quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. burr: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: mr. president, what's the order of business? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question occurs on amendment 2552, as further modified, offered by the senator from delaware, mr. coons. the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: i would like to speak and urge a "no" vote on amendment 2552, known as the coons amendment. this amendment essentially adds another layer of review to the bill's current requirements. we worked this out in an amendment with senator carper. this does more and could prevent

parts of the government from quickly learning about cyber threats at machine speed because it would require an additional privacy review for any information going through the d.h.s. portal. the carper amendment that i spoke about was adopted as part of the managers' package which made it clear that the government should take automated steps to ensure that the realtime information-sharing system can both protect privacy and allow for the speed necessary to stop cyber threats. because the coons amendment will slow down sharing via the d.h.s. portal, i ask my colleagues to join me in voting "no." mr. coons: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: mr. president, i rise today to urge my colleagues to support my amendment to make sure that this bill strikes the right balance between privacy and security. now, i respect the very hard work of senators burr and

feinstein and the constructive amendment that my senior senator, tom carper, added to the managers' amendment. i do believe this bill has made significant movement in the right direction. but i remain concerned and my amendment's purpose is to require the d.h.s. review all cyber threat indicators it receives and to remove personally identifying information by the most efficient means practicable. it would not necessarily, according to the amendment in the managers' package, be required that d.h.s. scrub unless multiple agency heads unanimously agree on the scrubbing process. and my amendment's purpose is to simply ensure that these privacy scrubs, done at machine speed, done in a responsible way, protect citizen privacy and our security. mr. president, i don't think we should be forced to choose between those two and i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. thank you. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the amendment.a senator: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there

a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. quoruvote:

vote:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: anyone wishing to change their vote? anyone wishing to vote? if not, the ayes are 41, it is nays are 54. the amendment,as modified, is

not agreed to. mr. burr: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: madam president, i ask consent that the cloture motion on s. 754 be withdrawn and that prior to a vote on adoption of the burr-feinstein substitute amendment, the managers' amendment at the desk be agreed to and that following adoption. the substitute, the bill be read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the bill,'s under the previous order. i further ask that notwithstanding adoption, the flake amendment 2582 be modified with the technical change at the desk. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection. under the previous order, the question occurs on amendment number 2581, offered by the senator from arkansas, mr. cotton, as modified. mr. cotton: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas.

mr. cotton: madam president, i support this important bill. the presiding officer: order in the chamber. mr. cotton: i support this important bill but i want to strengthen it. under a billing, a business receives liability protection by reporting threats to d.h.s. or its regulatory agency. but many businesses, he is specially retailers like target or home depot, don't have a regulator. thus, they must report to d.h.s. a senator: madam president, the senate's not in order. the presiding officer: the senate shall be in order. mr. cotton: they have no choice, they must report to d.h.s. even if they have long-standing ties to the f.b.i., as did sony pictures. i contend we should allow these businesses to choose between the d.h.s., f.b.i. and secret service. fortunately, the white house appears to agree with my position. the national security council tweeted over the weekend, if you are a victim of a major cyber incident, a call to the f.b.i., secret service or d.h.s. is a call to all. now, this amendment wouldn't undermine the single point of reporting concept behind this bill because there's already an

exception for the regulators, nor would it impair privacy rights because those rules apply to the f.b.i. finally, i would note the house-passed version of this bill includes a nearly identical provision and that got 137 votes. ladies and gentlemen, please, let's join together in a bipartisan fashion, pass this amendment and strengthen the bill. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: madam president, we're almost at the end. this is the last amendment. and unfortunately i guess up to ask my colleagues to vote against not only my colleague but a member of the intelligence committee. this is a deal killer. to be real honest, this kills the deal. one of the thresholds that we had to reach was the balance to have one portal that information goes through. this creates a newportal. the white house is not in favor of it. downtown's not in favor of it because they understand what it does.we're this close right now to a voluntary informatio information-sharing bill.i can assure you that this is a first

step. we've got aways to go. but if you want to stop it dead in its tracks, support this amendment. if, in fact, you want to get this across the goal line, then i would ask you to defeat the cotton amendment, let us move to passage of this bill, let us go to conference with the house. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the amendment. 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? if not, then the ayes are 22, the nays are 73. the motion is not agreed to. under the previous order, the managers' amendment is agreed to and the question is on substitute amendment number 2716, as amended. if there is no further debate, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the substitute amendment, as amended, is agreed to. the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time.

the clerk: calendar number 28, s. 754, a bill to improve cybersecurity of the united states through enhanced sharing of information about cybersecurity threats and for other purposes. mr. burr: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: madam president, the senate not in order. the presiding officer: the senate shall come to order. mr. burr: i ask my colleagues for just the next two minutes. to allow diane and i both to thank our colleagues for their help over the last several days as we've worked through the cyber bill. i want to thank my vice-chairman, who has been beside me all the way. i want to thank chairman johnson and ranking member carper for the input that they've been able to provide and the willingness -- that they allowed us to have to their great thoughts.

and i want to say this to the committee staff, who has worked night and day to get us to this point and to the members of the committee who worked diligently for months to get this legislation out. we could not do it without you. now the work begins as we go to conference, and i turn to the vice-chairman. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much. and, madam chairman, i want to just say a personal word to the chairman. and maybe it's to everybody in this body. one of the things that i've learned from two prior bills of this type is that if you really want to get a bill done, it's got to be bipartisan, particularly a bill that's technical and difficult and hard to put together, and a bill where often there are two sides. and i really want to thank you for recognizing this. we stood shoulder to shouldered

and the right things happened and now we can go to conference. i also want to say that we did everything in this bill we possibly could to satisfy what were legitimate privacy concerns. the managers' package had 14 such amendments, and before that our staffs sat down with a number of senators and went over literally dozens of additional amendments. so we took what we could, and when the chairman talks about the balance, what he means is that this is the first time the chamber of commerce has come on a bill. this is the first time we have virtually all the big employers of banks and other companies and retailers on a bill, because today everybody understands what the problem is out there.

so we stood shoulder to shoulder, and you all responded. and i am very, very grateful. there's still a lot of work to be done. but, mr. chairman, you and your staff have been terrific. i want to single a couple of them out, if i might. in particular, chris joiner, michael jeffroy, janet fisher and walter weiss. i also want to speak about tom carper who has been working to get this bill passed as much as anyone. he wrote one of the key changes in the managers' package to improve privacy as information moves through the d.h. portal. and he was supported by his chairman, senator johnson. he has been a close partner through the process, and i want to say "thank you." i had also like to thank gabby bapkin and the other members of senator carper's staff.

i want to also say that we had incredible support from our committee, a committee of 15, eight republicans, seven democrats. i want to thank senator collins, who was particularly concerned about the critical infrastructure of this country. senator mikulski, whitehouse, king, warner, heinrich, blunt, nelson, and coats, and i know they'll help us push this bill forward as we go to conference with the house. i'm looking for the list of my staff. oh, my staff. i'll get down to my staff, who's been with me particularly david granis, our staff controller -- staff controller? -- our staff -- chief staffer on the minority side. and david has been there for these three bills, and it's been really hard. you know, we had a democratic bill on the floor. it got one republican vote.

now, if this didn't tell me something, nothing told me anything. and so this is kind of a new day of a way to pass a complicated, somewhat technical bill. i also want to thank josh alexander. josh has been our lead drafter and negotiator and know these cyber issues better than anyone. he's been tireless on reaching agreement after agreement on this bill and is as much as anybody i think responsible for today's vote. and, again, david, you are a 10. my former cyber staffer annie grotto, nate adler and others, thank you all very much and the work done by aiesha conner. we have the administration behind the bill. we have the department of homeland security behind the bill.

we have "the washington post," "the wall street journal," the chamber of commerce, and most of the businesses of america. so, mr. chairman, did you a great job and thank you from the bottom of my heart. mr. mcconnell: madam president, i just want to add my words of congratulations to chairman burr and ranking member feinstein. that is complicated issue. it's been around multiple congresses and really took their leadership and coordination and cooperation, first, to produce the 14-1 vote in the committee and then this extraordinary success we've had out here on the floor. so i know all of us are extremely proud of the great work you've done. congratulations. we deeply appreciate the contribution you've made to our country. the presiding officer: the question occurs on passage of the bill as amended.

is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators in the chamber wishing to change their vote or to vote? if not, then the ayes are 74 and the nays are 21. the bill as amended is passed. the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection.

the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you, madam president. i think we have clearance on a noncontroversial resolution that's going to pass yet this evening, and i rise for about five minutes to speak on this issue. last week i introduced a resolution to commemorate the goals and ideals of the national domestic violence awareness month which takes place each october. i thank senators leahy, ayotte and klobuchar for joining me as original cosponsors of this measure. i have met with many domestic violence victims over the years. we have come a long way since the enactment in 1984 with my

support of the landmark family violence and prevention and services act. in the decades since then, congress has committed billions of dollars to implement that statute as well as the violence against women act, and we have seen a decline in the rate of serious partner violence over the last two decades, according to the congressional research service. but researchers and advocates who work with domestic violence survivors remind us that there's still much work to be done to stop this terrible crime and support survivors in their efforts to heal. it's estimated that as many as nine million americans are physically abused by a partner every year. according to a 2011 survey by

the centers for disease control and prevention, about 22% of women and 14% of men have experienced severe physical abuse by a partner in their lifetime. experts tell us that domestic violence affects women, men, and children of every age and socioeconomic class. but we also know that women still experience more domestic violence than do men, and women are significantly more likely to be injured in an assault by a partner or spouse. according to a justice department's bureau of justice statistics, women between the ages of 18 and 31 experience the highest rates of domestic violence. most have been victimized by the

same offender on at least one prior occasion. and of course it is heartbreaking to realize that millions of american children have been exposed to domestic violence either by experience some form of abuse or witnessing a family member's abuse. the good news is that each and every day in communities across the nation there are victim advocates, service providers, crisis hotline staff and volunteers as well as first responders who are working tirelessly to extend compassionate service to the survivors of domestic violence. i want to take this opportunity to single out some of these folks and extend a special thank you on behalf of the united states senate. first i would like to highlight

the hard work of trained volunteers and staff who operate crisis hotlines across the country. they are a varied and talented group of individuals who often at low or no pay make confidential support, information, and referrals available to victims as well as their friends and families each and every day. we appreciate their efforts to help countless men, withers and children escape abusive situations. next, i recognize the contributions of the talented staff at the 56 state and territorial domestic violence coalitions around the country here and the globe. these individuals also help respond to the needs of battered men, women, and children typically by offering their

expertise and technical support to local domestic violence programs in each and every state and territory. in my home state, for example, the iowa state coalition against domestic violence has since way back 1985 connected local service providers to vitally important training and other resources that exist to support iowa survivors. we cannot commemorate domestic violence awareness month without also mentioning the police officers who are on the front lines in an effort to protect crime victims and prevent abuse in the first place. domestic violence calls can present lethal risk for officers, and we mourn those who have lost their lives while responding to such domestic violence incidents.

we know, too that in recent decades the law enforcement approach to this -- these instances has changed to reflect the latest research, and we applaud those police agencies that continue to update and improve their domestic violence policies. i also want to recognize those who operate the nation's domestic violence shelters which meet the emergency housing needs of thousands of adults and children each day or millions of americans each year. and last, but not least, i want to highlight the hard work of the staff at charities and agencies across the nation that are devoted to helping domestic violence survivors achieve financial independence, also obtain legal assistance, and, most importantly, overcome the

detrimental, emotional, and physical effects of abuse. so, as i close, i will do this by urging my colleagues to support the passage of this important resolution. with its passage, we demonstrate that the senate support the goals and ideals of the national domestic violence awareness month. and, mr. president, i would ask that my remarks be placed in the record when this legislation passes later this evening. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: and i suggest the -- no, i don't suggest the absence of a quorum. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: 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: mr. president,

there has been some activity on the senate floor today regarding the president's clean power pl plan, with fossil fuel state representatives coming to decry that plan. i would simply note that on october 22 in the "wall street journal," many of the leaders of america's national security took out an advertisement to say, "republicans and democrats agr agree. u.s. security demands global climate action." we've had generals and admirals, former national security advisors and directors of national intelligence, secretaries of the treasury, secretaries of defense, directors of the central intelligence agency, chairman of the national intelligence council, under secretaries of

state, governors, many republicans all saying that this is important, that it's time for america to lead. and what do we get? we get complaints about america leading. if we friends have a better idea than the clean power plan, i'd be glad to listen. i'm glad we'd all be glad to listen. what is it? what's the other plan? because if you've got nothing, then you really don't have a seat at the table, and you certainly don't have owe caution to criticize what the -- have occasion to criticize what the president is trying to do. show us something, anything. what have you got? where is a republican bill that evening talks about climate change, let alone does anything serious about it? mr. president, it is truly time for this body to wake up, and not just wake up to climate change but also to the

decades-long purposeful corporate smoke screen of misleading public statements from the fossil fuel industry and its allies on the dangers of carbon pollution. so i'm here from the 116th time seeking an open, honest, and factual debate in congress about global climate change. the energy industry's top dog, exxonmobil, number two for both revenue and profits among the fortune 500 of companies, has been getting some bad press lately. two independent investigative reports from inside "climate news" and "the los angeles times," reveal that exxon's own scientists understood as far back as the late-1970's the effects of carbon pollution on the climate and warned company executives of the potential outcomes for the planet and

humankind. but exxon's own internal report also recognized heading off global -- and i quote -- "would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion." and so what did this fossil fuel company do? rather than behave responsibly, rather than face up to that truth, rather than lead an effort to stave off catastrophic changes to the climate in the oceans, what exxon decided to do is fund and participate in a massive misinformation campaign to protect their business model and their bottom line. this started right at the top. exxon's former chairman and c.e.o. lee raymond repeatedly and publicly questioned the science behind climate change, notwithstanding what his own scientists had said.

currently, raymond claimed in a 1996 speech before the economic club of detroit, 20 years after this work by his own scientists, "the scientist evidence," he said, "is inconclusive as to human activity are having an effect on the global climate." well, there was already an emerging international consensus that unchecked emissions were harming the planet. there was exxon's own internal research that showed carbon emissions were warming the planet. and now the latest report states -- quote -- "warming of the climate system is unequivocal." unequivocal. the current exxonmobil c.e.o., rex tillerson, still exercises uncertainty and goes out of his way to overestimate the costs of taking action. in 2013, he asked, "what good is

it to save the planet if humanity suffers?" all right, someone needs to explain to me how if we fail to save the planet, humanity does not suffer. i guess it's exxon's position that they only suffer if we try to save the planet? and at this year's annual shareholder's meeting, mr. tillerson argued that the world needs to wait for the science to improve. unequivocal is obviously not enough, and to look to the effects of climate change as they become more clear -- more clear. our oceans are clearly warming and acidifying, and this has been clearly measured. atmospheric carbon is clearly higher than ever in our species' history on this planet, a understand this has been clearly measured. -- and this has been clearly measured. in rhode island we've measured

nearly 10 inches of sea level rise since the 1930's, right on our shores. what's not clear? and while exxon was peddling climate denial here in washington, "the l.a. times" reports, they were using climate models to plan operations in the warming arctic. between 1986 and 1992, exxon's senior ice researcher, ken crosedaicialtion and others, studied the effects that the it would have on arctic explorations. they knew that melting ice would lower exploration and development costs. they also knew that higher seas and thawing permafrost would effect it. so exxon was challenging the climate models publicly while it was using them privately to

guide its own investment decisions. exxon understood the dangers but instead of sounding the alarm or trying to help, they chose to so doubt. then there are the exxon front groups. a study out just last month in the peer-reviewed journal "climati"climatic change" said n paid to a network of phony baloney think tanks and pseudoscience groups that spread misleading claims about climate science. the company's network includes organizations that name themselves after john loch, james madison, benjamin franklin, and even george c. marshal. it also includes the american

legislative exchange counsel, or alec, which peddles anti-climate legislation in state legislatures. alec denies the human contribution to climate change by calling it an historical phenomenon asserting that the debate will continue. the climate denial coming out of alec is so egregious, even shell oil left the group this summer. and don't forget the paid-for scientists. the exxon network includes willie soon, whose network consistently young playe downple in climate change. dr. sun received more than $1.2 million from oil and coal interests, including exxonmobil,

over the last decade. so the cat is out of the bag now, and all the bad press has got exxon a little jumpy. exxon's v.p. of public affairs, ken cohen, took to exson's blog to proclaim that his company has had a legitimate history when it comes to climate. "our scientists have been involved in climate research and reemented policy analysis for more than 30 years, yielding more than 50 papers in peer-reviewed publications." he goes on to say, "exxon has been involved with the u.n. ipcc and the national academy of sciences national climate assessment and that exxon funds legitimate scientists at major universities as they research energy and climate. right, the problem is that's only half the story. that's the half of the story

that shows exxon knew better. what's the rest of the story? decades of funding to a network of front groups that led a p.r. campaign designed to undercut climate science and prevent legitimate action on climate change. for decades, exxon invested in legitimate climate research, you say? that's the proof of actual knowledge. that makes the roo route they ce of denial and delay all the more culpable. and that denial and delay, as paul harvey would say, is the rest of the story. what is exxon waiting for? why this campaign of deceit, denial, and delay? sadly, mr. president, it's our american system of big business and paid-for politics ... just

follow the money. exxon foists the costs of its carbon pollution on the rest of us, on our children, on our grandchildren, and all the while they make staggering amounts of money. and congress funded by their lobbyists sleeps palace sidly at the switch -- placidly at the switch. exxon fights the status quo with their own shareholders. the institute for policy studies reports shareholders for exxonmobil reports 62 climate resolutions over the past 25 years and all of them have been opposed by management. rex tillerson who made $21.4 million in stock-based pay in 2014, has openly mocked a shareholder who asked about investing in renewables. this is rich: tillerson reponded

that renewable energy only survives on the backs of those that are unsustainable. we on purpose choose not to lose money. exxonmobil spends huge amounts of money on the complex p.r. machine to churn out doubt about the real science in order to protect the market subsidy that they get on the backs of that subsidy they make clean energy face an uphill battle. so it's really kind of nervy to say clean energy survives on the backs of enormous subsidies when oil gets the biggest subsidies ever. things could have been different. exxon could have heeded the warnings of its own scientists and help us make a transition to clean energy. it's happening now without them. the international energy agency found the cost of generating electric from renewable sources dropped from $500 a

megawatt-hour in 2010 to $200 in 2015. imagine if we rolled up our sleeves and gotten to work way back when exxon first learned of the dangers of carbon pollution. imagine the leadership that company could have shown. imagine how much of the coming climate notion changes we could have avoided. but they didn't, and the time of reckoning may now be upon the likes of exxon and others in the fossil fuel industry. that p.r. machine may end up costing the company a lot. look at what happened to big tobacco. two weeks ago congressman ted lu sent a letter to attorney general loretta lynch regarding newly reported allegations that exxonmobil intentionally hid the truth about the role of fossil fuels in influencing climate change. the apparent tactics employed by exxon are reminiscent of the actions employed by big tobacco companies they wrote, to deceive

the american people about the known risks of tobacco. last week my friend the junior senator from vermont joined in the call for the attorney general to bring a civil rico investigation into big fossil fuel. these reports, if true, reads senator sanders letter to the attorney general, raises serious allegations about a misinformation campaign that may have caused public harm similar to the tobacco industry's actions, conduct that led to federal racketeering convictions. actually a judgment. it was civil but otherwise accurate. also last week sharon eubanks, the former u.s. department of justice attorney who actually brought the civil action and won the civil rico case against the tobacco industry, said that considering recent revelations regarding exxonmobil, the department of justice should consider launching an investigation into big fossil fuel companies, that it is plausible and should be considered. that was her quote. let me show you why it's plausible and should be

considered. let me read from united states district judge gladys kessler's description of the culpable conduct in her decision in the government's racketeering case against big tobacco. i'll quote her. "each and every one of these defendants repeatedly, consistently, vigorously and falsely denied the existence of any adverse health effects from smoking. moreover, they mounted a coordinated, well-financed sophisticated public relations campaign to attack and distort the scientific evidence demonstrating the relationship between smoking and disease. claiming that the link between the two was still an open question. defendants knew there was a consensus in the scientific community that smoking caused lung cancer and other diseases, despite that fact they publicly insisted that there was a scientific controversy and disputed scientific findings linking smoking and disease, knowing their assertions were false." now let's read that exact same language back but apply it to climate. each and every one of these defendants repeatedly

consistently, vigorously and falsely denied the existence of any adverse climate effects from carbon pollution. moreover, they mounted a coordinated well financed sophisticated well financed public campaign to attack the evidence demonstrating the relationship between carbon pollution and climate claiming that the link between the two is still an open question. defendants knew there was a consensus in the scientific community that carbon pollution caused climate change and other harms. despite that fact, they publicly insisted there was a scientific controversy and disputed scientific findings linking carbon pollution and climate knowing their assertions were false. you just change the words and there's her judgment against the tobacco industry, and it plainly applies to climate denial. the investigative journalism from inside climate news and "the los angeles times" is damning. the calls for greater scrutiny of exxonmobil and the fossil fuel industry are mounting and

the phony baloney deniel networks is up in arms. sorry, guys, the first amendment doesn't protect fraud. describing caesar at the battle of monda, napoleon said there is a moment in combat when the slightest maneuver is decisive and gives superiority. it is the drop of water that starts the overflow. is the tide turning, mr. president? is this the decisive moment? despite documented warnings from their own scientists dating back from the 1970's, exxonmobil and others pursued a campaign of deceit, denial, and delay. they may soon have to face the consequences. in any event, history will not look kindly on their choice. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, over the weekend, president obama announced that all 100,000 public schools across the nation should limit testing to 2% of a student's time in the classroom. it's a recommendation, not a requirement. and it comes in response to a nationwide backlash from teachers, students, and parents who are sick of overtesting. i was glad to see the president's comments. he's right about students taking too many tests. i hope the president will stop and think before trying to cure yoaferl -- overtesting by telling teachers how much time to spend on testing or what the tests should be.

classroom teachers know better than washington how to assess their students progress. they also know the real reason we have too many tests is there are too many federal mandates that put high stakes on student test results, and that one more washington decree, even if it is only a recommendation for now, is not the way to solve the problem of too many federal mandates. instead the best way to fix overtesting is to get rid of the federal mandates that are causing the problem. that's precisely what the united states senate did when it passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, 81-17, legislation to fix no child left behind and give more flexibility to states and to classroom teachers to decide which tests will decide what progress students are making in the classroom. no child left behind, federal law enacted in 2011 -- i mean in

2001 -- requires students to take 17 standardized tests over the course of their education in kindergarten through the2th grade. it then uses those tests to decide whether schools and teachers are succeeding or failing. in the senate's work to fix no child left behind, no issue stirred as much controversy as these high-stakes tests. at first i was among those who thought the best way to fix overtesting might be to get rid of the 17 federal tests. but the more we studied the problem, the more the issue seemed not to be the 17 federal tests, but the federally designed system of rewarding and punishing schools and teachers that was attached to the test. a third grader, for example, is required to take only one test in math and one in reading. each of those tests probably takes one or two hours,

according to testimony before our committee. but here is the problem. the results of these tests count so much in the federally mandated accountability system that states and school districts are giving students dozens of additional tests to prepare for the federal test. a new survey says students in big-city schools will take on average 112 mandatory standardized tests between prekindergarten and high school graduation. that's eight tests a year. one florida study showed that a fort meyer school district gave more than 160 tests to its students. only 17 of those are federally required. so after hearing this, the senate decided to keep the federally required 17 tests. that's two annual tests in reading and math in grades three through eight and once in high school. as well as science tests given

three times between grades 3 and 12. we also kept the practice of reporting results publicly, so parents and teachers know how their children are performing. these results are disaggregated. so we know how students are doing based upon their gender, their ethnicity or their disability. and then to discourage overtesting, we restored to states and classroom teachers the responsibility for deciding how to use these federal test scores to measure achievement. mr. president, the senate bill ends the high-stakes, washington-designed test-based accountability system that has caused the explosion of tests in our local schools. the senate bill reverses the trend toward a national school board. i'm glad to see president obama's focus on overtesting, but let's not make the same mistake twice by decreeing from

washington exactly how much time to spend on tests or what the tests should be. states and three million teachers in 100,000 public schools are in the best position to know what to do about overtesting our children. both the senate and the house of representatives have now passed similar bills to fix no child left behind and to reduce the federal mandates that are the real cause of overtesting. the best way to have fewer and better tests in america's classrooms is for congress to finish its work and the president to sign our legislation before the end of the year. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: