope that this will help provide the resources. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. 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 was a result of the federal government deciding for states what education resources are -- quote -- critical. that would have the federal government deciding about licensing teachers, teachers' salaries library books wellness programs, school facilities. 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. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the amendment number 2161. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 50. under the previous, requiring 50 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally twieded prior it a vote in relation to murphy amendment number 2241.

mr. murphy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you mr. president. arguably the only good thing that the existing education law did was expose these unconscionable gaps in this country between the performance of minority kids and nonminority kids between disabled kids and nondisabled kids and frankly this body is at its best when it says that no matter your race or geography, your disability or your income, you deserve access to a quality education. and if we can't guarantee that, then the question is, what good is a federal education law in the first place? so this amendment learns from the mistakes of no child left behind and it simply says two things: that states have to identify when they have these unjustifiable yawning gaps between the perform performance of

disabled kids or minority kids and the rest of the school and then they have to come up with a plan through a community conversation as to how to pism fix that. period stop. identify your problem -- mormrs. murray: mr. president the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: could we have order in the senate. let me just a this next vote will be the last vote. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. murphy: thank you. all this amendment says is just simply on a state-by-state basis, identify your acheement gap then come up with a plan to fix it. no federal intervention, no federal prescription of how you fix the problem. it's a big big problem in this country that has a very simple solution in this amendment and it deserves our support. i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i would like for the senate to be in order please. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. alexander: mr. president yesterday the senator from tennessee, senator test,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 rmt instead of fixing no child left behind it keeps the worst parts of it and restores -- and restores those kinds of parts. with new mandates. if you don't believe me, here a letter dated yesterday from the national education 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 accountable our members strongly oppose more of the same. we believe the mover if i amendment would continue the narrow punitive focus of nlrb. if a single subgroup misses dpoals for two consecutive year, precisely the ali the apretty much that misguide schools under the progress provision of no child left behind." mr. president, we are reversing the trndz not toward a national

school board not establish more of a national school board. governors,s teachers, school board members superintendents agree with that. i urge a "no" voavment "no" vote. the presiding officer: question occurs on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: are any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not on this vote the yeas are 43, the nays are 54. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president i'd like to rise today to talk regarding the burr amendment which has been offered to the underlying education bill. this is an amendment that i

understand has been modified recently but it still has some of the flaws that it's had all along, and that is that it tells states that if you invest in your kids, you're penalized which i think is the wrong message, and i would hope that this amendment can be defeated on that basis alone. it also happens to be bad for some states because, for instance in my home state of ohio, we would lose an estimated $70 million because we do invest in our children who are poor, who are vulnerable, and therefore because the formula changes, we get less money in ohio. i hope states that are affected one way or another, they will look at this from a policy perspective and understand that certainly in this federal k-12 education bill, we ought not be telling the states, like my home state of ohio, because you invest more in your kids, somehow you are penalized. so i know that the burr amendment was changed to reach a different level before this formula change would occur. i think it's $17 billion now, it

is working toward $4 million. this means this change won't occur for a few years as i understand it, but the same problem remains. we hope this authorization will last through that period and that we won't be back here revisiting this on the floor of the senate. therefore, i would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle -- and i know there is opposition on both sides of the aisle to this amendment to stand tall and to say let's not tell the states that if you invest in kids who come from some of the lowest income school jurisdictions in our country that somehow you're going to be penalized under a new formula. this amendment is a mistake because it fails to take into account the cost of education in different parts of the country differ, and again it penalizes states that invest more in education. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the burr amendment. i yield back my time.

mr. portman: i note the absence of a quorum, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president i ask for three minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president every once in a while you meet an individual who thinks bigger than themselves, rises above challenges with grace is driven by a passion to better the world around them, and most importantly is a truly wonderful human being. i have come across many advocates and community leaders in my career, but dr. elson floyd was exceptional. he was a giant in washington state's higher education community. he inspired countless students and teachers and many across the state as washington state university's president and i can only imagine what else he would have accomplished had his

life not been cut painfully short. for eight years, i have had the privilege to work with dr. floyd in his role as the beloved president of my alma mater washington state university. he was one of our nation's most successful advocates for affordable and accessible higher education. i always admired his dedication to his students, his passion for education and his desire to make a great university even better. the last time i spoke with dr. floyd a few months ago he spoke of the bright future of washington state university and the innovative steps the institution was taking to provide high-quality education to its students. as we look back now on the life and legacy of dr. elson floyd we will remember how he led w.s.u. through a trying economic recession by tirelessly advocating for investments in higher education as a path to

the middle class and how he doubled the enrollment of students of color. we will remember how he skillfully convinced our state legislature to allow the university to begin building the state's second medical school at washington state university -- spokane, and most importantly we will remember how through a warm handshake to visiting alumni or a comforting hug to a student he always had a way of making those around him feel welcome. i hope to honor dr. floyd's memory by striving every day to better our higher education system with the enthusiasm and the warmth that he emanated as a tireless advocate for washington state students. there is so much we can all learn from his work, and i know his legacy will continue to live on in washington state and across the higher education community. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma.

mr. inhofe: it is my understanding that i am scheduled for 20 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to be recognized for such time as i consume. i ask unanimous consent that following my remarks that the junior senator from oklahoma, senator lankford, be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president right now probably the most significant thing that we'll be facing with as soon as we get through with the education bill that senator lamar alexander has done such a great job on is the transportation reauthorization bill. and i found out that the house just passed a few minutes ago a five-month extension to the highway reauthorization bill and i would suggest that people may think there's some type of an adversarial relationship between our bill in the senate and the house bill. there isn't. we're working together, we both want to accomplish a long-term

bill and i anticipate that we will actually have passed in the next few days a -- some -- a long-term, maybe a six-year highway reform bill at which time -- reauthorizing bill, and we'll go to conference with the house. in days there's a fire looming out there that we put it out early. in passing the long-term transportation bill has been my top priority since i became -- returned as chairman of the environment and public works committee. ironically the ranking member of that committee senator boxer from california feels just as strongly, that's her top priority also. so i consider this to be the second most significant bill of the year, the first one being of course, to the defense reauthorization which we have already addressed here. but we had -- we felt strongly enough about this being a top

priority that we had our first full committee hearing on the need to reauthorize what was called at that time map-21. we had a witness, secretary fox, secretary of transportation as well as a lot of government leaders. so they shared the importance of an ongoing federal and state partnership in building and main taining a modern surface transportation system. my a committee has put together a bold bipartisan solution called the drive act the drive act, that will put our nation on the path to having a world-class transportation system. i've often said there's no such thing as a republican or a democrat road or republican or democrat bridge. this is something that is bipartisan and, by the way i have to say that when this bill the drive act passed my committee, it passed unanimously. every democrat, every republican voted for the bill.

the transcontinental railroad, i'm proud to sigh the republicans historically have been leading the way in transportation, going all the way back to the lincoln days when he passed the transcontinental railroad, the panama canal was done by teddy roosevelt, of course the interest rate -- interstate highway system was done by eisenhower. eisenhower said the transportation system is a dynamic element in the very name we bear, united states, without it we would nearly be an alliance of separate parts. what he also said, let's remember that eisenhower was a president, he was a star, he was one of the -- one who was concerned and he started the first highway bill as addressing the problems of defense. the fact that you can't -- if you don't have a highway system in the united states you can't adequately supply the necessary means to fight and win wars. so that was the very first motivation of it. in laying out the full

interstate system, eisenhower envisioned it to be the physical backbone of the economy fueling the growth of our g.d.p. our cities and the competitiveness of our exports. now, this vision and certainty maximize -- maximized the mow tilt business. business individuals knew they could locate somewhere if they could locate somewhere on a future interstate system, they would be connected not just with the nation but with the world. i'm afraid this legacy system which was built with a 50-year design life is now more than 50 years old. so we're out of warrant now mr. chairman -- mr. president, and we need to address it. that's a sense of urgency that we have. we are in serious danger of eroding a half century of investments without proper maintenance, modernization and reconstruction. we're on borrowed time with a system that is in full need of

restoration. our national interstate system currently has a maintenance backload -- backlog of $185 billion. now, that national interstate system is actually 47,000 miles in length, and it's just to bring back the system from -- to the original 1956 design it would be that expensive. now, maintaining eisenhower's vision of economic opportunity and strength in defense requires a continued partnership between the federal government and the states which is the hallmark of the drive act. yet due to 33 short-term patches since 2005, the highway construction now consists of maintenance kind of a patchwork. this is what happened, mr. president. we had a bill, a transportation reauthorization bill, a five-year bill. this is 2005. i'm very familiar with it. i was the author of the bill at that time. in 2005 we passed this long-term

bill. since that time we've been unable to pass a long-term reauthorization bill so we've been operating on extensions short-term extensions. and it's really interesting i say to the chair that we are now looking at something that has both a liberal and a conservative perspective. the conservative position is a long-term bill because the only alternative is short-term extensions. short-term extensions, according to -- i don't think anyone has ever challenged this -- it costs about 30% more because you can't get big projects which we're talking about in a minute. so we are now to the point where we're going to be able to do something with a long-term bill. passing a long-term bill is crucial in many aspects of the day-to-day life in america more than 250 million vehicles

and 18 billion tons valued at $17 trillion in goods traverse across the country every year. yet every day 2,000 miles of our highways slow below the posted speed limits because of the stop-and-go conditions of overcongestion. the national highway system -- this is kind of interesting. not many people are aware of this. our whole highway system is only 5.5% of the nation's total roads but it carries 55% of all vehicles traveling and 97% of the truck borne freight. so 5.5% of the nation's roads account for the transportation of 97% of the freight across this country. this type of congestion has a huge negative impact on our businesses and throughout america. congress just passed a two-month

extension and we now have the responsibility to pass a long-term solution. as i mentioned they did pass something over in the house that we are in agreement that will get them to conference with us and i think most of them are going to be from the ones i talked to over there are going to be excited about the fact we're going to have and have a funding for a six-year bill. the highway trust fund currently needs $15 billion a year to maintain current spending. what we're saying there is you take the proceeds of the -- of the gas tax that's out there in order to do what we -- we are currently doing it takes an additional $15 billion each year just to do that. but we need to do more than just maintain the system. we need to improve it for the future of america's growing economy. unfortunately, my -- fortunately my committee just passed that bill unanimously as we said, we call at this time drive act. let me tell you what the drive act will do. it will put america bark on the map as the best place to do

business. it has several key components to position america's transportation system to support our growing economy. first of all it prioritizes funding for core transportation formula programs to provide states and local governments with strong federal partner. in other words, the states have the needs they articulate the needs to the federal government, the federal government goes in and makes sure that that can be a reality. let's keep in mind you have some states i just suggest wyoming for example,, it would take three times as much money actually to take care of the roads in wyoming than it could be produced by the sparse population of that state. so that's one of the major reasons, initial reasons for the program. and secondly, it prioritizes the interstate system, the national highway system and the bridges at risk system. well as i said, the interstate system is 47,000 miles but the national highway system is

220,000 miles of which that does encompass the 47 miles of the interstate system. the third thing it creates a new multibillion-dollar per year freight program to help states deliver projects that promote the safe, efficient reliable transportation of consumer goods and products across the united states. and the fourth thing is that in -- and this is something that a lot of people are not aware. a lot of people think that we in washington have this infinite wisdom that we know what is best for the states. we don't believe that. we believe that the states should set their own priorities and my own state of oklahoma i don't even get involved in what projects are going to be there but we have a state system where the state does evaluate and certainly they know more about our needs in oklahoma than the federal government does. don't you agree? that's right. well so that's where we are on

that and we take -- we let the states determine what projects we're going to be doing. the fourth -- fifth thing is it provides greater efficiency in the project delivery process through reforms that put d.o.t. in the driver's seat during the nepa process by requiring agents -- other agents to bring in their issues. here's what happens. we have a lot of good rules in the nepa program the environmental programs, but there's some things where we feel that they should -- that should not slow down the construction of roads and highways and bridges both new bridges and repairs. to do that we have to where i it into the law. so it extraneous materiallines the system. if you have nothing but short-term extensions, that doesn't happen. they don't get streamlined and i have -- let me compliment my partner in this, the ranking member senator boxer from california. it's interesting, i'm among the most conservative members of the

united states senate, she is a very proud liberal and yet we both agree on what our priorities should be. and that makes this -- this process more important. she has been willing to do things he should she didn't really want to do because it does short circuit some of the nepa requirements and as a general rule she would not want to do that but this has been a give and take and that's why we have a bill that passed our committee by unanimous consent -- unanimously. the fifth or seventh thing is the duplicative reviews and expanding categorical exclusions. let me give you an example of that. we have a -- a bridge projects we give them special considerations with new exemptionses from section f-4 the -- 4-f, the historic property reviews. to be a historic property it has

to be over 50 years old and for them to continue to be able to do it, it takes these exemptions from what other historic things have to go through because we are in the business of building bridges. the second thing is -- we have the migratory bird treaty act it's on the books now that allows us to go ahead and start working on projects even though swallows' nests -- sounds kind of insignificant but it's not. the swallows go in there and while they're not protected they're not listed as an endangered species they still are protected by the migratory bird treaty act and they have actually caused us to have to stop construction on many of the deficient bridges around the country. this is just kind of a are brief overview of the bill as the drive act progresses on the floor i intend to address the significance of each program in a lot more detail.

the most important point i must address today about the drive act is our bill sets funding levels for the next six years. this is the very best what the federal government should provide so the states and local officials in construction industry can gear up for large -- the large projects. we're talking -- put up some of the large projects. the $500 million to $2 billion promise. this these are things you can't do with extensions but can do with a bill such as the bill that we have successfully passed. we have thousands of brooks around the nation that are currently in jeopardy. construction will come to a halt unless this legislation becomes a reality. do you have the brent -- this is the brent spence bridge. this goes from kentucky to ohio. right now the -- that is in dire need and you can see actually visibly see the problems with this antiquated

bridge. chunks are dropping off into the river below and it's become very dangerous. we saw not long ago in another adjoining state what can happen if a bridge goes out. here in d.c. we have the memorial brinl. it is literally crumbling. you can go down right now and you can see the petes of the bridge dropping into the potomac river. it was built in 1932, has only reached patchwork ever since that time and it is estimated that nearly $250 million will be required to keep the bridge operational. that's not a new brim. that's to make that into an operational bridge. you drive by it many of you many day, but you don't see -- you have to get down on a boat and you can see concrete dropping into the potomac. we have many more like it. what else do we have here sph? oh yeah, the mobile river. this is in alabama. this is what it will look like

later. this is not a current picture. this is what it is right now. these are the types of projects that we can do now which we could not do with just extensions as we have been doing since 2009. i believe more than just a small part of the economic success enjoyed by the united states over the past 50 years has been the interstate system, started by president eisenhower. but today we literally sit in a situation where we are going to have to do something to carry this forward. that's why senator boxer and i are bringing the drive act to the senate floor and it will ensure that states have the tools and the certainty to make the necessary new investments to rebuild eisenhower's vision, fight growing congestion, and maintain the mobility of goods an services across our country. so we're going to have this up. i think this will be on the floor right shortly -- probably the next thing after we finish with the education bill. and, again no one is -- can

argue that this is the second-most significant bill that we have to be addressed -- that we address each year, and we haven't addressed this one in the right way since 2005. so it's very significant. we're looking forward to it. do we have more charts down there? that's it. so anyway, mr. president, we are designee to be coming forth with this. and i'm going to be coming to the floor and talking about it in a lot more detail. we've got to get the roads and the bridges taken care of, and we intend to do it. the product to do that is the drive act. thank you. i yield the floor. and -- i yield the floor.

mr. lankford: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president in the 1960's the johnson administration led congress to start allot ago small amount of

money of federal funding from the federal taxpayers to target schools and reach out for the poorest of the poor in america to try to help beat poverty back. five decades later we have an education policy in america that reaches out to every single school district in america millions of kids that continue to fail them, to fail their parents, and still have not solved the poverty issue. what we have is an ever-increasing federal bureaucracy that's reached well beyond what it was designed for in the 1960's. and i was sure it reaches well beyond what it was originally designed for, something that would just help the poorest of the poor and take care of kids on military bases and those on indian tribal bases. the goal was good, make sure ever child in america has the opportunity for success every teacher had teaching qualifications and every school had accountability. it was approved through 2008. it still continues today.

math reading and science now measured in adequate yearly progress for each year. and i.t. become the slow rolling disaster. the problem was the source and the goal. parents, local districts and states should set education policy. i would think that's something we should grow on, not a massively centralized controlled bureaucracy. the bureaucracy that's here made up of a lot of nice folks that do care about kids, just most of the folks that are here in this bureaucracy deal with education have never been to oklahoma and the folks in oklahoma don't know their names and don't know where they're managing their district. the goal should be progress for each student not each school. but the annual yearly progress demanded by no child left behind really managed the progress of the school, not the child. i can assure you the parents at home with not trying to figure out is their school better. they're trying to figure out is their child better in this particular subject?

yearly progress and the federal mandates that put my state in the untenable position of playing mother-may-i with the federal government to ask for a waiver ever singles year from the national education board to determine what our schools in oklahoma can and cannot do. that has to chaifnlgt change. we want our students in oklahoma to be college and career ready. we want accountability to the parents and the community. we want less burden on the educators who give their life and time to the task of helping paimpts parents and those children. we want that. as surprising it is a may be to someone in washington d.c., we actually do care about our kids. so would ask a simple thing: thing allow oklahomans to manage education for oklahomans and just take this assumption: we do love our kids and we are going to make sure they are taken well tear of. my mom was an educator for decades. she came out and started

teaching elementary school. then was an elementary librarian, then a high school librarian and move moved then moved into the black hole of education. that's the building downtown where she worked in school administration for a district for years. she's passionate about kids. she passed that on to me. i started out my first year in college as a business major. thoroughly enjoyed it for probably a week. and then shifted the next year to secondary education the thing that i fought against because my mom was in education so surely i shouldn't do the same thing. but i loved being with students. i spent 22 years of my life serving students after college. it is a passion in my family. there are multiple educators both at the college leveled and in schools in my family. we believe in education. student teaching time that i had in college i will never forget,

interacting with those kids for the first time, stepping out of a college setting of being the student to now suddenly being the student teacher and having a classroom and understanding for the first time it is my responsibility to help these parents educate their children. thawm a not -- that i'm not now the parent nor this child. this child has a parent. that parent has the responsibility to raise their child well but i have a responsibility to come along and help. allow us to have that. this is what i want. i want greater flexibility for states. i want greater authority and responsibility to be placed on parents in education. the people in oklahoma want the freedom to be able to make decisions about their own children and families. that's whythat's i voted for the a-plus act. i tried to add to as an amendment to this bill. we support the ability for states to have even more control if they choose to, to have both the responsibility and the authority for all areas of all parts of education.

now, we didn't win that amendment of but it was a blanket we want everything to go back to states if they choose to have t we'll continue to have that fight in the days ahead. lamar alexander brought an amendment out. it allowed parents to choose their schools regardless whether it is public or private. education union leaders had kittens about that saying that the public schools are getting better so we don't want to take funds away from the public schools. we want to keep all those funds in the public schools but the parents are saying, i understand that school is get is getting better someday. but my child is there right now. while certain leaders in schools will say we can't have federal funds move to follow the child i would say would you allow the parent to help that child have the one shot that they're going to get to get education and as how them to choose wherever they want to go? so i'm also a supporter of things like the d.c. opportunity

scholarships that will allow children in washington d.c., to be able to choose the school that they attend. the president has fought adamantly against that. so have the education unions. but quite frankly the parents huer in d.c. want to have the option to send their child anywhere they want. i'd like too see more reduction andin duplication of education programs. there is real reduction in this particular bill. we have education programs in the department of defense and ag and multiple other places. we need to be able to shrink down those programs and be able to make sure we're helping kids. i'd like to see more in this bill dealing with options for those that are homeless. this bill helps us get a better count and a better insight on the educational quality in the graduation rate for homeless and for foster children, but i'd like to have greater flexibility built into this bill, which i didn't get. but i'd like the parents and the

people in that local district to be able to have a better decision-making exablght. what did i get? there are lots of things we want. no common core mandates. i can assure you in my state most ever person stands and cheers when they find out that there's no common core mandates in this, there's no federal tests at all. states my state in particular, will have absolute control over standardized testing and the results of those tests and how we apply the information gained from that test. the leaders in my state will manage that, control that, make sure that that's accurate for us. no federal education standards no federal curriculum. there is reduction in some of the education programs. i'm glad to see that, though i've already mentioned i'd like to see more of that. the breaking down 1078 of some of the funding silos. you realize right now if there's money available in one silo dealing with kitchens, for instance and nutrition for a school, they may allot federal

dollars and say, you can have those federal dollars if you want to buy a new oven. but if a district says, we don't need more money for ovens, we need money for special education, the federal government currently says, no, you can't do that. you have to buy a new oven. that's dumb. why don't we allow the district to make that decision? this bill begins to break down some of those funding silos and gives them the opportunity to be able to make decisions on that. i'd like to see and what i did get was more local control of the education dramatically increased local control, in fact. local authority and additional local responsibility. that's the way it should be. inhofe and i even had a bill on local school board flexibility. we got a good down payment hon that bill. there is a he more to go on that and we need a chance to see even additional things. those are things that we were able to win. can i tell you the one big thing that we really won? it's that my state after this bill passes, if we can get this bill done, my state no longer

has to crawl back to washington d.c. every year and beg for a waiver in education to maintain the education funding which by the way came out of our state. literally the federal taxpayers pay in with their tax dollars and the state of oklahoma has to come crawling to washington d.c. playing -- saying, can i please have those dollars back to our state? right now we have to do that every year. my state actually lost federal control because we chose not to do common core. and the department of education said, if you don't do this, then you're going to lose your funding. for months we lost control of that funding. but that was our choice, because we were setting our own standards. we've now won that waiver back. just a few weeks ago that waiver woos renewed again. i am already sick to death of our state having to come beg for the federal dollars that we put into the system and to get permission from someone in washington d.c. this bill finally fixes that.

does it go as far as i want to go? no, i i have been pretty clear about that. but it is the first step on a long journey forking it taking us back to the direction we need to be. our schools our parents make the decisions for our kids. again, i re- remind you oklahoma kids do love their kids. oklahoma legislators are doing a great job of trying to turn some things around in a very hard situation. let's give them the ability to be able to do that. i encourage this body to be able to pass this education bill and let's get going again towards educating our students and doing the right thing. with that, i yield back. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island.

mr. whitehouse: thank you mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you mr. president. as folks around here know by now, i come to the floor once a week to say as clearly as i can that it is time to wake up to the mounting hazard of climate change. today is the 106th consecutive time. why do i do it? why do i care so much? because i know that the harm we are causing through carbon pollution spells trouble for my home state of rhode island. i see it already. we're the ocean state. here's a recent headline from "the washington post." "human impact on the oceans is growing." and climate change is the biggest culprit. but i don't have to read "the washington post" to know that. with the changes from carbon

pollution, our rhode island fishermen see strange catches coming up in their nets. our homeowners and business owners along the coast see rising sea levels, worsening erosion and extreme weather. it is no longer rare for extreme weather to claw people's homes into the sea. sandy took several. rhode islanders get all this. but unless and until the men and women in this chamber decide to heed the warnings of all of our best scientists, not to mention america's insurance companies faith leaders our military leaders, virtually every big american company not associated with the fossil fuel industry, and of course the american publ rhode island and all states will continue to risk even worse effects. for the fossil fuel industry, mr. president, we are the best

congress money can buy. for everyone else, we're a disaster. last year i went up to new hampshire to talk with people about the changes they see there. i met climate scientist dr. cameron wake of the university of new hampshire. he showed me a detailed analysis on climate change in new hampshire with scientists have already measured and what projections indicate the future may hold. we had a good talk. and after my visit he ran for me a similar analysis of climate change in rhode island. here is what he found. this chart shows measurements of the average annual maximum temperature for three weather monitoring stations in rhode island. block island is here in blue. kingston is in red.

and providence is in orange. it measures the highest daily temperature for each day averaged over the whole year from 1895 to 2012. and let me remind everyone, these are measurements. this is not theory. these are measurements. this -- this is climate change on the march in rhode island. what does it show? warming. the trend is indisputable. dr. wake's analysis shows the average annual maximum temperature has increased at a rate of 3.6 degrees farenheit per century in block island and 3.3 degrees per century in providence. dr. wake then looked to the future of rhode island. this chart shows the same thing we were looking at on the last chart, average annual maximum temperature. but while that one just looked

backward this one looks forward. it shows two scenarios. business as usual in red or reduced carbon emissions in blue. it shows us in effect the difference that cutting back on carbon pollution could make for future generations of rhode islanders. if we do nothing to curb our carbon pollution here, the annual average goes up toward 68 degrees. some years close to 70 degrees farenheit by year's end. remember the last chart which ended around here in 2010? the historical record there ended at around 60 degrees. carry on this flood of carbon pollution, and you end up 8 degrees warmer on average.

between 1980 and 2010, the average annual maximum temperature of washington d.c. was 68 degrees. that's the eight-degree difference. the difference that this flood of carbon pollution portends has providence feeling like steamy, sweltering washington, d.c. but if we take action to dial back our pollution the warming is about half as much and less severe. this is not the only measure of what carbon pollution will bring to rhode island. winter temperatures going up mean fewer snow covered day. extreme precipation will likely increase. as the annual average maximum temperature increases, there will also be more very hot days in the summer. this chart shows the increase in the number of days with a maximum temperature above 90 degrees farenheit.

hot days like that are common down here in sweltering washington but historically, rhode island might see maybe three 90-degree days a year. people come from all over to our cool beautiful shores to swim in our cool, beautiful atlantic. this chart shows that even in the best case, rhode island can expect to see 18 such sweltering 90-degree days per year. and in the worst case, that number could rise to over 50 90-degree days every year with the mercury soaring over 95 degrees farenheit for 16 of those days. if you want to sit inside watching tv cranking up your air conditioner, that may be fine but rhode islanders like to get outside. we enjoy the beach we enjoy the bay. and we are not looking forward to what these temperature consequences mean for our health. earlier this year the rhode

island department of health produced an in-depth report on heat and health in rhode island, concluding this -- i quote -- "the destabilizing effects of climate change on our environment are among the most significant potential health threats faced by individuals in rhode island communities today." that is the official word of the rhode island health department. so don't expect me to ignore this issue here because it's uncomfortable for someone. rising temperatures and extreme heat cause serious human health effects like dehydration heat exhaustion hospitalation result and even death. the department of health calculates the projected temperature increases in rhode island will result in almost 400 additional emergency room visits in the year 2022 alone and nearly 1,400 more in 2084.

researchers at the harvard school of public health just published a study showing that death rates among seniors in new england increased when summer temperatures rose significantly. the risk they believe comes not just from the hotter temperatures but also from variability in temperatures as climate change makes the weather weirder and more unpredictable. there is a documentary series "years of living dangerously" which looks as how this worth as has the department of rhode island health working with brown university. both found increased -- increases in emergency room visits was statistically related to heat. in many cases it was not specifically indicated in the chart as related to heat. this suggests that heat-related deaths and illness may be underdiagnosed if you just look at medical charts.

so this is a significant health issue that we face. and then there are the storms. climate change will increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events in rhode island like hurricane sandy to the tune of $2 billion to $6 billion in rhode island according to one report. in a state of a million people, that's a lot of damage, mr. president. and the heavy rains that brought on our floods in 2010 will become more frequent as well. here's what our health director wrote: in rhode island, where our economy culture and identity are so closely tied to the ocean and to narrangansett bay, the effects of climate change will be particularly acute. again, that's the official word of our health department. climate change threatens our water systems as temperatures increase and as we see more intense rain events. storm water and sewer overflows can contaminate rhode island coastal waters.

warmer waters can foster bacterial growth that can be harmful. swimming in or consuming polluting water obviously can cause illness. then there's vibrio. the world renowned shellfish of narrangansett bay are becoming susceptible to a group of marine bacteria known as vibrio. if vibrio gets into seafood it can be very unpleasant. symptoms can be especially severe with people with compromised immune systems. rhode island health officials now have to work with the state's shellfish have i, with the university of rhode island and others to monitor water quality and shellfish growing and harvesting conditions to protect this important resource. these are just a few of the health threats laid out in the report. in the department of health is just one of many iej -- agencies and organizations in our state that had to put climate action

and clean energy in their work as we in congress prepare tend this problem does not exist. dozens of the most dedicated and invai -- innovative minds came to washington for our environment leaders day. our attendees represent some of the best work being done in rhode island to stave off the devastating effects of climate change. janet coyt, director of environmental management, chairs of coordinating council created bid our governor to coordinate state agencies to address threats from climate change. threats to the state's environment, the state's economy and the state's people. the council was established by the resilient rhode island act passed by our general assembly in 2014. that law also set specific greenhouse gas reduction targets and incorporates consideration of climate change effects into the powers and duties of all state agencies. the bill's author,

representative art handy also came down and joined us for energy and environment leaders day along with his colleague representative carlos tabonn, a member of the rhode island house committee on environment and natural resources. dennis nixon was there. he heads rhode island's sea grant at the university of rhode island graduate school of oceanography. sea grant works with rhode island government agencies and coastal communities to support climate resiliency and to protect vibrant water fronts. marion gold, our commissioner of the office of energy resources was there. she has advanced incentives for small and large renewable energy development in our state. and she's helped rhode island become the third-most energy-efficient state in the nation. and recently we saw this report. studies show northeast states benefit from carbon cap program. we're a part of reggie.

marion gold helped supervise that. it has created jobs, saved money and proving solving the carbon pollution problem is not actually a burden on the economy. it's a boost to the economy. one of the special breakout sessions at energy and environment leaders day focused on corporate sustainability efforts to spur innovation, save money and reduce emissions. representatives from microsoft mars -- the company -- fedex and snyder electric shared their sustainability success stories. for these companies efforts to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions are more than good intentions. they are good business. another breakout session looked at faith perspectives on environmental stewardship. reverend anita shell of rhode island interfaith power and light came. she works with local faith-based institutions to raise awareness

about climate change and about safeguarding the poor of the world who are least responsible for and most vulnerable to climate change. as pope francis gives his voice to this moral calling these faith perspectives were especially welcome. dozens of other smart hardworking rhode islanders attended, too many to mention them all. but i'm always proud of the important work going on in rhode island to combat climate change. it is my inspiration to continue fighting for responsible action here in washington. as our senior senator jack reed told the group, rhode island is one of the leaders in the country in smart policies and it's the result of the culmination of lots of individual activities. mr. president, rhode island gets it. and we're pulling together in one direction. our homes our shores, our way

of life are at stake. we need every state in the nation to join us, to take this issue seriously. and we need every senator to pay attention. it is truly time to wake up. and i ask my colleagues here today, if this were you if something this threatening were happening to your state, would you really expect me to stand down because it was uncomfortable for big powerful industries and big aggressive donors? you would not. you would go to war to protect utah and to protect iowa from a threat like this. so forgive me if i'm impatient but this is serious in our ocean state. if your department of health projected these kinds of threats for your home state people, you would be up in arms, so forgive me for being a little bit up in arms. and look -- i'll close with

this. look at that. do you know what that is? that's a picture of pluto. that's a picture of the dwarf planet pluto. do you know how we got that? we got that off of nasa's new horizons spacecraft. it made it to pluto after crossing the solar system for nine and a half years. it traveled three billion miles from earth and came within 8,000 miles of the surface of pluto. it was traveling at more than 31,000 miles per hour, and it took three minutes to cross the face of pluto in which it took innumerable images and samples for our scientists. let me say that one of the lead scientists on it was quoted

thusly. her name is bowman. "i have to pinch myself said bowman who managed one hour of sleep in her office monday night. look what we accomplished. it's truly amazing. humankind can go out and explore these words and see pluto revealed just before our eyes. it's just fantastic." and it really is. these are american scientists who are able to run an american craft three billion miles to cross within 8,000 miles of pluto, traveling 31,000 miles an hour. and when those scientists from nasa tell us that climate change is real, what do we have to say to them? we say that they're part of a hoax. really? is that going to be the position of members in this body?

that the people who are driving a rover around on the surface of mars, that the people who flew this new horizons craft by pluto don't know what they're talking about when they say that climate change is real? we have got people trying to unfund their satellites so that we don't have the information to prove what's happening on climate change. is that responsible with respect to nasa? mr. president, a day of reckoning is going to come on this and we had better start getting this right. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley jrvetion i would -- i would ask that my remarks be placed in the record for today's debate on the education bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: in 1965, congress passed the original elementary and secondary education act as part of president lyndon johnson's war on poverty.

the centerpiece of that law then as now is title 1 funding, provided as a block grant to local school districts to serve children in poverty. the assumption in 1965 was that simply providing an infusion of cash federal dollars to the schools, with more disadvantaged children would correct educational inequities compared to the more affluent schools. as it turned out simply providing more money didn't result in improved educational outcomes for disadvantaged children. so every time this law came back up for reauthorizations since 1965 congress added more stipulations on the use of the

funds and additional programs that well-meaning members of congress hoped would help these students. meanwhile, congress kept raising the level of funding. over time, there began to be a bipartisan realization that all this funding and all these programs were not resulting in improved student achievement, so then they came to the conclusion something needed to change. now, this is the context then for president bush proposing what became no child left behind. his original proposal promised to fundamentally change the old washington knows best approach to improving teaching and learning. the theory was that we would cut

the federal strings that tied the hands of local administrators and teachers, allowing them to focus on what they are taught to do -- teaching young people. in return, the law would require greater accountability in terms of student achievement outcomes. however, the final compromise that passed congress included a very detailed one-size-fits-all assessment and accountability system but not the degree of local freedom that many had hoped for. in retrospect then, i think most people believe the focus on achievement for all students was positive but like so many federal laws, how it worked out in practice didn't live up to the good intentions and

expectations. the reality is that the new federally mandated accountability system included required interventions that were cooked up in this city of washington and designed for big cities failing -- big city's failing school districts. these were not the good fit for communities then in my state of iowa and many of a lot of other states. moreover they set a new precedent for federal intervention in how local schools run. secretary duncan took this a step further through the race to the top program and his abuse of the federal waiver authority by adding conditions found

nowhere in law. he used these tools to coerce states into adopting his preferred policies. these included new even more heavy-handed mandates regarding reorganizing local schools specific methods for schools to evaluate teachers, and most infamously pushing states to adopt the common core standards. i believe these actions go well beyond any authority congress gave the secretary of education and i told him so in a letter when he denied my state of iowa a waiver. so this should be a warning to congress that if you give an inch federal officials might take a mile.

the high-stakes system in no child left behind also created negative incentives for schools to focus on getting passing test scores rather than meeting the individual learning needs of each student. for instance, i have had a concern for a long time in how federal education policy affects gifted and talented students. the exclusive focus on bringing struggling students up to minimum level means that we were setting our sights on mediocrity. left out of this question are gifted students, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds who have enormous potential but actually need to be challenged to reach that potential. at the end of the day the goal of making sure that all students

are receiving a quality education is a good one but the record of washington's intervention in this issue has not been a success so it's time for congress to take a step back and have a little humility. we don't know what's best for every child in every school. that's obvious to our constituents but something is sometimes lost here in the congress and for sure with the bureaucracy. we can't design a single national education system that can meet the individual needs of children that we never meet. our founding fathers designed a federal system of government. they did it for a reason. the principle of federalism is that decisions should be made at the level of government as close

as practical to the people those decisions impact. when it comes to education no one has a greater stake in educational decisions or knows better what is right for a specific child than that child's fairness. as a result, parents should have maximum control over their child's education. when governments make decisions that impact education it should be at a level of government as close as possible to the parents and children who are affected. now, the bill before us entitled yefdz act is a step in that direction. it eliminates the very specific mandates on states requiring that they evaluate schools based

on test scores and apply federally designed interventions. states will be free to design their own assessment and accountability systems. the bill retains the requirement that states test annually in grades 3-8 which i understand was necessary to get a bipartisan agreement. however, states will have wide discretion in how to design their assessments and the elimination of the federally mandated school intervention that raised the stakes on the test results will reduce teaching to the test. this bill also consolidates federal funding in a way that provides more latitude to local school districts to better meet their individual needs although less so than in the house-passed

bill. now, by contrast, the obama administration's blueprint for reauthorizing the elementary and secondary education act called for replacing the current set of federal mandates with a new set of federal mandates. what the president proposes would include even more intrusive mandatory federal inventions for certain schools. it also proposed a series of new federal competitive grants with very broad purposes, which puts smaller rural schools at a disadvantage and gives the secretary of education an inappropriate degree of control over which schools get funding for which purposes.

moreover the president's blueprint proposes tying federal education funds to the adoption of state content standards that are --quote, unquote -- college and career ready which as you know is code for common core. in short the obama blueprint would have essentially ratified this administration's heavy-handed incontinuing resolution into how -- intrusion into how and what students are taught and enable further federal overreach. now, getting back to the bill that hopefully we pass tomorrow, the every child achieves act represents a rejection of that rigid approach that the president puts forth and an admission that the model of federal control of local schools

has not worked. as a result, president obama has said that he cannot support the bill as it stands unless it adds back more power for the secretary. now, at -- that position flies in the face of what i hear from both iowa indicators and iowa parents. in fact, this bill quite intentionally tightens up some of the language in current law to prevent future overreach by the secretary of education. and let me tell you how that's done. as a for-instance, the elementary and secondary act has always required states to require a -- develop a state plan to show how it will comply with the law in order to get federal funding. under the current law the secretary of education is

charged with approving the plan unless it does not meet the requirements of the law. that should be sufficient to tell the secretary that he must approve a plan so long as it complies with the law. however, given the current secretary's track record, the language in this bill is more explicit. it requires the secretary to deem a state plan approved within 90 days of its submission unless he can provide a detailed description of the specific requirements and law that the state did not comply with. it then lists three pages of explicit limitations on the secretary's authority describing what he cannot consider in evaluating a state plan.

that is then followed by a rule reemphasizing that the secretary cannot require anything at all from the states beyond what is in this law. this bill also voids any conditions attached to waivers already granted by the secretary of education and prohibits the attaching of any ones in the future. i'm also glad that this bill includes very comprehensive language that i worked on with senator roberts of kansas to explicitly shut off all the avenues that this administration has used to coerce states into adopting common core standards. this will free states, then, to adopt whatever content standards they choose based on the input

from their citizens without federal coercion or fear of federal repercussion -- repercussions. too often congress passes vague laws that delegate excessive discretion to federal agencies to fill in the blanks. this bill is an improvement over that standard practice. it makes congressional intent more clear and fills in many gaps to ensure that the department implements the law as intended, rather than based upon the whims of the bureaucracy, and in this particular case, what the secretary of education has done above and beyond legal authority he has under present law. some bipartisan compromise is necessary for any bill to pass the senate, and like any

compromise most people can find some things that they don't like in this bill. some senators, i'm sure, feel that this bill goes too far in reducing the federal role in education, and then, of course some senators feel it doesn't go far enough. i'm one of those senators who would prefer to see a maximum degree of state and local control, and i have voted already for amendments to that effect. however, the every child achieves act the bill before us is a effect on, so teachers can teach and parents know who to hold accountable for decisions that affect their children. now, given the current mess with an unworkable law on the books, many -- also many

states seeing control over major policies -- ceding control over major policies to washington just to get a waiver, and also we have an unprecedented degree of federal intervention in what happens to be -- what happens in our neighborhood schools it's overdue for congress to act, and i compliment senator alexander for his leadership in writing this legislation. local schools then, can do more when washington does less. so this bill is simply about let's give those schools those parents, those teachers, that chance to do more. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that at 10:45 a.m. tomorrow thursday, july 16, the senate vote on the following amendments in the order listed:

cruz 2180, sanders 2177, coons 2243 burr, 2247, as modified, brown 2100, casey 2242, hatch 2082 warren 2106, schatz 2130, murphy 2186, nelson 2215, as modified manchin 2222, bozeman 2231 baldwin 2188, capito 2156, thune 2232, king 2256, schatz 2240 warren 2249. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow thursday, july 16.

following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks the senate resume consideration of s. 1177. final youly thattal time during the adjournment of the senate count postcloture on the substitute of the amendment number 2089. officer without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning.

so contact we will continue to be limited. try to tolimited. try to encourage them to take more constructive path? of course. >> that was a portion of today's news conference held by president obama on the iranian nuclear agreement. you canyou can see it tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span or anytime online. and here nasa scientists and researchers show the latest and most detailed photographs of the planet pluto. nasa's knew horizons spacecraft was passed pluto on tuesday some 3 billion miles from earth. seesee that event tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern.

>> this weekend the c-span cities tour travels across the country with time warner cable to learn more about the literary life and history of lexington kentucky. state hero who had a tumultuous career. >> in the mid- 1940s if you had asked who is a bright shining star in american politics on a national scale someone who would be governor, sen. carper as pres., a, a lot of people would have said ed prichard of kentucky. he was one of those people who worked in the white house. destined for great things and then came back to kentucky is in the 1940s was indicted for stuffing a ballot box, went to prison. that incredible promise find

out. >> we also visit ashland for the former home oh speaker of the house sen., and secretary of state henry clay. >> the mansion is a unique situation. his original home had to be torn down and rebuilt. it fell into disrepair. he rebuilt on the original foundation. what we have is a home's that is essentially a five-part federal style home with details:details: architectural elements and then added layer of aesthetic details added by henry clay's granddaughter and great-granddaughter. >> see our programs from lexington saturday evening at630 eastern and sunday afternoon at 2:00 o'clock on

american history tv at three. >> earlier today los angeles mayor discussed how mayors canada's national issues like immigration and raising the minimum wage with local initiatives. we spoke at the national press club in washington. [inaudible conversations] >> hi, everybody. especially you, man. welcome to the national press club.club. i am bob weiner, host of today's event, moderator. this is a newsmakers committee event and we are happy to have your here. we are especially happy to have today los angeles mayor eric garcetti's. local offices while congress remains in gridlock. this year he launched this.forward la campaign which raised nearly $4

$4 million to help hundred thousand angelenos work legally by the time his 1st term ends. he will also make the case of a $15 minimum wage that was recently adopted by the city of los angeles, the nation's second-largest city. on june 13 they're was signed. his plan calls for incremental increases in the middle wage of the next five years. he will also highlight los angeles leadership and water conservation as california battles the historic west coast route. this is his 1st national press club event since he took office. elected may 21, 2013. following 20 to 30 minutes of remarks the mayor will take questions from the media and club members. thethe event we will be in a news conference format. for moderate the questions and it will work pretty well.well. autumn kelly, if you raise your hand, on-site coordinator will play than a

white and we will pass around the microphone in that way everybody can be on c-span which is covering the entire event. with a back to basics agenda the mayor has focused on job creation. since hecreation. since he took office los angeles has had more than 85,000 knew jobs and registered number 60,000 knew businesses reducing the city's unemployment rate by 3.2%. the mayor was sworn in as the 42nd mayor of los angeles after being elected four times to serve as pres. of the city council from 2006 to 2012. from 21 intel taking office as mayor he served as counsel one until taking office is mayor he served as counsel member representing hollywood, echo park, silverlake command atwater village. it's in full disclosure that is actually the democratic convention where we met up

with the mayor on his -- on the phone with his friend chuckled then. the registration anywhere in the country having registered 100,000 voters. congratulations on an incredible performance. so the mayor earned his bachelors and masters from columbia university as aa rhodes scholar he studied at oxford and london school of economics and later taught at the university of southern california. he and his wife have a young daughter. he is lieut. in the us navy reserve and a jazz pianist and photographer. talking this morning for very much in shaping advocate of physical fitness. i want to thank the national press club staffer liaisons. crouching in's.

crouching in the choir is the national press club service winner of the year the photographer for the national press club. i mentioned autumn kelly. raise your hand. invaluable on the mayor's staff the communications director. thank you for making this happen. our team who is a super student,a super student just had a peace to daisy on the front page of the washington times. and from clams and so his days as pieces in the baltimore sun and if you could raise your hand. great.hand. great. i want to introduce my wife doctor patricia berg who enjoys this.

chuck has said that the mayor is the smartest man in marion los angeles history. my wife is the smartest in our country. she was allowed to george washington medical center, discovered a gene activated and 80 percent of women with breast cancer, 70 percent of men with prostate cancer. congratulations. and i think that covers everyone. now, mayor garcetti and immigration, minimum wage, and the drought. thank you for coming. >> thank you. thank you so much. a very good morning. thank you for coming out. it's it is certainly a great joy to be here. i appreciate you coming here for my analysis.

a review. a very exciting moment and i do appreciate everyone being hear in the midst of a very busy newsweek because what i want to talk to you about is as important as anything in the headlines today. it is as important for the future of our country and the city of america as anything we're talking about in the presidential election. it is a very exciting time to be a mayor in america's cities. the largest city and the largest state, the second-largest city in america, something that is arguably the western capitol of the united states. a global cities of the world today. i embody the city in the same way the city embodies this nation. half mexican have jewish. i have been referred to as a kosher burrito. it is the

multitude of what this country is about. we don't care where you come from, who you are. the rhetoric of the nation of one that is about opportunity for all people around the world in this country. it is an exciting moment. if you want the clock it is not always been that way.way. the last half-century has been a tough one. in the 60s american cities were burning. in the 70s they're were threatened bankruptcy, 80s crime waves for 90s more unrest. those coplanar recession in my lifetime. iflifetime. if you look at american cities today it is a different era. new york is now a place with abundant investment. detroit is a place where we see manufacturing investment going back. los angeles is now seen as a model place that embodies what the world looks like today and what this country look like tomorrow.

i think that we are seeing an economic resurgence that is fueled by america's cities. very different than this fight and flight. in some ways most embody when i came here as part of the class of 2013 mayors intelligent pittsburgh to seattle the mayors were elected. the president and vice president graciously invited us to white house for almost two hours as we went around. they represented america's cities. a lot of commonality. the same ones i want to talk to you about today. inequality, lack of investment command integration.

what was interesting as some of the pres. has made cake of the comments. this was the 60s or 70s we would all be here coming to washington. given what we all see as americans are now the washington field broken, they're is an action for the formula has been reversed. america'sreversed. america's cities is a washington. innovation, investment. the american dream is best embody and most alive in america's cities. part of that is the job description.description. we do not have the luxury of being able to decide which issues are partisan. i was elected two years ago by interesting coalition. maybe our selective because

i did not have the support of both chamber of commerce and organize labor because people distrust organized anything but they allow me to come in and an independent way and not just bipartisan but nonpartisan. and allowed a republican and conservative part of my city to feel ownership as much as a liberal and a progressive part of town. in some ways it is the formula that mayors must do. ceos'. fix immediate problems, address ongoing concerns and present division that we will long last after. transcends geography ethnicity. if a water main. if a water main breaks we don't have people ethnicity there.

in los angeles i inherited a city and the city government cutting-edge technology's. systems that they back the progress of back then. it's overall accountability. i want you to start counting, measuring, and counting, measuring, and sharing the goals and the data that we have. o'malley bloomberg model of what the modern mayors supposed to do. measure those things, set those goals, and and have

people all this accountable. reduce crime the 1 percent. in los angeles my philosophy has been a simple one. for you not against you show up and are usually missing and a get out of the way when you where and impediment and rebuild the public trust. why shouldn't people expect that? and our customers why shouldn't city government be held to the same level of accountability?

80% my 1st year because i want to make sure that call was picked up quickly. but to then engaged citizen we have seen tremendous turnaround. a 5,000 plus jobs. as was mentioned unemployment with a 3 percent. paying jobs back. new emergent industries. a lot of people don't no los angeles is not a digital tech jobs capitol. more than washington more

new york, boston. we evaluated for washington. we. we, the hat that is half-full. the largest public works program. one out of 50 just can be traced to the port in long beach. see into the port and it is critical for american success. international trade which comes through los angeles is using a way for the country in and out of the country.

gone back to his basic were things. we have not just done called analog things. the number one city for open data. they can go to a dashboard like i have a my smart phone and look at things like where the building permits are in the city or the response times 911 broken down by how long it takes is a transfer the call, take spread for tractor rollup and how long the travel time is so that we can have accountability.accountabilit y. i'm ranked number one the country. seen a lot of positive momentum. we also most importantly addressing inequality.

the bigger cities in america. high crime occurs. the places in neighborhoods werewhere inequality has been felt so sharply something that you need to los angeles in america can build investment and raise wages. a pathway to $15 an hour letting of 600,000 earners our poverty. one out of four people in poverty. making sure people can return to that american idea that if you were currently should be rewarded.

they about just voted minimum wage. the housing prices. a quarter of them are already underway and in the pipeline. housing for homeless veterans in los angeles each month than all the other cities. 240 month. we doubled the number of summer youth jobs because we no that is a pathway regarding communities to ensure they have one, two, or three years and make sure they are now stuck innot stuck in a rut of poverty generation after generation. to put it in perspective 6th and 7th graders in boston.

finally the reflection of inequality. the reflection of inequality. so we are positioned to make sure every patrol officer as a camera's command new relationship -based policing division. because ofbecause of the pain we went through in the '90s we have independent investigations and inspector general and the faith and resilience that does not make us immune that helps us address the feelings of inequality.

los angeles is an amazing community. people inpeople in america, people in the world but i would offer to you with the most diverse city. people from more than a hundred and 15 countries of origin. the largest collection of armenian. the whole country's. number two. if you rewind the clock again kanazawa says is

burning a race war and raise wives. good for the last year's had a big it to be more like los angeles? a declining population in korea, lack of diversity is making them uncompetitive. this diversity the place of straightaway. fourth-generation angeleno

for us to be able to compete as americans and it is always our great strength the room and perhaps a diversity do look as diversity does today. the country of 2nd chances. quarters of the book of my time to speak to you about what we do continues. the primary driver of our success and we will be. recently right games league of legends, videogame online role-playing game that is responsible 3% of the

global internet time.time. maybe the reduction of 2 percent of global productivity. in la-based company. remove them into the city of los angeles, part of reducing taxes and helping people. oftenoften they say get a fortune 500 company. fortune 500 headquarters have a couple hundred jobs. 1500 employees poised to double and 3,000's. we helping them in los angeles. why are you in la? for a lot of reasons. a graduate of the university of southern california. the only citythe only city in america with three top 25 universities, so many engineers is to leave la. retaining more of them because of the excitement. that was one. i need a

jumping off point. our customers are literally in every country. lax is the number one airport in the world. ranked number five in overall traffic. before about was her homes. people flying through get the numbers up. if you get on a plane step off of planning going to the city where the busiest in the world. the dominant number of traffic corridor in the world, theworld, the east coast of the united states to london we will be displaced as the most important busiest hub. i remember they're was one flight a week to china. 12 years old, 1983, 44, 1983, 44 flights a week nonstop to china from los angeles. now each week. we need a jumping off point's. the last thing he said is, we need a diverse population. engineers diverse population. engineers and sales men and women who speak every language of the world and they're is no place like los angeles. when we look at that has a peace of what america can be pointed to reimburse our diversity as something we

must figure out a pathway of integration that we will be the core of who we are command i want to be clear. i don't offer some brave new policy area were uncharted territory. this is a return then we are collectively core value. a very conservative return to what we're about we need to help. investment byeradication of inequality and lastly the integration of immigrant communities. this has always been our formula for success command it must be once again. first and foremost we need comprehensive immigration reform. youyou will here it a million times but it bears repeating. washington is failing us's. myus'. my fellow mayors feel that command i believe americans feel that. as the rhetoric is shifted and it is a very right moment. i came here veterans ago i

met with tom donahue's and richard trump to "mentioned this is one other thought the top issue. how often do we get that coalition together? not very often. majority leader mccarthy. they talked about how important integration was. inwas. in many ways this was me of the shift in marriage equality. there was a day that the rhetoric shifted and people talked about how we can achieve some measure of inequality. they're might have been disagreements. but they're was a shift that happened and it is happening. that is positive. at the same the same time we have not seen any action come along with it. they're is bipartisan rhetoric something that has transcended at the city level. we as mayors and

cities are leaving because we must. we have to fill the vacuum frommy practical necessity for our communities just as fixing the water main fulfilling a pothole a problem that the them in solving. 9 million legal permanent residents in america. an estimated 11 million undocumented residents of which they're are 1.2 million dreamers young americans who really only no the united states of america,america, folks remind me of my own grandfather who came here without documentation. he fled a war when his father was assassinated in the mix in revolution in my grandmother carried him in her arms across the border to taxes and then to los angeles. and here in los angeles were they're in los angeles he was given an opportunity for a non-drafted from world war ii because he was not a citizen but volunteered and thought in the pacific

theater and earned his citizenship, came back and learn the trade and became a barber and now as his grandson and the mayor of los angeles. the integration of his story is like the stories that we here every day in los angeles. folks who have graduated from ucla who get that masters degree in architecture and dream of being urban planners by working under the table less than minimum wage jobs for the moment they went through darker in the 1st round where to not only go to work at that architecture firm helped america,firm help america, by there father the 1st car and save up for a home is strengthen the economy, social fabric and this country itself. we need to figure out aa way to get people like down a path to citizenship. we need to figure out a way not just to give them a legal status but to engage in involvement hire them, and make sure that they are

part of the core of this country. cities of play this role historically. think about new york. as peopleas people streamed off the boats from places like italy and ireland and greece the cities set up these citizenship integration centers where they would teach people english, train them in what would be participation in the local government, help them enroll the public schools which is one of the reasons i reestablished something is aa council member i had established but had fallen to the wayside them in office of immigrant affairs. we now no about 12 of these that mayors of launched were who oversee around the united states. i want to be clear that it is not an issue area but a value we are putting through our government. this is the area where we deal with immigrants. for me to be successful we have to make sure we are talking to immigrants for libraries to do well we have to make sure that the value of immigrant integration is a part of what we do. it has become something that

is pushing forward a different way of looking at how we serve the people who are residents. the cities for citizenship initiative is something i started with the big three mayors where we started an initiative that looked at trying to integrate those folks for legal permanent residents and to get them to become citizens. that 1st group that i mentioned,i mentioned, the 9 million people in the matter what happens in the midst of the fights we have an obligation to try to help become citizens in the united states. a program that reaches across state lines recognition of the best way to strengthen our cities is to strengthen all cities and now collaboration of not

just three but of 18 cities. replace naturalization resources, share naturalization resources share best practices. we targeted 3,000 angelenos residency. recently honored by the white house for the national medal for libraries because we turn our libraries in the citizenship centers with a grant from citibank and others, we have in every single branch library both librarians who are trained on information available to help folks jump of local library and get to the pathway legal status and the citizenship which has been tremendous. 150+ librarians who applied. we are one applied. here one of five and a country that wanted. libraries have always been a place for information. no reason they can be a place where people find jobs, healthcare, and citizenship. second, we launched a campaign, we launched a campaign called step forward la. ..

the executive action was a small step forward. it was incremental but it reminded me of civil unions during the marriage equality debate something we thought would continue to get momentum not the promised land but an important step or it did even that was meant by intolerance and hostility and that hostility is something that i think it's un-american not only because of my own family experience but it

does los angeles is the epicenter of immigration reform. the county has 500,000 residents are eligible for relief. the city has 220,000 of those. let me be where it's not, i'm not trying to reach from an ethical issue. citizenship increases someone earnings eight to 11%. we will have increased if we got folks through executive action the earnings of this country by $124 billion. a 230 billion-dollar increase in our gdp. tell me what other program can do that with the stroke of a pen and my city it was $3 billion we are leaving on the table for the l.a. economy like ms. lopez the woman i mentioned from ucla a moment ago and it also increases the income of nonimmigrants. we would see our incomes go up as well. the court stepped in and put a stop to that. one of the reasons i've advocated vigorously on how to have is 70 mayors together through citizen united for

immigration act to violin and make us carry a. bill de blasio christina ray the mayor of atlanta and a majority of americans support the pathway to citizenship. we can agree to disagree on how but let's make sure to keep that are value that we need to do that and opposition to reform is in decline. i think in 2024 back at this moment and look at today's republican primaries him embarrassed immigration reform is a hotly contested just as we look back on the 2004 debates when marriage equality was taboo in both parties. people are saying well i don't know i'm evolving on the issue and the pace with which that happened. i want to add to the list of folks if we look at these historic moment in american history cynical falls in the 1840s and selma alabama and 65 to lay no california the same

year with farmworkers massachusetts 2004 when marriage equality started to move forward. it is the place and it is the date where it is ground zero for this issue. it is a movement that looks to different ideas to spot new solutions but returns to old american values and it's a movement that calls on her politics to be a means of change not a tool to call progress. it's a movement that manifests a sweeping advancement by harnessing the power for cities to integrate our immigrants use the city says its engines not just for economic prosperity but american integration. at the same time figure out how we can erase and eradicate income inequality and get america back to basics. as i mentioned in many ways my story is the american story. we are a country full of people who make mistakes, who take risks, across rivers and cross oceans that might hit bumps on the road but who are the bravest

most innovative hardest working people on the face of the earth. we are an imperfect country but often it's said we are the least bad which makes it the best and we embrace those things. we admit our perfections on the wrote to becoming a more perfect union. this is one of those omens are we dig into our hearts, and we look at our heads and do a gut check and we realize that we are hunted it does believe there should be some measure of equality that we should invest in are the structure both human and physical and at the end of the day the american story is the story of integration of diverse populations in american cities are leading the way. thank you so much. [applause] i'm happy to talk about the job which i know i didn't. i'm just going to enjoy this water. >> let me just lead the soft visit to challenge this immigration issue when you have donald trump and others using

the kind of rhetoric they do and you said it's embarrassing. what do you do about that because what do you do about the court, the nativist court that he struck that is now put him for example at the top of the republican field and when you talk with boehner and mccarthy and they tell you they agree with you on immigration they are blocking the bill the senate has passed and is languishing in the house. how do you get past if you have any great idea on this how do you get past the gridlock that we are at in the congress now? >> a couple of things. one is when somebody full -- polls 15% and this could be said about democrats the party that is minority but you are talking about 60 or 70% of americans saying absolutely and that's the best part of american history. we have nativist courts

throughout the know-nothings. we have had many parties throughout the years and individuals would have said that he that doesn't represent america. certainly more than 50% am the talk on the news these days but not necessarily 50% of the perspectives of americans. i returned to the everyday polling that shows a constant evolution and i would also say just as a statement of fact in 1994 during our editorial race with kathleen brown and pete wilson p. wilson began the campaign and his campaign looked at the top 10 conservative californians. the death penalty and immigration were nine and 10. by the end that they were number one and two. what he found was even though was ninth and tenth in importance people at that point were aligned against what was seen as new immigration and a sheep that up it became number one. he won that race but today there's not a single republican in the state that produced

richard nixon ronald reagan in our statewide constitutional offices and i don't think that was a punishment. i just think people feel that was out of line with their values, who we are. it's like marriage equality. when it was people who folks didn't know and when it was your brother or your sister your co-worker or your neighbor it's another thing in the same thing is happening with immigration. it isn't just his caricature of folks who break the law come in here and do terrible things but that young woman who was here at 5 years old and graduates with honors from a great university whose potential we are holding back not just for her which is the right thing to do but also the nation. how do we break the gridlock in washington? we try to start modeling those things at the local level and build that up as governors sued the president on his executive action in the mayor's is some of us are mayors with populations larger than -- suing the

governor. americans aren't of singular mind on this and if you look at the polling the majority of them want to see that in even in the republican party people like john kasich are saying we have to figure out a way to deal with the problem. i want to be clear that i respect you if you have a different perspective on immigration than me but offer something constructive for the folks that are here because they're not going away. don't use human potential untapped so it's continuing to engage with congressional leaders and they themselves want to and i hope your tummy will be sooner than later. they often talk about that but we can have the support and the pressure from the cities and that's the main part of our message. >> the other part is you apparently and are you willing to take a mental, are leading a national effort gets cities to do their own thing with their libraries program, with their education program, with their

jobs and hansman in your citizens program? you are leading a national movement and have the congress if they remained gridlock. >> i always don't see the power power you have before you try to exercise that i respect the constitution. it's an amazing document for the federal government but that doesn't mean where powerless at the local level to do anything for and with immigrants. integration regardless of legal status is something we can continue to work on and we all have something to gain from that that. the more integrated people are the more we gain. it is a straight linear formula. >> now you mentioned the drought so what are you going to do in california ghostwriting two years? >> well you know people ask me all the time whether i'm stressed out about the drought and i'm surely not. i'm very oak is on it but i'm not stressed. we actually have plenty of water and i know that shocks people to hear. my favorite statistic is we have

added 1 million people to our population we consume not more water than we did 45 years ago. how did we do that? we got smarter pattern landscape but there's so much water still wasted even in a place like california that if we are smarter about our water we can do better so what are we doing in los angeles? we have i set a goal of reducing our water usage in the city by 20% and we are hitting that role a year early because what we did is we incentivize 50% of our water usage with people's landscaping. we told people we would pay or dollars a square foot to change their grass out to not like rocks and cap this but beautiful flowering drought-tolerant plants. 90% of the grass never gets walked on anyway so that is something that has helped our water output create i set the

boldest goal of any mayor than whoever was mayor during the years. if you watched chinatown and the incredible engineering to bring every drop of water to north los angeles we set a goal to have 50% of our water obtained locally by the putting backwater and char wells by re-cycling water and reusing water and conserving water and the last date i will give you 60% of water reuse or the equivalent of which goes through a drain your sink or toilet your shower, we treat to almost drinkable standard and wash it out to the ocean. imagine if we were piping that rack in. we'd could look at places like israel and because looked to australia and we are implementing those policies and massive public awareness campaigns. steve carell and other celebrities are engaged in this character called the draw. he is not angry at you but he is

disappointed that you are taking a shower too long. i know there are larger state issues to choose the right crops have trip irrigation etc. but we will have plenty of water and i'm confident we will be able to meet this challenge. >> i guess my last question and we will turn it over and let them have added is the city of los angeles and you decided to race in faces the minimum wage to $15 an hour that will help and inequality but what is your counter and what is your case that is not going to cost jobs? >> it's interesting they passed that in a the county of los angeles which encompasses 10 million people and the areas where there is no city incorporated they essentially are the city. it's essentially the second biggest city. i was debating that as well. i will believe they would pass a

similar legislation two hours. i was even blown away because i know it will have positive impact. we have seen the studies in the work in the past but of the 1000 businesses zero then said they would pack up and leave if the minimum wage was raised in asp but they would do of course there are certain things that are accommodated. it was 10 to 12% were saying a negative impact, not even negative that they do those things. it blew me away because two-thirds of businesses said it was likely they would save money by reducing the cost of employee turnover. fast food or you know what the employee turnover is on average? 150% a year which is like having a permanent help wanted sign. it's expensive when they can't live off of their wages. there was a great piece in "the wall street journal" that said

more and more companies are seeing that it's good for the bottom line to pay more. it's not that they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart. they are recognizing the henry ford, it's a good thing and it was one thing for politicians to say trust us but businesses did not expect to reduce staff. to reduce hours 2% said it was likely and 0% said very likely your a place with workers and machines very likely. 45% of employees expected their staff to take on additional duties and there will be much more of a arduous cycle. a billion dollars is put in the pocket of low income and julie knows the same could be said about americans. they would be choosing between a phone bill and buying those shoes for their kids for school.

i think it will help business is. >> any questions? identify yourself and ask the question. make sure the switch part of the mic faces out. >> hi. welcome to washington. i am at "the wall street journal." on the minimum wage and you mentioned you don't have overly close ties with unions or the chambers and those types of places. with the hotel workers minimum wage from a shoe that included a carveout for collective bargaining agreements the citywide law does not. are those caveats important and as you are serving as a model should those cities look at having such carveouts? >> first of all i do have close

ties i just didn't get their endorsement but we are all friends now. rick caruso is one of our biggest shopping mall owners who would be the hardest hit by the rhetoric. people like eli brode who is founded not just one but two fortune 500 companies who are very supportive. in terms of a carveout i don't support that. i understand the logic of it but i think minimum wage should be a minimum wage. there should be nobody who earns underneath that and understand how it could be an organizing tool. i think in general for the average person this isn't about labor or organized labor to i think would be a positive thing if more were but the reality is most aren't and wage workers almost never are so what can we do to make sure that's raised up everybody and that is the

pathway we are taking in los angeles. i respect folks who put that in there. it's been overblown. it's a smaller issue than people think and it will hit its low single-digit percentage of workers. i'm interested in hitting that most people in the most aggressive way we can. >> thanks. i'm a congressional correspondent with the hispanic outlook and my 50 years and is santa barbara. i have been covering immigration and i have two questions. one is it's popular to say that congress gridlock over immigration reform that really the big issue is between comprehensive and peace mail.

as you pointed out there were many issues that republicans agreed with including many want to legalize streamers. so are you coming you talk about comprehensive and why does it have to be comprehensive? why can it be peace mail and the other thing i want you to remark about is sanctuary cities. the issue was brought up yesterday in a hearing that with much exasperation why do we have immigration laws at the cities will say no we don't believe in that and asmat opening pandora's box? >> thank you. the first question i will take whatever peace mail i can get so i'm not opposed to peace mail. the reason i pushed for comprehensive is a think it's kind of like addressing homelessness. i'm trying to end homelessness among homeless veterans. that is what i'm focused on that i want to make sure we address everybody on the street and

comprehensive immigration reform doesn't leave anybody behind. we need workers and dreamers and anyone who is here is not leaving so we need to solve the problem. second sanctuary cities the term has really morphed. sanctuary city was a specific term and a lot of cities have been thrown and cities like san francisco food during the civil war in central america when the united states was fleeing the violence we are sanctuary city if you are experiencing violence and guatemala. now his morphed into the next sanctuary for criminals which is not historically accurate. it's a perverting of the words. in los angeles as i stated recently we do cooperate and coordinate with icepack all the time in any locality should. only find a violent criminal and we check immigration status if

deportation happens that happens all the time and it should happen but what we do is a judicial order is we have somebody who is not at that level and i.c.e. wants to have a detainer. we will do dictators from i.c.e. but we want to make sure there's a judge who says there's something there area to me that's about establishing trust in making sure of the 550,000 people the people who are just like most americans who are citizens that are law-abiding participate in the safety of our city don't think the traffic stop is going to say by the way can i see your immigration papers? by the way i would have to stop solving murders, rapes and the amount of work it would take for my police officers, i couldn't do my core job which is to keep the city safe. >> bill with the national association of beverage importers. this past year we experienced a

debilitating west coast port slowdown. many companies lost their entire holiday season because they couldn't ship at the west coast ports. what do you recommend to east coast mayors who are going to experience this in a year or so the same kind of contract negotiations? >> as you know i got very involved in the port dispute terry at i asked the federal government to bring mediation and in the end i would close the deal myself and the secretary of labor and commerce rents came from cisco. it was please were able to resolve that but it was debilitating. i got ceos and i was here at the words talking to all the egg importers and exporters and every industry association telling them a positive news in what we are trying to do to modernize not just the sequel infrastructure but also the negotiations. i think east coast is different than the west coast because some

of the folks who work in the unions here are more affiliated with the actual companies. it has traditionally been a little bit more harmonious but that doesn't mean there can't be strikes and arrests. what i would say to everybody is this is an american issue. one may look at one out of 50 jobs where there was a small retailer who couldn't get the gifts from a shop or a huge retailer like home depot or gap the impact it had was debilitating on the american economy so first i would tell the mayors of east coast elevate this to more than the page you are dealing with. the teamsters and the sanitation department who might a these striking. this is a real american issue. second i would do what we are doing for the next round which is to get in there early and establish early on we are not going to bat is up to the 11th hour and get an agreement early on to make sure both sides have an agreement.

work never stopped on the west coast. it just slowed down. we had banana spoiling and like you said whole seasons in retail sector. i can guarantee the next round for the west coast is going to start very early. we will make sure to bring in the big guys and gals the ceos of the multinationals not just the wraps and similarly with the unions to make sure they understand that we are friends with both sides. i won't say which side but said america is looking right now and someone said who is looking at is that why? we don't realize the west coast economy is falling apart and it's about the entire united states. >> we want to give priority to media who have questions so if you are with the media outlet for a sure hand.

sr zero mr. mayor. >> sean higgins with the "washington examiner." if the l.a. county doesn't come up with a minimum-wage that's close to her matching the cities is that going to be disruptive for the metro area economy? >> i think it will be but not in the way that most people imagine. a lot of people say if you have a higher minimum wage it's a negative effect on you because it creates a wedge island. i would say the opposite happens, you create poverty pockets. the best workers come into the city of l.a. in the most motivated come to the city of l.a. sewer businesses will benefit from that. we looked at some really good empirical data on this even the industries that depend on that most like restaurants where once had raised the minimum wage and thought those stores are going out of business. when there was a poor community like we saw poor cities starting

minimum wage rise or big a big city like san francisco we saw the opposite effect. i tell other cities don't do this because i'm asking a favor from you to make sure it doesn't hurt us but do it for yourselves because workers can cross city borders and in los angeles they can live in another city and come to the city of l.a.. who wouldn't want to work at mcdonald's for $15 an hour for another place to start at 10 and the employer of a mcdonald's in los angeles can pick the best, they will get the very best. >> new york club members, great. >> my name is jordan and i'm with the german press agency. with the minimum wage at $15 do you encourage all cities and all states even in the u.s. to raise it to 15 or will it be a position with population? >> i think 15 is a good goal.

i guess i would do different years. 15 is a fine number to organize towards but i do think it would be great to raise the basement nationally but we are not seeing that happen in congress anytime soon or it i hope it will and it should have very strong bipartisan support. a majority of republicans as well as an overwhelming majority of democrats support raising the minimum wage. the cost of living is different different places and need to cater towards what is right for your own sake. >> we will take one or two more and be done. >> kevin with the "associated press." since you require judicial order for these detainer request what has the impact been and have you seen a decline in request since then? >> we have seen them be pretty constant and we have talked to i.c.e. or if they asked you want to have a few crimes that are in

a different category part of the discussions and we have engaged vhs at some of our immigrant groups in los angeles to see whether that's something for the future but we haven't seen a decline or an increase. it has been constant because of something we had before. obviously we have that policy in place long before we made it official and informally -- we don't have the time to do it quite frankly. give us the resources to help us do it. street crimes and property crimes if you want us to take on these or sponsor billy's give us the resources do it. >> go ahead in the back. >> and the isakson with moment magazine. he said your commitment to

social justice comes from judaism so would you say minimum wage and pursuing immigration reformer -- jewish values? he got to be the mayor until the next election. not just because of the cultural ties but the immigrant experience above my jewish and mexican sides and the values of growing up jewish and understanding we have a responsibility. it is a responsibility to make sure that we take care of those who need us and to heal a broken world. there is no question these things come from that. my grandfather on my moms side harriet roth is an interesting american success story. he was the son of immigrants from russia and poland who were

fleeing the time of the early 20th century. he came his father came to los angeles and was a tailor. he took up his profession and decided to take his father's name and turn it into his suit company. lewis roth clothing was one of the finest in -- and the first thing he did was he came here to d.c. and looked at johnson the way he was dressed and they said you look like a schlapp. schlapp. my grandfather became the tailor of the united states of america. the story could end their but then he was personally opposed to the vietnam war and he was active in progressive politics and is a businessman he had a union shop and it wore on him more and more. he was at a crossroads where he

said i could speak out and say something but lewis my most important and famous client and i want to remain silent and keep him. he took out full-page ads in the new york times with my grandmother telling president johnson in 1968 not to run for re-election and to get out of vietnam and offering to pay him in his retirement a little money. and it made national news. i grew up with that story. my grandfather died when i was five years old but it showed you stand up for what you believe in even at the price of your own sacrifice of their own well-being. ..

important. i think the pathway is not between whether or not we have safety or not. i can i think we see a pathway towards a bomb with no agreement. and i am cautiously optimistic and supportive of the president's efforts and even in israel i think there is is a range of opinions. as an american jew and mayor of a city with iranian americans there is more positive than negative and staying and keeping engaged has more benefit economically and in terms of

security. the president said this is all about verification and not trust. i like that. it allows the majority meaning china, russia and iran cannot lead, the majority of states meaning u.s. britain, france and germany are able to say they are violating and put the sanctions back. at least we go go back to the status quo which isn't very good but at least the status quo. >> we will take one more question. you have one? okay. >> it sounds like implemented a lot of great initiatives in los angeles and you have been doing a great job. what are your comments on the recent spike in crime there? also to saddle back on that,

how do you view obama's 46 pardons on non-violent drug offenders? how does that sit into your city? >> it is great we are taking up criminal justice reform. i want to keep the bad guys and gals locked up and make sure they are away but too much of the system puts the wrong people away for too long and does nothing to transform them into productive citizens. i admire the work corey booker is doing and that came from his experience as mayor helping with the office of reentry and helping people get jobs and reintegrate and we are looking into that in los angeles. i don't know the individual parts but by and large i am sure the president is doing the right thing. these are problem ones we would all look at and say that is ridiculous. we can spend less money transforming these folks rather than keeping them locked up at a cost to all of us. in los angeles, i want to put

the bad news in perspective. they are the safest of the big five cities and with the crime levels it is still as safe as the 1950s per capita but any increase is troubling. we are seeing this happen across the country. it is demographics something changing, a hangover from the election, we are not sure what the causes are. we are seen a tapering off of the increase. one having more mobile police officers to go to areas where crime spiked before it becomes a crime wave and second doing prevention work. i am happy for the summer night program keeping the parks open late and we are seeing a 40% drop in crime in every park where we offer programs for kids. they are the victims and sometimes the perpetrators of violent crimes. and looking at former gang

members. most crime in los angeles is gang homicide. we need people who know the landscape and can get between the guns and stop the retrobution violence that happens and that is called grid. third, we saw a big increase in aggrivated assaults and saw domestic violence going up. i hope this is something nationally we will continue to have a conversation on. in los angeles, we rolled out a program too civilians going out with police departments. you talk to a cop and they go back to the same address time and time again and often times esa escalate. more often than not it is woman and her children and we need to give them the job training and security and giving them things that keep them from going back.

we have a full range of things we are doing to address. the last thing is continuing to build trust between the community and the department. i am proud los angeles is more resilient. it hasn't been we have not had shootings of unarmed suzil -- civilians. sometimes it has been a justified defense or as a public safety move. but in los angeles, as i mentioned, we have independent investigations civilian police commission putting body cams out and i think that will address the crime you need to bring the crime down. >> i think we are concluded. thank you all very much. thank you all very much for coming. and mayor, it was fantastic. you really answered a lot. >> thank you so much. [applause]

>> earlier today president obama held a news conference on the iranian nuclear deal and discussed the hostages held there and why they were not part of the deal. >> as you know there are four americans held in iran, three on trumped up charges. can you tell the country, sir why you are content to leave the conscious and strength of this nation unaccounted for in relation to the four americans? the chairman of the joint chief of staff last week said there should be no relief for iran in terms of ballistic missiles or

conventional weapons. you left the chairman joint chief of staff hung out to dry. can you comment? >> i will give you credit for how you craft the questions. the notion i am content as i celebrate with american citizen's languishing in iranian jails? major, that is non-sense. and you should know better. i have met with the families of some of those folks. no body is content. our diplomats and teams are working diligently to try to get them out. now if the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release, think about the logic that creates.

suddenly iran realizes you know what? maybe we can get additional concessions out of the americans by holding these americans. makes it more difficult for us to walk away if iran somehow thinks that a nuclear deal was dependent in some fashion on the nuclear deal. if we had walked away from the nuclear deal we would still be pushing them just as hard to get these folks out. that is why these issues are not connected. we are working every single day to try to get them out and will not stop until they are out and rejoined with their families. >> that was a portion of the news conference held by president obama today on the nuclear agreement. you can see the entire briefing at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span or any time online. nasa scientist and researchers show the latest and most detailed photographs of the

planet pollute coming from nasa's new horizons spacecraft that passed pluto on tuesday. see that at 8 p.m. eastern tonight. this weekend, two major polit political events from iowa and we are the only place you can watch and listen to them in entirety. we are live in cedar rapids for the hall of fame dinner marking the first time all five democratic presidential candidates share the same stage. and beginning at 11 a.m. eastern on saturday we are live from the forum with nine republican presidential candidates scheduled to speak. c-span's road to the white house 2016. we take you there. earlier today on the senate floor, senator roy blunt of

missouri and angus king discussed yesterday's nuclear deal with iran and where congressional approval goes from here. >> mr. president, needless to say yesterday's announcement about our ongoing stature and status with iran in my view is a dangerous step forward in ad advancing not only the elicit program they had until now but the clear nuclear weapons capability they would have under this agreement. i think the agreement confirms that the president was too willing to get a deal with iran at any price. the concessions made by the administration based on the starting point i believe to be stunning and all we have to do

is go back and review recent history to see that today iran's in in instability of terrorism and violence in the world is not hampered by the agreement announced. in the not too distant tomorrow we see those things continue unabated and much better positioned and advanced and funded than they are right now. supported by iran assad in syria has been masquerading his own people resulting in the death of 191,000 people in syria and that is according to the u.n. assad stepped forward to praise this agreement supported by iran shiite militias are continuing to support assad and

promote division and violence throughout the country of iraq. supported by iran rebels have seized key territory in yemen and continue to work to destabilize that country. supported by iran, hezbollah in lebanon is waging terrorism is calling for the annihilation of israel. palestinian terrorist groups in gaza continue to send rockets into israel. last april, islam revolution navy stopped flag ship trying to go in the straits and this is at a time when iran is trying to get major countries in the world to negotiate with them. iran continues to hold hostages within any reasonable way of

defining hostages and without any charges. three americans, a pastor a former u.s. marine and "washington post" journalist jason. they also remain totally uncooperative in helpling locate robert levenson. when the secretary of state was asked why these people were not part of the negotiations he said this is a negotiation about nuclear weapons not about people unlawfully detained. well it quickly became a negotiation about not just nuclear weapons but other weapons we have prevented the iranians from having access to. we could not get the americans released and find out more about

one american than we know now. the concessions laid out by yesterday's announcement were also stunning i thought. on the idea of uranium enrichment the obama administration said a year and a half ago, iran didn't have the right to enrich. in november of 2013 the secretary of state told abc news quote we don't recognize the right to enrich. it is clear in the non-proliferation treaty. it is very clear there is no right to enrich. end quote. under the agreement, iran is allowed to continue to enrich. inspections, the presidents said we would have to be able to verify iran's cheating through anywhere at any time inspections. any good deal must allow

inspections. trust but verified. last april, the president's deputy national security advisor proclaimed under this deal quote we will have anywhere any time 24/7 access to iran's nuclear facilities. inspectors will be forced to wait up to 24 days for access to suspicious sites once they ask for access. that is a brand new definition of anywhere/any time. possibly you can have access in 24 days and lots of things can and would change in 24 days. militarily the president said we would disclose and define the possible military dimensions of the research and where iran's illegal nuclear program was

headed. the president said this information is critical to knowing what iran's true breakout potential and true intention intentions could be. under this agreement the option of examining the possible military dimensions of iran's nuclear program is off the table. sanctions. the administration said that removing all sanctions was a non-starter until iran demonstrated they are complying with the agreement. a little over a year ago in march of 2014 secretary john kerry said iran is not open for business up till iran is closed for nuclear bombs. now we know iran will be open for business much sooner than that. this deal allows them to be open for business and they will be rewarded with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of sanction relief return of

assets that didn't have to be returned and under this agreement, all sanctions even those related to arms missiles and proliferation will be removed. not be suspended. they will be removed. we have some of the most aggressive arms suppliers in the world and iran now being given access to all kinds of arms that they could not get legally up until now. all economic and banking sections as well as those imposed on transport, insurance, petro chemical industries and valuable materials will be removed. dismantling, the president said that iran will have to dismantle its illegal fucnuclear program. in 2013 the chief negotiator told pbs a final agreement should quote include a lot of

dismantling of their infrastructure end quote but we are seeing under this deal it will be preserved not dismantled. p 1-plus five stipulated it will be 20-25 years and then they said 20 years plus another 10 years and the last offer was 20 years which in the end was reduced to ten years. i think over the next 60 days as people read the fine print of the agreement they might find out it is less than ten years. they know it is not 25 20 years plus. this is a bad deal for the united states and one that will embolden our enemies, jeopardize the security of our allies and lead our friends to not believe

they can trust us and our enemies not to be afraid of us. what worse place can we be in than that? the stated goal of the negotiation negotiations was to insure iran never develops the ability to develop a nuclear weapon but the president agreed to a deal that does the opposite. by allowing iran to become nuclear weapon capable, this deal gives iran a free pass to cheat at its military sites and no access to u.s. inspectors. meanwhile, just last week iran continued to call for the destruction of israel. these are the people allowing in the process having access to more weapons and becoming nuclear weapons capable. iran called as it has for decades, for the destruction of israel and the death to america

and iran's supreme leader stood by for the need to fight the u.s. even if there is an agreement. i don't know if we entered into an agreement where they said whether there is an agreement or not we want to continue to see the united states as an enemy we need to fight. this deal undermines the security of our friends and allies and makes iran's unapologetic sponsorship of terrorism throughout the middle east. iran has repeatedly refused to abide by international agreements that require inspection of nuclear facilities, details of facility designs, and acquisition and production of nuclear materials and what makes us think iran is going to change that behavior now. the negotiations themselves should lead them to believe the

old iran is the new iran. this is a bad deal and a deal that hopes in the next 8-10 years the iranian government totally changes. the iranian attitude changes and our relationship with them totally changes and hopes between the time we have that hope for change the iranians don't cheat. this is a hope nut a strategy and it is a hope not a strategy that the we let the world become more destabilized on top of. after much negotiations iran hasn't released a single american prisoner or announced any intention to do so. the iranians the russians the chinese, the syrians or at least the syrians controlled by assad may like this deal but this is a dad deal for the united states of america. it is a bad deal for world stability. it is a bad deal for our friends.

and i think the law the congress passed that gives the congress of the united states 60 days to look at it will turn out to be 60 days that the president himself is about to find out what is in the deal that he and the administration signed. i was asked if you were going to lobby members of the senate as to how they should vote on this agreement when it came up. i said i am going to do everything i can to talk about the real shortcomings of this agreement, the destabilize of this agreement, but every member of the senate is going to have to answer for this agreement and this vote for a long time. members of the senate on their own are going to have to decide what side of this to wind up on and mr. president, i predict a majority and maybe a substantial

majority of the senate will wind up understanding this is a bad deal for america and the future of world security and i would yield the floor. >> fellow citizens we cannot escape history. we of this congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. no personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. the firery trial for which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation. that was lincoln on december 1st, 1862 and i think his words echo today as we talk about the serious and solumm issues before us and the one that will becoming up within 60 days; the consideration of the agreement with iran.

we are embarking on a historic process. a process that will result unwin of the most important votes any of us will every take in this body. a vote of relationships in the middle east and throughout the world. i have been thinking how to approach this decision. i would like to share this today. this as a solemn responsibility. -- is a -- the first step for me is to read the agreement word-for-word and note the questions and data and analysis that we think we need in order to make this decision. number one is seek expertise. you need to be a nuclear physic

to understand this. i hope and i expect this will happen in hearings before the foreign relation committee. i think it is important for individuals to reach out and gain as much acknowledge and expertise in the facts of this agreement as we possibly can. i think we need to debate with the senators in the chamber face to face. this is how we owe people. one person speaking to an empty chamber and another. not that kind.

i think senators should confront each other with their best arguments and facts and listen to one another and make their decisions based upon what they learn and hear. the context of the decision is important but let's consider alternatives. what happens if we don't accept this agreement? what happens if we do? no agreement can be judged solely in isolation. it has to be determined what happened in the middle east? mr. president, i did not plan to come to the floor today. but i am hear because i have been shocked and frankly surprised with the outpouring of reaction to people who have not read the agreement and studied the implications and gained the

facts to deannounce -- denounce the deal before the ink is dry is not responsible. let's slow down and take a deep breath and listen to one another. let's gain the facts. i have not yet made by decision. i commend that position to my colleagues. this is too important to become just another political issue. we are headed into a presidential year and there are partisan differences and differences with this president, this is a historic vote and a solemn responsibility. we owe the people of our states and america a close reading of the fact. a balanced weighing of the alton alternative alternatives and our best judgment. that is what inthe people of maine

expect of me and i believe that is what the people of america expect of us. the senate has an opportunity to regain the place in the country as the greatest body and that means we have to deliberate and listen and learn the facts. and that is how we should approach this momentus decision. history will judge us mr. president. history will judge us. not only on our decision but on how we reached it. how we wrestled with the facts and the alternatives and the consequences. and how we made this decision that will have long-term implications for this country, for the middle east for our allies and for the world. i have confidence in this institution and confidence we can make this decision in a

thoughtful, deliberate and consciously deliberate way to reach a conclusion that is in the best interest of the people of america. thank you, mr. president. >> here is what is ahead on cspan. we get detailed pictures of pluto from nasa's spacecraft new horizons. and then we get an update on interest rates to the house financial service committee and then the head of the financial protection bureau tells capitol hill lawmakers about bureau actions that resulted resulted in financial institutions to providing re-dress to 7,000 consumers. a minute ago we heard what a couple senators think about the