act that there is broad, systematic collection of call records, not just of, you know, individuals who might have some relation to a terrorism case but of everyone. local calls, you know, if you're calling your child's preschool or your veterinarian or whatever, the government wants that. .

so that they understand that people want more information, they want more accountability, they want greater clarity than we have been giving them. host: charles lam in his column

says rand paul's losing case is his argument saying, in short paul would be asking the justices not only to go against constitutional congress trin but fisa court orders and will of congress. that would be a tall order census justice jackson wrote in a case in 1952. the executive branch's authority is, quote, at its maximum, end quote, when it acts according to duel enacted statute. we are talking to the director of the project on government security secretcy for the federation of american scientists. that is fas.org if you want more information. steven also writes a blog on their website. secrecy news. melinda in atlanta, georgia, republican caller, hi. caller: hi. i just want to comment that i wanted to make in reference to the young man who disclosed the information. all government employees, including the president, the secretary of the state, attorney general all have the

confidentiality agreement that they agree to. they also took an oath of office to serve the people not to breach our rights. believe that the young man showed there was issues going on legally and that he knew that our rights were being infringed upon and laws were being broken. but this young man is nothing more than a which isle blower. -- whistleblower. what he gained was illegal activity by the administration should warrant him the protection of the united states. no secrets were given out that put our troops in harm's way. and by making it public, he actually let everyone know that the administration has been not forthcoming or truthful about the spying on of the american people. host: is he a whistleblower?

what does that mean legally? whistleblower is a charged one and it implies -- way it's commonly used it implies a value judgment. that this is someone who has stood up to authority to reveal information that was suppressed and that provide evidence of wrongdoing, waste, fraud, or abuse. so does he qualify for that? i think many people would say yes. other people would say no. other people would say if you have these concerns there are ways you go about it. you don't commit other crimes, namely the disclosure of protected classified information in order to bring them to public awareness. is that a defense in court? probably not.

because the whistleblower protection statutes which do the do not encompass public disclosure of classified information that is to be -- supposed to be provided either to congress or to an agency inspector general and so foverplet it may be a very effective defense in the court of public opinion. if the people like the last caller say, well, this guy was standing up for the public interest, that may be significant in some larger sense. he did what he did and i think it is -- it is likely to have both positive and negative consequences. host: here's a look at who has top secret confidential secret credentials by our government. the -- there is about 135,000 with top secret clearance that are unknown.

167,000 with confidential secret credentials that are unknown. and then 483,000 top secret. 582,000 with confidential secret that are possibly contractors, unknown. 791,000 contractors with top secret clearance. and 2.7 million federal employees with confidential secret clearance. what do you make of those numbers? guest: they are very large. until they were disclosed in a report to congress from the director of national intelligence, the prevailing assumption was that the number of persons, americans holding security clearance was about half of that, around 2.4 million or 2.5 million. suddenly it turns out that, whoa, there's actually 4.8 million. very large. more than one in 100 americans holds a security clearance.

it's surprising. it's a sign of how large the national security establishment and the specific -- specifically the national security classification system have become. when you have tens of millions of secrets being generated every year, you need millions of people with security clearances. conversely you could say, if we were able to discipline ourselves to generate fewer secrets, we could also get by with fewer cleared persons. host: the "washington times" editorial says, this is no way to run a government. host: "the new york times" editorial this morning, a real debate on surveillance what they are calling for. congress should hold hearings on the laws that made rampant domestic spying possible. bob, you are our last phone

call, democratic caller. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to say that the whistleblower has no business giving classified information out to people who do not have the clearance for a need to know basis only. this does remind me a lot of george orwell's 1984. i can remember reading that in the early 1960's. instead of knocking on the backdoor, it's knocking on the front door and every door. as information increases, our security needs to be increased. the question is, how do we cover those that have a need-to-no basis and not passing that on? giving information people that are violating our secrets and so forth? need to be watched a lot careful and maybe some of those that are doing the watching need to be

watched. thank you. guest: i think if there is a sovereign remedy to all of these problems, reducing secrecy is part of that. if we can increase disclosure, produce fewer secrets, reduce the scope of the classification system, all of these problems will become a lot more manageable. and there will be greater public accountability. and that's the direction we need to move in. host: the director of the project on government secrecy for the federation of american scientists, that website is fas.org. thank you for talking to our viewers. >> reminder to see "washington journal" every morning at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. as we look live inside the white house briefing room, jay carney will answer questions from reporters. likely touching on the n.s.a. leak and senate immigration debate among other items.

president obama has meetings with the president of peru today, defense secretary chuck hagel. he'll also attend a campaign event for congressman ed markey running in the massachusetts senate race. the house in the meantime will be gaveling back in at 2:00 p.m. eastern today. legislative work will start at 5:00 on several land and water bills. votes on those set for 6:30 eastern. you can see live coverage of the house as usual here on c-span. the senate also is in today. senators working on bipartisan immigration plans. it will take up the majority of the day. votes are expected on motions to move that measure forward at about 2:15 eastern. senators right now are taking part in their weekly party lunches. here's spokesman jay carney. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thanks for being here. i have no announcements to make. so we'll go straight to qur

questions. julie. >> thank you. i wanted to see if you had anything you could tell us today on the location of edward snowden, and more generally if he's in hong kong or some other country that has an extradition treaty with the united states, is it the white house's expectation that country would send him back to the u.s.? >> as was the case yesterday, i am not going to discuss the subject of a recently opened investigation. so the where was of this individual -- whereabouts of this individual, his status, any details about the investigation i would refer to questions about those matters, i would refer to the detcht justice and f.b.i. -- department of justice and f.b.i. >> on a broader question, if he is in a country or someone were to be in a country that had extradition with the united states, would it be the white house's expectation -- >> again, i think that goes to the case itself.

and we are going to wait for the investigation to proceed before we weigh in with that kind of assessment. >> was the president aware that this was an individual that u.s. was looking at or his whereabouts when he met with the chinese president? >> i believe the answer is no. >> on a separate topic, could you explain a little bit of the administration's position on the decision to stop pushing changes on the morning after pill availability? >> if i could say on the last one i think i mentioned yesterday the president was made aware of the revelations about the individual taking responsibility for these leaks by senior staff aboard air force one. on the other question on plan b,

ask me again. >> what the thinking behind the decision last night was. >> well, twofold. you know what the president's personal views are. he expressed them here in this room and he supported the decision by secretary sebelius with regards to the use of this medication by young girls, ages 10 and 11. and the lack of sufficient data. so he supported secretary sebelius' decision having not played a role in making the decision. we have been through a legal process and the court has ruled against the administration, an appeals court, as you know, and that ruling means that or meant that plan b would be immediately available to anyone. of any age. and it was the decision to given that court ruling that -- to proceed with making the simpler

version of plan b available because at the very least that addresses some of the concerns about the ability of younger girls to use that medication. the ruling came in against the administration. immediately made a form of plan b available and it was a decision the president supports to proceed to makeling sure that -- making sure that the f.d.a. approved the simpler version of plan b. >> what sells is the administration taking to ensure with defense contractors who work on intelligence issues that their employees, that they have adequate safeguards against rogue insiders? >> there are a couple of pieces to that question. some of them -- some of which have been answered by the d.n.i., director of national intelligence. the -- there are -- first of all there is a damage assessment that's ongoing. secondly, it is important to

note that when it comes to contractors they swear an oath to protect classified secrets just as government workers do. and that is important to remember. in terms of procedures that are in place, i think i would refer you to the various agencies that have contractors that deal with classified information, the department of defense, n.s.a., c.i.a., and the like. in terms of the procedures that are in place or any procedures that they may be engaged in now in the wake of these leaks. but again i think it's important to note that individuals who take an oath to protect classified information are bound by it whether they are government employees or contracted employees. >> is there anything new that the administration is doing that in terms of seeking extra assurances from contractors in the wake of what's happened? >> again, i think i would refer

you to the agencies that employ contractors who have access once they have gone through all the rigorous background checks and other procedures to give them the security clearances that they have and that they take the oath that they do for any post revelation presh -- post revolution measures. >> if i could ask you about president putin today, he has no doubts about iran's nuclear program. what do you make of those comments? what does the administration make of those comments and the importance of them given russia's place in these discussions? >> about iran? i'm sorry i haven't seen those comments. maybe you can characterize them for me further. doubt iran's pursuit is for nonlethal means, military means? >> yes. >> that's certainly our view. it's our view that iran needs -- >> sorry, no doubts that iran is pursuing this for in fairous intentions.

-- nefarious intentions. he said he has no doubts that iran is pursuing a nuclear program for -- >> that's the opposite i thought you were saying. our views haven't changed. i am not aware of the comments by the russian president you just relayed, but i would say that iran has failed to live up to its obligations under international law. to prove that it's pursued a nuclear technology is for peaceful means. there is am -- ample evidence to the contrary and we are engaged in a process with our allies to try to bring about a change in behavior by the regime in tehran. as mart of at that -- part that have process we have instituted the most stringent and broad sanctions regime in the history of the world.

and that is both unilaterally and with our allies. and with -- through the united nations and through different means. we have said there remains time r iran to choose a path of engaging with the international community and abandoning its nuclear weapons ambitions, but that that time is not unlimited. and we obviously monitor the situation very closely with our allies. >> thank you. does the president believe that keeping america safe is more important than keeping the information of americans secret? >> as you heard the president say on friday, he believes that we must strike a balance between interests and our despire for privacy.

-- desire for prifecy. he made clear you can't have 100% security and 100% privacy. and thus we have to find that balance, he believes, as commander in chief, that the oversight structures that are in lace to ensure that there is the proper review of the kinds of programs that we have in place, authorized by congress and h the patriot act, fisa, do strike that balance. he also said that he understands and believes that it is entirely legitimate that some may disagree. some may believe that that balance ought to be shifted in one direction or the other. from where it currently is. he welcomes the debate about that. he mentioned this very explicitly in his speech to the

national defense university several weeks ago on the broader topics of our counterterrorism programs, but he spoke specifically about surveillance and the balance that we need to strike between security and prifecy. between -- privacy. between security and inconvenience and that is a worthy discussion to have in public. and he welcomes that debate, because it's an important debate. i think it's important to note we have had this debate every time the patriot act has come up for passage and re-authorization. it has been a spirited debate with strongly held opinions expressed by people who are opposed to the structures that are in place that have been authorized by bipartisan majorities in congress, that are overseen by the courts. as well as internally by the executive branch. so that's important. it's healthy. we should continue to that that debate. >> isn't it true that security

at times will have to take a back seat or privacy will have the take the back seat to security? >> i think i answered the question we have to find a balance between those two and we cannot have, if we hope to successfully protect ourselves, 100% privacy. there has to be some modest concession to the need for information as we pursue terrorists who mean to do harm to the country and take the lives of americans. but that we need to make sure that programs we have in place are properly overseen. that they are legal. that they are authorized by congress. and they are authorized by the courts. that is the case here. and has been the case with the discussion that we have had in the wake of these revelations. but, again, i just want to emphasize that the fact that these systems are in place and the oversight exists, and it is

significant does not mean that the conversation has ended in the president's view. it means we need to continue to debate this. as i said yesterday, this goes to sort of broader issues of -- about our nation and the world in terms of the nature of electronic communications and broader issues of privacy. so this is an important debate for us as a nation. it's important in the president's views that we have the kinds of debates we have had in congress over the patriot act and its re-authorization, the improvements to the patriot act that ensure there was oversight. that had not existed prior to 2006, i believe. and the measures that have been taken to ensure that there's judicial and executive branch and congressional oversight since. the president certainly does not welcome the way that this debate has been earned greater

attention the last week. the leaked classified information about sensitive programs that are important in our fight against terrorists who would do harm to americans is a problem, and it is a great concern. but the debate itself is legitimate. and should be engaged. >> about the congressional picnic that has been postponed, what was behind the sequester -- >> i think this had to do with the president's schedule and he's taking, as you know, several overseas trips in june and that necessitated trying to postpone this. >> the top republican on the senate formulations committee, senator corker, is urging the president to arm syrian rebels. what is your response? is senator corker correct when he says the president is facing a critical policy decision on syria this week? >> the president has been evaluating his policy options on syria repeatedly for some time.

there are a number of issues that we discussed here that have to do with the use--- use potentially of chemical weapons by the assad regime anti-need to build on the evidence we have already accumulated that that has taken place. then there is the issue of how best to achieve our policy goal, which is a negotiated political settlement to an authority in syria that can provide security and stability. that can protect the rights of all syrians, and that can secure unconventional and advanced conventional weapons. that can counter terrorist activity, and that can keep the state and its institutions preserved to the extent possible. this is -- that's the policy goal we have as a nation. a policy goal we have with our allies and partner on this issues, and we evaluate the options available to us in a very challenging situation based on whether or not they'll bring us closer or move us away from achievement of that policy goal. the president is, as you know,

and said, reassessing those options. one of the options he has not taken off the table and we continue to assess is the potential of providing arms to the opposition. we already provide enormous amount of aance to both the syrian people through humanitarian assistance as well as to the opposition, but we evaluate every other option. the one exception to that, although all options remain on the table, is the president's made clear he does not foresee a circumstance where we would have american boots on the ground in syria. >> what about the timing? what about this week? is there a policy decision? >> i don't have any policy announcements to preview for you or forecast. except to say that the situation in syria is obviously serious and it continues to deteriorate. and that is of great concern to the president and to everyone with an interest in syria and the region. and we continue to discuss this with our allies and partners.

>> is the president or his administration sent any messages to nelson mandela or his family? >> i am not aware of any communications from the white house. obviously he is and the first lady is and we all are concerned about nelson mandela's health and wish him and his family well and hope that he recovers. was johannesburg part of the trip the president will take later this month, basically will the president go see nelson mandela? >> no, april. i think that that understates significantly the importance of south africa and the bilateral relationship we have with that country. there is every reason to visit south africa on a visit to africa. but i don't have any specifics on the schedule or plan for the president's trip beyond what we have put out already. >> the way i understood it johannesburg was added.

it was supposed to be cape town for south africa and johannesburg was added and nelson mandela at that time was in johannesburg and the question was -- >> again i don't have any specifics on the schedule that's still coming together to provide to you except to say we are --iously concerned about and about nelson mandela's health and wish him a well and speedy recovery, but we obviously also have a very important relationship with south africa. >> when was the last time president obama talked with nelson mandela, particularly as pothe of them really are the he -- both of them really are the essence of the first black president of the united states and after? >> i don't have an answer to that question. i know they did meet when -- when president obama was a senator. but -- and the first lady was in south africa and met with nelson mandela when she visited south africa. a few years ago. i don't know when the president

last spoke with mr. mandela. >> does he feel a relationship with him because of their historical placing in these two respective countries? >> i think the president has written about and spoken about nelson mandela in the past. i would point you to what he said about this hugely significant figure in south africa and africa and global history. yes. >>ous to be clear, does the united states want to prt mr. snowden? >> there is an investigation under way, and it is for the investigators to determine whether or not crimes have been committed and to decide what charges, if any, will be brought. i will not get ahead of that process. >> you haven't so far. >> we have said -- i appreciate the opportunity to glibly get ahead of an important investigation. i'll pass on it.

we have made clear that we have very serious concerns about the leak of classified information about programs that are very important to our national security. but on this specific investigation and the status of the individual who is being investigated, i will leave that -- comment on that to the investigators. >> speaker boehner today called snowden a traitor, would you go that far? >> i won't comment specifically on someone who is under investigation. i won't characterize him or his status. we believe it is the appropriate posture to take to let the investigation move forward and let the determination about where that investigation will go and whether any charges will be brought and what those charges might be if they are brought to the investigators, to the f.b.i., and the department of justice. >> as we have talked about this debate, you have said the president welcomes the debate and referred to his speech at the national defense university. what are the take away from that?

in his own words he felt it would be a mistake for the u.s. to stay on what he called a war footing. it was self-defeating. isn't the lesson we have learned over the last couple weeks after that speech that we still are on a war footing? he's expanded surveillance to prevent terror attacks, so when you cite that speech, isn't there a bit of a contradiction there, when he was telling the public we are ramping down. we don't want war footing anymore. the expanded surveillance suggested we still are. >> i think you are conflating a number of issues. that was a fairly long and detailed speech. that deviled into -- >> that we are not on a war footh. >> i think with regards to that, we have as a nation, been in active hot wars for more than a decade. and the president keeping his commitment from when he ran for this office ended the war in iraq. and he is winding down the war in afghanistan.

but it remains the case that we continue to aggressively pursue al qaeda and its affiliates, and it is absolutely his obligation as commander in chief to could so -- to do so and ensure we have the tools necessary to do that. it is also his view and his insistence that those tools that we have and that we use are carriedto oversight and out and used in a way that is -- that keeps faith to our laws and values. with our laws and values. i don't think there's any inconsistency at all there. with al in conflict qaeda. al qaeda, even though it is greatly diminished, remains a threat. and al qaeda's affiliates remain a threat. we discussed that quite a bit. whether it's in yemen or

elsewhere. and the president is taking every action necessary as commander in chief to ensure that we are adequately protect interested that threat. >> one other topic. cbs broke a story a couple days ago about the state department, about a memo from an official in the state department, inspector generals office, claiming a special agent had, quote, determined the ambassador of belgium was ditching his security detail to engage prostitutes and to, allegedly, solicit sex with children. he has sharply denied that. is the president confident in that denial to keep him in place? what is the president's reaction -- these allegations are currently under investigation by independent specificor -- inspector general. and as is -- as is in keeping with the position we take when we are dealing with independent inspector general investigations

or audits, we will not comment until we have seen the results of that investigation. and there's a process in place for reviewing any sort of allegation of misconduct, the likes of which you mentioned, and we believe that that process should unfold under regular order, and we are not going to prejudge anyone or anything pf all the facts are determined. that said, i want to make clear the president has zero tolerance. for misconduct. by any government employee. i think zero tolerance for misconduct has been demonstrated army throughout his presidency. we are not going to prejudge ased on unfinished investigations by an independent i.g. >> appreciate that distinction. one last thing, you say it's still under investigation. the allegations against the ambassador. there are also allegations in this memo against patrick kennedy, who is a very high state department official, suggesting that he killed the original investigation sort of blocked it, to protect the bam

bass door and maybe others. my question is does undersecretary kennedy's conduct here, is that under investigation as far as the white house -- >> i believe all these matters you raised are under investigation, active investigation by the independent i.g. at the state department. prejudge the outcome of an ongoing inquiry like that. >> on that same topic, is it appropriate the state department has gone so long, i think since 2008, without a full-time inspebletor general? -- inspector general? >> i don't have any information for you about the staffing of the i.g.'s office, but i have to take the question. >> that would be -- >> this is related to the questions that ed mentioned, there is an active investigation -- >> just in general terms. it's state department, labor department, interior, homeland security, defense, i think the agency for international development all of which do not

presently full-time inspector generals. a broader question. >> i'll take the question. >> on a separate topic, i think julie got to it quickly, on plan b i know the situation has changed, but has the president's personal decision on emergency contraception changed? >> the president's views are as he expressed them. those are his personal views and he put them in the context of being a father. and he supported, again, the decision that secretary sebelius made at the time. but the fact is we -- this case has been litigated. the appeals court has ruled against the administration, making available a version of plan b immediately and it is the view of the administration that given that ruling and the availability of plan b, it is the best interest of the country that the simpler version be made available. if you are familiar with the ruling and the two different versions of the medication, i

think that explains why we have taken the position we have. >> one final topic, the democratic senator, wyden, said the director of national intelligence, james clapper, that he, quote, didn't give straight answers on the n.s.a. surveillance during a hearing that took place in march. the president has called for open and honest debate. i think wyden said specifically the american people have a right to expect straight answers from intelligence leadership to questions asked by their representatives. is the president satisfied the american people are getting straight answers from their leadership when it comes to american intelligence? >> he certainly believes that director clapper has been straight and direct in the answers he's given and has actively engaged in an effort to provide more information about the programs that have been revealed through the leak of classified information. >> james clapper said it's the least untruthful statement. >> i'm not sure which statement.

>> the statement i was referring to in the march hearing where he was asked specifically whether all have the direct language, the u.s. collect any type of data on all of the millions of americans, and he said the answer to that was no. he later sort of amended it. even in a conversation with andrea mitchell this weekend he acknowledged it was the least untruthful answer. >> i think director clapper has in the last week has demonstrated been aggressive in providing as much information as possible. to the american people, the press, about these very sensitive, very important programs. that are authorized by congress under section 702 and section 215 of the patriot act. a public sthaut -- statute. a much debated public statute that's been passed into law and we authorize -- re-authorized three times in congress by bipartisan majorities. i would point you to the statements and documents that have been put out by the odni that demonstrate the effort he's

undertaken to provide significant amount of information on these programs given the revelation that is we have seen. >> do you have something? >> yeah. let me ask you this. what advice would the white house give -- >> i am probably going to regret. >> to an official or somebody with a top secret clearance who thinks there is wrongdoing under way, what option does such an individual have to try to correct that? >> that's an important question and i appreciate it. the obama administration has demonstrated a strong commitment to protecting whistle blowers. whistle blowers can play an important role in explosioning waste, fraud, and abuse. there are established procedures that whistle blowers can employ that also protect -- rather ensure protection of national security interest. at the history

here, the president appointed strong advocates to the office of special counsel and the merit systems protection board who have been widely praised. they have collectively issued an all-time high number on behalf of whistle blowers and changed the culture so whistle blowers are more willing to come forward. on november 27, 2012, after four years of work of advocates in congress to reach a compromise, the president signed the whistleblower enhancement protection which provides whistleblower protections for federal employees by clarifying the scope, expanding judicial review, expanding the penalties imposed for vie lathe the protections, creating new protections for transportation security officers and scientists, and strengthening the authority of the caucus of special counsel to assist whistle blowers. because it was clear congress would not provide intelligence for -- action for intelligence community. the president took action that extended protections to the

intelligence and national security communities for the first time. the directive prohibits retaliation against whistle blowers who report information through the appropriate channels and established procedures, including a review pafpble i.g.'s of other agencies to ensure such retaliation does not occur. the president's commitment on this issue far exceeds that of past administrations. and in doing so have steered away from transparency. >> that was quite an off-the-cuff -- >> i just happened to have this available. >> are you willing to say whether you see snowden as a whistle blower? >> i am not willing to comment on the status on the individual under investigation. >> secretary kerry participating in a meeting tomorrow on syria? >> i think i was asked this yesterday about yesterday. i can simply tell you that we withmeetings here on syria some regularity. i'm not going to give a read out or preview of every meeting we

have. but given the seriousness of the situation there and the importance of syria with regards to american policy, you can be sure that we have regular meetings on these issues that involve both principles and deputies on the national security counsel. i don't have a specific meeting to announce from here because they are fairly frequent and routine. >> fair to say that the white house is edging closer toward a decision meeting? >> again, i don't have any decisions or announcements to make about policy except to say that the president is constantly reviewing the options available to him and tasking his team to review those options with an eye towards what actions we might take would bring us closer to the achievement of the goal we speak. -- seek. >> can you describe a little bit about the damage he's caused? >> i think i would refer you to the statements by the director of national intelligence who is in a position to better assess

that at the outset and note that more comprehensive damage assessments are being done. it is without question a matter of significant concern when we see leaks of highly classified information about the very ensitive programs that are classified for a reason, that efforte important to our to combat terrorists and extremists and those who seek to do harm to our nation and take the lives of the american people. but for more specific assessments i would refer you to the odni. >> any idea how long -- >> i'm not sure. i would ask them. >> on syria again, you reminded us that the president is constantly reviewing his options. same thing in the european capitals and ottawa, too, is here any concerted nato option

there? >> well, i don't have a list of options to review for you since they are all on the table. i guess you could assume that any option you might ask me about within reason and logic would be on the table. what we tend to talk about here are what actions might be taken in response to assessments, more corroborated evidence about the use of chemical weapons, for example. what actions might be taken with regards to further assistance to the syrian opposition given the circumstances in syria. and given the assessments we constantly make about what the impact of a decision like that would be. weigh in t going to on specific options and whether they are being considered because as the president has

said, with a caveat on the exception of -- option of putting boots on the ground, the president has said all options remain on the table. >> there are discussions also, are there, with -- >> we talked about this issue with our allies and partners all the time because it is of such great concern to the president and american political leaders in general, as well as leaders in the countries of our allies and partners who have grave concerns about what's happening in syria. grave concerns about the impact of the violence in syria on the region. concerns about the involvement of hezbollah and iran in the fighting in syria on behalf of assad. these are all matters that are of serious concern beyond the borders of syria. >> can you tell me if the state department report on keystone x.l. is on the president's desk? >> again, that's a process that

is operated out of the state department and i would refer you to the state department for updates. again, i think you should take that question to the state department. >> syria again. considering they are military gain achieved by the syrian government, what would your confidence that geneva two would take place. and second the u.s. is conducting metrics with jordan. is this a plan b for syria? different kind of plan b. >> let me refer first to the -- that's clever. refer first to the question about jordan. jordan is a close friend and ally to the united states and our militaries in particular have a long-standing relationship. in reference to your question, a patriot missile battery and f-16's are in jordan in support of our annual joint exercise, eager lion. that is an annual exercise. it is not related to syria or

proposed options in syria. on the first question as i noted earlier, there is concern here and elsewhere about the deteriorating situation there. about the involvement of hezbollah and iran in the fight in syria on behalf of assad. and the president is reviewing the options available to him when it comes to american policy and working with our allies and partners on ways that we can assist the syrian people and assist the syrian opposition in trying to achieve the goal that we have stated, which is a peaceful transition to a post-assad syria, to an authority in place in syria that respects the rights of all syrians. that protects conventional and

unconventional weapons. that combats terrorism and terrorists. and it is in pursuit of that goal that we evaluate the options available to us. >> what makes you confident that the assad government will participate in geneva, too? >> on the geneva question, we are, as you know working to convene a conference as soon as practical. as soon as it is determined in partnership with the united nations and with our international partners that we have done the necessary preparations to bring the parties together and move forward towards a political swlution. we are pursuing -- solution. we are pursuing this and we are pursuing a conference in geneva. that is not the one track we are pursuing here. the political process cannot occur in a vacuum. there is ongoing fighting in syria. that is why we have even as we continue our discussions with our allies, with the russians, with the opposition about geneva, the situation on the

ground means that we continue to explore what more we can do to support the opposition as it onfronts the tyranny of assad. >> on saturday it was said the president was going to follow the summit with conversations with u.s. amlies in asia and some meetings and representatives from the countries today. have any of those conversations happened yet? >> i have no presidential interactions to read out to you and i'll have to check about the national security advisor. >> do you expect anything today? >> i just don't know. i'll have to take the question. >> on the n.s.a. thing it's obviously a big deal. you got members of the president's own party questioning what the d.n.i. said about this. this clearly has repercussions that are far more significant than some of the other things we have talked about. isn't it time for the president to address the american people directly? isn't this sort of a litmus of

leadership to tell people when you are taking them in a new direction and when they are confronted with these various challenges? >> glenn, the president took questions and answered them at length on this specific issue on friday. i think he answered for a total of 14 minutes. tumult part questions on these issues that probably given the standards here that's six or eight questions. and the fact of the matter is he will continue to discuss this. and he will continue -- he is interested in and believes in a debate about these issues and believes it's worthy and important to engage in that debate. i would just note, as i did earlier, that prior to these revelations, the president addressed this specific issue in a speech at the national defense university -- you weren't interested until there were revelations. >> most americans were not aware of this. don't you think former -- >> let me just say that the

patriot act is a public statute. there is spirited and animated debate about the re-authorization of the patriot act every time it comes up for re-authorization, which includes most recently in 2011. the provisions under which the sections of the law under which these programs exist have been and are debated and they have been since the first re-authorization, updated in a way that made sure that oversight that did not exist over programs in the previous administration, in the first years of the previous administration, does exist. and that was at the insistence of lawmakers, including then senator obama, that kind of enhanced oversight by the -- all three branches of government take place and exist with programs that are vital to our national security. >> mike mukasey has said the president ought to have a fire side chat with the american people about this. why not do that? >> i'm not saying -- i think i just said, glenn, i appreciate yours and the former attorney general's specific religiouses about the modalities of presidential communication, the president has and will speak

about this subject. yes. >> jay, you just said to glenn, answers today and yesterday you refer us back to the president's speech at national defense university. nowhere in that speech is the specifically addressed the use of private contractors either for private intelligence or any of the other initiatives the president was looking to address. is the president -- >> you kind of missed the big story here. i grant that there is a question here about contractors. but the focus of the president's conversation we have been having here is the balance between our security interests and our desire for privacy. >> the question i was trying to ask was is the president looking at this as an opportunity to re-examine the proportion or depth that private contractors had, including our intelligence community? >> i think that is an interesting question. perhaps worthy of debate as part of this conversation that we should be having. i would note that contractors have long been involved in both

our defense and intelligence efforts. and that when it comes to security clearances, they are subject to the same system of checks and security clearance procedures as government employees. but again -- which is not to be at all dismissive of the question because i think that, too, is certainly a question that is -- merits debate. but the issue is, if you are a private contractor and take an oath to handle and protect classified information, you are under the same obligations as i am and josh is and others here who have security clearances. so the legal protections and legal regime is the same and the obligations are the same. >> in an hour at the national defense university the president didn't mention private contractors once. this is now -- you say he wants to have a conversation. >> i am not sure what point you are trying to make. the president gave a lengthy

speech about specific issues like the use of directed -- >> you keep cutting me off. what i'm trying to ask is the president didn't mention specifically contractors. >> you said that. >> in a vacuum of that omission, the snowden incident has filled that gap so the president wants to have that conversation, does this conversation begin now on the contrary position, which is up to 70% of intelligence gathering, in some capacities, doesn't that open the door that the president had left closed? >> no. i think that is an issue, as i think i said, in answer to your partial questions, that merits debate. but the -- whether it's a private contract cror or government employee, the issue of classified information anti-obligations that individuals who take an oath to protect it have is the same. one, two, it is certainly worth the discussion, there has been discussion and debate in the past, about the use of

contractors and various other parts of the government. that's certainly worth debate. when it comes to the issue of protecting our privacy and protecting our security, the thence that we seek remains central issue regardless of the employment status of individuals who take the oath to protect classified information. >> jay, on immigration, the president this morning talked about maybe potential changes to the bill. senator mcconnell is looking for what he terms major changes in the area of border security, benefits and taxes. is the president opened to major changes to this bill? >> the president gave remarks about immigration reform just a few hours ago. and made the point that the bill that emerged from the senate judiciary committee represents an extraordinary amount of hard work by a bipartisan group of

united states senators. a process that in committee that allowed consideration of numerous amendments and passage of amendments with bipartisan support. it does not represent letter for letter exactly what the president wants. nor does it represent letter for letter exactly what any individual republican lawmaker or democratic lawmaker wants. but it does represent a strong consensus position on the central principles that the president laid out when it comes to comprehensive immigration reform. we strongly support that bill. we look forward to a process that begins today of consideration on the senate floor of comprehensive immigration reform. and we sincerely hope that as this bill is debated and as amendments are considered, that the significant majority of lawmakers in the senate who support comprehensive immigration reform, reflecting the support out there in the

american public and views of the president, prevail over any efforts to sabotage that when we have, as the president said, a unique opportunity to address this challenge for this first time in many, many years. we do not want to miss that opportunity. an opportunity that will be good for the middle class. be good for our businesses. be good for our security. one of the issues that's frequently raised when it comes to immigration reform, border security, it is important to note, a, we have taken significant steps to enhancing our border security since president obama took office. we have the most boots on the ground on the border we have ever had as a nation and we doubled the number of border patrol agents. and in addition to that, the bill itself that the senate passed out of committee represents the most significant border security bill in our history in terms of resources

allocated towards further border security. and that's very important. it also makes clear that we have to have a clear path to citizenship for the 11 million illegals in this country, illegal immigrants in this country. and that that path has to be clear because that's the right thing to do for our businesses and for the middle class and for our economy. so the president as you heard him say today looks forward to a thkuwait in the -- debate in the senate as they consider this important legislation. looks forward to bipartisan passage of that bill in the senate. and consideration in the house. and ultimately passage by the full congress. >> jay, does the president believe that the government is currently striking the right balance between prife privacy and security? is it getting it right? if so, why? if not, which way should it tilt more? >> the president has addressed this so i will paraphrase him by

saying, yes. we resident believes that are striking the right balance in his view. through a -- through programs that are subject first of all to debate, consideration, and passage by congress. and then subject to an oversight regime that involves all three branches of government. and again i think it's important whether it's section 702 or 215 to be fully aware of the kind of oversight that exists. when it comes to these programs. and i'd like to at this late date, late moment in my briefing, to remind you of some of that. oversight that exists. if i have it here. which i may not.

>> why invite all the debate -- if there is this debate now, your position -- >> the president's made clear he just t believe that because he's come to the conclusion we have struck a balance that is the right balance, that that should end debate. he believes that this is a subject where well-meaning and thoughtful people can disagree and that we ought to have that debate. and we certainly are having it now and we should continue to have it. but what i think is important to te as we have seen these revelations, is that there is a system in place with regards to these two programs that ensures that there is oversight by the judicial branch, by the legislative branch, and by the executive branch. to make sure that these programs as they are implemented are done

so in a way that's consistent with the law and with the guidelines that exist to ensure there are -- that they don't run afoul of our laws or values. depending on the programs, the 215 program we talked about that is subject to renewal every 90 days, through the courts, it is briefed and reviewed by congress, and again, similarly with 702 there are procedures for both requirements for judicial consent and review and for congressional review and notification and updates. additionally, there are procedures in place in the executive branch for monitoring these programs to ensure that in the implementation of the authorities granted by congress -- >> white house spokesman jay carney answering questions from reporters this afternoon. we'll leave this here to take you to live coverage now of the u.s. house. members gaveling back in for legislative business.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] as this days go warmer throughout our land, major legislative issues loom with the potential of warmer debate and disagreement. bless the members of the people's house with the graces they need to engage one another as colleagues of the 113th congress, entrusted by america's citizens to forge solutions to the major issues facing our time, be they in agriculture, immigration, or areas of national security. grant to each an extra measure of wisdom and magna anymority that all might work together for a better future for our great nation. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal

of the last tai's proceedings and anubs -- announces to the house his approval thereof. the journal stands approve the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx. ms. foxx: please join us in the pledge to our worderful flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. broken washington policies are making it harder for families in this country to find good work and plan for the future. outdated laws and regulations, a federal overhaul of personal health care through obamacare and energy policies that tie the lands of small businesses

stand directly opposed to job creation, affordable living and economic growth. we hear of these sad effects every day and we've been warned by the unlikeliest sources of a coming washington train wreck. thus we have a responsibility to remove these washington barriers. the house of representatives has acted to expand energy production through the keystone pipeline and generate new american jobs. we've acted to keep student loan interest rates from doubling, we voted to stop obamacare from increasing family health insurance premium costs. but our actions on behalf of jobs and families -- and family savings have been met by senate inaction. ignoring broken policies is not an option, not when jobs are at stake. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to congratulate the town of

milbury, massachusetts, on its anniversary. it started in 1813 as a small milltown. mr. mcgovern: to honor their bicentennial, they have planned a series of events to honor this day. it was the site of the oldest continuously running mill in the united states. it helped propel the town into the industrial revolution. milbury's significance is the summer home of president william howard taft who celebrated alongside residents as they rung in their first 100 years. continuing with tradition, milbury celebrated with a period ball and is rooking forward to the parade this weekend. i congratulate the town on their 200th anniversary and may this great american town continue to celebrate its rich history for years and years to come. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. >> mr. speaker, global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago. global temperature changes when they exist correlate with sun output and ocean cycles. during the medieval warm period from 800 to 1300 a.d., long before car, power plants or the industrial revolution, temperatures were warmer than today. during the little ice age from 1300 to 1900 a.d. temperatures were cooler. neither of these periods were caused by any human activity. even climate change alarmists admit the number of hurricanes hitting the u.s. and the number of tornado touchdowns have been on a slow decline for over 100 years. but here's what we abvutely know. we know that oklahoma will have tornadoes. mr. braden stein: when the cold bradenstine: and we know

the president spends twice as much on climate research than on weather warming. the people of oklahoma are prepared to accept the president's apology and i intend to introduce legislation to fix this. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> in 19 days unless congress acts, the subsidized stafford student loan interest rate will double from .4% to 6.%. six years ago we cut that rate from 6.8% to 3.4% and so far the house republican majority has issued a bill which the congressional budget office yesterday determined would actually be worse than if we did nothing and allowed the rate to double. mr. courtney: it would add $4 billion in higher interest rate costs. the senate republican bill will

add $16 billion in interest costs from the congressional budget office. it is obvious what we must do. we must pass h.r. 1595, my bill, which has 150 co-sponsors, extend the lower rate at 3.4%, obtain 51 votes in the senate, last time i checked that's a majority. it's time to stand up for college students and families across america, protect the lower interest rates and get off this kick that variable rate somehow is a solution to the problem. c.b.o. told us yesterday it's not. it's worse than doing nothing. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> last month it was learned that the secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius, has been calling executives asking them to fund affordable care act by donating noun something called grow

america. mr. burgess: her answers were questionable. last tuesday, secretary sebelius disclosed she solicitted three other companies, a drugmaker, johnson & johnson, a health care system, ascension health and a health care provider kaiser perm then tee. so it begs the question -- permanente. so it begs the question, how far will this administration ghow to fund the affordable care act. along with them, the department of home rand security, department of labor, these will be involved in sharing and tracking information to implement the president's law. do you really want to entrust this administration with the responsibility of controlling your health care and controlling your health care information? i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recks any? -- recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> we are all familiar with the recent i.r.s. scandal involving the agency targeting conservative groups. as if this institutional arrogance wasn't troubling duff, the -- enough, the i.r.s. will soon become the primary enforcer of obamacare. i rise to support legislation introduced by my friend from tennessee, congresswoman diane black, h.r. 2022, stopping the government abuse of taxpayer information. mr. holing: it would stop the implementation of obamacare and force agencies to certify that the american public's private information is not being exploited or targeted based on political beliefs. oversight, mr. speaker is an important function of congress and we should ensure that the american people's right to privacy and political freedom are protected.

i thank the gentlewoman from tennessee for introducing this important bill. it's time we demand accountability from the i.r.s. and prevent them from further intruding on the rights of the american taxpayers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to offer solutions for seniors who are hard of hearing. under current medicare rules, seniors are unable to visit the audiologist of their choice due to a payment structure that dallas fis these specialist deferently based on location. even though they offer the same care, an in-practice audiologist for an e.n.t. can bill medicare directly under the e.n.t.'s provider number. however, if the patient is referred to an independent audiologist, they cannot bill the services directly. the medicare audiology service enhancement act, which i will

introduce this week, will end this inequity and allow independent audiologists to directly bill medicare expanding health care to our seniors. mr. bilirakis: the speech language association and e.n.t.'s across the country have already expressed support. i urge my colleagues to sign on to this good piece of legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? without objection the gentleman from nevada is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize a true ambassador of the silver state, congresswoman barbara bucanavich, the first to hold the district two congressional seat, died yesterday after a brief illness. she was 91 years old. she was elected to the house of representatives the same year

harry reid a name that may be familiar, was also elected to the house of representatives from nevada. she served 14 years, the second longest tenure of any member of this tonk -- member of congress rom the state of nevada. she was a national leader on the issues of early detection and treatment of breast cancer, the are peel of the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit and also the laity who led the fight in the house to create the only national park created in the lower 48 states during the reagan administration, great basin national park in nevada. she is most notably, though, not only the dean of congressional district two, but she was also somebody who set the standard by which we can all learn, mr. speaker, and that is this, it was never about barbara when she served here, it was about the people who gave her the job. mr. amodei: she embodied public service and humility. with that, god speed, barbara, thank you for a life well lived

iner ising the people of the silver state. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my rashes. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek -- ask unanimous consent? >> yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise today because americans ke serve better. we de-- deserve better. we deserve a goth that wants to help us succeed with a fair chance and level playing field for everyone. we deserve a government that doesn't stifle innovation and success with crushinging arelations. mr. farenthold: we need a government that doesn't decide who lives and who dies with a massive federal health care bureaucracy. we deserve a government that is fair and honest and doesn't spy on us. we deserve a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. not one that targets people based on their political beliefs and snoops through our phone records and emails and is too big and powerful to be held accountable. americans want a strong economy to help better themselves, a

better life for thems, better lives for their families. my republican colleagues and i will continue to push for solutions that strengthen economic growth, protect the freedoms and liberties our forefathers fought for and those inail generalable rights we were endowed by our craycree ator work life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the chair: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to 44 u.s.c. 2702 i hereby reappoint as a member of the advisory committee on the records of congress the following person, dr. sharon leon, fairfax, virginia, with best wishes, i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1rk the chair declares the house in recess

[applause]

>> good morning. olaboone, i'm a dreamer. when i was 8 years old, i reamed of being an engineer. at 14, i was brought from africa to the u.s. to live that dream. at 21, i graduated with a democrat call engineering degree. and today that dream still ives in the back of my closet. where my diploma waits for immigration reform. i never set out to devote myself completely to advocating for immigration reform. nor did i imagine that out of the ashes of my darkest secret would arise my true purpose.

in 2006, my father passed away n nigeria. -- i knew at any moment i could be torn from my family. i stand here today as a direct result of the fervent prayers of my father and bold action by the president. instead of living in fear and well below my abilities, i have the privilege of spending my days advocating for immigration reform. and supporting efforts to achieve that more perfect union that we all desire, that we all

desire. am hopeful ay i and humbled to present the . esident of the united states [applause] good morning, everybody. >> goork, everybody. welcome to the -- good morning everybody. welcome to the white house. it is a pleasure to have so many distinguished americans today from so many different walks of life. we have democrats and republican, we've got labor and business leaders up on stabling, we have law enforcement and clergy. americans who don't see eye to

eye on every issue new york fact new york some cases don't see eye to eye on just about any issue. -- on every issue, in fact, in some cases don't see eye to eye on just about any issue. but we are here to talk about an issue before congress a bipartisan bill to fix our broken immigration system. please give tobu another round of applause. [applause] it takes a lot of courage to do what tobu did, to step out of the shadows, to share her story, and to hope that despite the risks, she could make a difference. but tobu, i think, is representative of so many dreamers out there who have worked so hard, and i've had a chance to meet so many of them who have been willing to give a face to the undocumented.

and have inspired a movement across america. and with each step they've reminded us, time and again, what this debate is all about. this is not an abstract debate. this is about incredible young people who understand themselves to be americans, who have done everything right, but have still been hamplered in acheaving their american dream. and they remind us that we're a nation of immigrants. throughout our history, the promise we found in those who come from every corner of the globe has always been one of our greatest strengths. it's kept our work force vibrant and dynamic. it's kept our businesses on the cutting edge. it's helped build the greatest economic engine that the world has ever known. when i speak to other world leaders, one of the biggest advantages we have,

economically, is our demographics. we are constantly replenishing ourselves with talent from all across the globe. no other country can match that history. and what was true year -- years ago, it's still true today -- who is beeping over there? [laughter] feeling kind of self-conscious, ren't you? in recent years, one in four of america's new small business owners were immigrants. one in four high tech startups in america were founded by immigrants. 40% of fortune 500 countries were started by first or second

generation americans. think about that. almost half. of the fortune 500 countries -- companies, were started by first or second generation americans. immigration isn't just part of our national character, it's a driving force in our economy that creates jobs and prosperity for all of our citizens. here's the thing. over the past two decades, our immigration system hasn't kept pace with changing times. and hasn't matched up with our most cherished values. right now, our immigration system invites the best and brightest from all over the world to come and study at top universities and then once they finish, once they've gotten the training they need to build a new invention or create a new business, our system too often tells them, go back home system of that other countries can reap the benefit, the new job, the new business the new industries. that's not smart.

but that's the broken system we have today. right now, our immigration system keeps families apart for years at a time. even for folks who technically under the legal immigration system should be eligible to become citizens but it is so long and so cumbersome, bisan teen that families end up being separated for years. because of a backlog of visas, people who came here legally, ready to give it their all to earn their place in america, end up waiting for years to joiner that loved ones here in the united states. it's not right. but that's the broken system we have today. right now, our immigration system has no credible way of dealing with the 11 million men and women who are in this country illegally. and yes, they broke the rules. they didn't wait their turn. they shouldn't be let off easy. they shouldn't be allowed to

game the system. but at the same time the vast majority of these individuals aren't looking for any trouble, they're just looking to provide for their families, contribute to their communities. they're our neighbors. we know their kids. too often, they're forced to do what they do in a shadow economy where shady employers can exploit them by paying less than the minimum wage, not giving them any benefits that pushes down standards for all workers. it's bad for everybody. because all the businesses that do play by the rules, that hire people legally, pay them fairly, they're at a competitive disadvantage. american workers end up being at a competitive disadvantage. it's not fair but that's the broken system we have today. now over the past four year, we have tried to patch up some of the worst cracks in the system.

we made border security a top priority, today we have twice as many border patrol agents as we did in 2004. we have more boots on the ground along our southern border than at any time in our history. and in part by using technology more effectively, illegal crossings are near their lowest level in decades. we focus our enforcement efforts on criminals who are here illegally and who are endangering our communities and today, deportation of criminals s at its highest level ever. having put border security in place, having refocused on those who could do our communities harm, we also then took up the cause of the dreamers. young people like her, who came

here as chern, to say, if you're willing to meet some basic requirements, like pursue higher education, we're willing to do something so you can continue to work here and study here legally. our administration has done what we can on our own. we have members of my administration here who have done outstanding work over the last few years to try to close up some of the gaps that exist in the system. but the system is still broken. to truly deal with this issue, congress needs to act. nd that moment is now. this week, the senate will consider a commonsense, bipartisan bill that is the best chance we have in years to fix our broken immigration system. it will build on what we've done and continue to strengthen our border. it will make sure the businesses and workers are all playing by the same set of rules and it includes tough penalties for those who don't.

it's helping middle class families by making sure those who are brought into the system pay their fair share in taxes and for services. it's fair for those who try to immigrate legally by stopping those who try to skip the line. it's the right thing to do. now this bill isn't perfect. it's a compromise. and going forward, nobody is going to get everything they want. not democrats, not republicans, not me. but this is a bill that's largely consistent with the principles that i and the people on this stage vlade out for commonsense reform. first of all, it -- if passed, this bill would be the biggest commitment to border security in our nation's history. it would put another $6.5 billion on top of what we're already spend toward stronger,

smarter security along our borders. it would increase criminal penalties against smugglers and traffickers. it would finally give every employer a reliable way to check that every person they're hiring is here legally. and it will hold employers more accountable if they knowingly hire undocumented workers. so it strengthens border security but also enforcement within our borders. i know there's a lot of talk right now about border security. so let me repeat, today, illegal crossings are near their lowest level in decades and if passed, the senate bill, as currently written and as it's hitting the floor, would put in place the toughest border enforcement plan that america has ever seen. so nobody is taking border enforce. lightly. that's part of this bill.

number two, this bill would provide a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million individuals in this country illegally system of that pathway is arduous. you've got to pass background checks, you've got to learn english, you've got to attackses and a penalty and then you've got to go to the become of the line behind everybody who has done things the right way and have tried to come here legally system of this won't be a quick process. it will take at least 13 years before the vast majority of these individuals are able to even apply for citizenship. this is no cake walk. but it's the only way we can make sure that everyone who is here is playing by the same rules as ordinary families, paying taxes and getting their own health insurance, that's why for immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a pathway to sit snship.

-- to citizenship. we're asking everyone to play by the same rules, you've got to give people a sense of certainty that if they go through all these sacrifices, do all this, that there's, at the end of the horizon, the opportunity, not the guarantee, but the opportunity, to be part of this american family. and by the way, a majority of americans support this idea. number three this bill would modernize the legal immigration system so that alongside training american workers for the jobs of tomorrow, we're also attracting highly skilled entrepreneurs from around the world who will ultimately grow our economy. this bill would help make sure our people don't have to wait years before their loved ones are able to join them here in america. so that's what immigration reform looks like. smarter enforcement, a pathway to earned citizenship,

improvements to our legal system. they're all commonsense steps. they've got bipartisan support. they've got the support of a broad cross section of leaders from every walk of life. so there's no reason congress can't get this done by the end of the summer. remember the process that led to this bill was open and inclusive. for months, the bipartisan gang of eight looked at every issue, reconciled competing ideas, built a compromise that works. then, the judiciary committee helped -- held hearings, over 100 amendments were added, often with bipartisan support. the good news is, every day that goes by, more and more republicans and democrats are coming out to support this commonsense immigration reform bill.

and i'm sure the bill will go through a few more changes in the weeks to come. but this much is clear, if you genuinely believe we need to fix our broken immigration system, there's no good reason to stand in the way of this bill. a lot of people, democrats and republicans have done a lot of good work on this bill system of if you're serious about actually fixing the system, then this is the vehicle to do it. if you're not serious about it if you think that a broken system is the best america can do, then i guess it might make ense to try to block it. but if you're serious and sin serious about fixing a broken system, this is the vehicle to do it and now is the time to get it done. there's no good reason to play procedural games or engage in

obstruction, just to block the best chance we've had in years to address this problem in a way that spares middle -- that's fair to middle class families, to business owners, to legal immigrants. and there's no reason to undo the progress we have already made, especially when it comes to extreme steps like stripping protexts from dreamers that my administration has provided or asking law enforcement to treat them the same they way -- the same way they treat violent criminals. that's not who we are. we owe toyota america to do better. we owe it to the dreamers to do better. e owe it to the young people like tolu and diego sanchez, who is with us here today -- where is diego? he came here from argentina with his parents then he was just a kid. growing up, america was his home. it's where he went to school, where he made friends where he built a life. you ask diego, he feels

american in every way. except one. on paper. in high school, diego found out he was undocumented. think about that. with all the stuff you're already dealing with in high school -- [laughter] and suddenly, oh, man. so you've done everything right, stayed out of trouble, exceled in class, contributed to his community, feeling hopeful about his future and suddenly he finds out he's got to live in fear of the portation. watching his friends get their licenses, knowing he couldn't get one. see high class mates apply for summer jobs, knowing he couldn't do that either. when diego heard we were going to offer a chance for folks like him to emerge from the shadow, he went and signed up.

all he wanted, he said, was a chance to live a normal life and contribute to the country i love. and diego was approved for deferred action. a few weeks ago, he graduated from st. thomas university where he was student body president and student of the year. [applause] so now he's set aside -- set his sights higher, masters degree and then law school so he can pursue a career in public policy. help america shape its future. why wouldn't we want to do the right thing by diego? what rationale is there out there that wouldn't want to make sure diego achieves his

dreams, because if he does, that helps us all achieve our dreams. so in the weeks to come, you'll hear some b opobs -- some opponents of immigration reform sped the same old rumors and untruths we have heard before and when that happens, i want you to think about tolu and think about diego. and i want you to think about your own parents and fwrarntes and great grandparents. and all the men and women and children who came here. the notion that somehow those who came through ellis island had all their painers right -- [laughter] -- all their papers right -- [laughter] had checked every box, followed procedures, as they were etting on that boat.

they were looking for a better life. just like these families. they want to earn their way into the american story. if you're willing to stand with them, and if you're willing to stand with all these outstanding leaders up here, then now is the time to make your voice heard. you need to call and email and tweet your senators and tell them, don't kick this problem down the road. come together, work together, do your job, not only to fix the broken immigration system once and for all, but to leave something better for all the generations to come. to make sure we continue to be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. do the right thing. thanks. god bless you. god bless america. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> live now to capitol hill at the senate education committee, reconvening their markup session on legislation that would replace the 2001 no child left behind law. right now, 37 states have a waiver from the government to

proceed outside the law which ties federal funds to school performance. it calls for schools to achieve 100% proficiency in math and english by the year 2014. education secretary arne duncan has called for it to be replaced by neither house of congress has approved an alternative.

>> again, we are live on capitol hill as the senate education committee is reconvening their markup session on legislation to

replace the no child left behind law. a little delay as we await a number of senators to make a quorum and then we expect action to continue. the senate this afternoon is working on a bipartisan immigration legislation. lawmakers right now voting on -- actually they just wrapped up voting on a procedural motion to move the bill forward. minority leader mitch mcconnel opened the debate saying the legislation would need stronger provisions on border security and other issues to earn his support. here's a look at what he had to say. n's history, lawmakers have been faced with many pressing challenges, some by their very nature demand immediate action. others suml simile buildver tim. so forcing action on them includes some combination of foresight and persuasion.

the great challenge of our own day, in my view, is figuring out how to reform government programs that are growing so big so fast unless w. unless we act, they'll eventually consume the entire federal budget. this is an issue that i have dedicated a lot of time to over the years and that i would hope the two parties would resolve in a way that would win the support of the public and markets. as it turned out, the president wasn't as interested in that kind of agreement as i was, so last year i reluctantly concluded we wouldn't be able to do anything significant about entitlements anytime soon. without presidential leadership, something like that is just sumly impossible. hopefully the president will have a change of heart at some point on the most important issue of our time. but none of this means we can't try to do something about any other big issue we face and that includes immigration.

there may be some who think our current immigration system is working, but i haven't met them. i haven't met anybody who thinks the current immigration system is working. and as an elected leader in my party, it is my view that at least we need to try to improve the situation that as far as i can tell very few people believe is working well, either for our own citizens or for those around the world who aspire to become americans. everyone knows the current system is broken. our borders are not secure. those who come legally often stay illegally. and we don't know who or where they are. our immigration laws last change was almost three decades ago and they failed to take into account the needs of our rapidly changing economy. so what we're doing today is initiating a debate. 're all grateful for the hard work of the so-called gang of

eight, but today's vote isn't a final judgment on their product as much as it is a recognition of the problem, a national problem, one that needs debate. the gang of eht has donets work. now it's time for the gang of 100 to do its work. for the ente senate to have its say on the issue and see if we can improve the status quo. at the risk of stating the obvious, the bill has serious flaws. i'll vote to debate it and for the opportunity to amend it, but in the days ahead, there will need to be major changes to this bill if it's going to become law. these include, br but are not limited to, the areas of border secuty, government benefits, and taxes. i'm going to need more than an

assurance from secretary napolitano, for instance, that the border is secure to feel comfortable about the situation down on the border. too often recently we have been remiewnded that as government grows, it becomes less responsible to the american people and fails to perform basic functions either through incompetence -- incompetence -- or willful disregard of the wishes of copping. of congress. our continuedailure to secure major portions of the border thought only makes true immigration reform far, far more difficult, it presents an urgent threat to our national security. now some have criticized this bill for its cost to taxpayers, and that's a fair critique. those who are here illegally, shouldn't have their unlawful status rewarded with benefits and tax credits. so the bill has some serious flaws. and we need to be serious about trying to fix them.

the goal here should be to make the status quo better, not worse. and that's what the next few weeks are about. they are about giving the entire senate and indeed the entire country an opportunity to weigh in on this important debate, to make their voices heard, and to try to improve our immigration policy. and what that means, of course and obviously, is an open amendment process. but let me be clear -- doing nothing about the problem, we all acknowledge, isn't a solution. doing nothing about the problem is not a solution. it's an avoidance strategy, and the longer we wait to have this debate, as difficult as it is, the harder it will be to solve the problem. we tried to do something six years ago and didn't succeed. we may not succeed this time either, but attempting to solve tough problems in a serious and

deliberate manner is precise what i the senate, at et ceteras best, should be doing. and that's what we're going >> senate minority leader mitch mcconnel earlier today. the senate a short time ago voted to limit debate on the motion to proceed to the immigration debate that vote was 82-15. immigration policy being debated now on the senate floor, you can see live coverage on our companion network c-span2 and we are live once again on capitol hill as the senate health committee prepares to continue their rkup of legislation to replate the current no child left behind law.

>> the committee will please come to order. we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven -- we have seven senators here and with the concurrence of the ranking member, i ask unanimous consent that not withstanding the standing orders of the committee which require eight members to begin debate that we can begin debate now, obviously not fully but we can debate with the seven members present. hear nothing objection, we'll

move ahead. we have finished debate on the haguen amendment, of course we don't have enough member here's to vote so now we turn to senator alexander and senator alexander's amendment. >> thanks, mr. chairman. i only reluctantly agreed to go ahead with debate because i wanted all the democratic senator tots -- senators to hear my brilliant argument about teacher certification. i remember one time i was at a meeting with former senator howard bakering noted for a good recovery. he was bragging on me and he said, governor alexander is the best governor tennessee ever had. he looked down and saw our former governor winfield dunn sitting there and said, since winfield dunn. quick recovery. i'd like to speak for a few minutes, not long, but this is an important subject.

i'd like to talk to the teachers of america. because this is about teacher evaluation. i've talked about 100,000 public schools, 50 million students, there are 3.2 million teachers, we're talking about evaluating their performance and relating that performance tuvene student achievement. in some cases relating their pay to how that evaluation works out. so whenever -- just as senators begin to pay attention as election time comes around and we get ready to be evaluated, teachers pay a lot of attention to discussions about their evaluation. what my amendment would do is two things. one is, it will amend the democratic proposal to encourage not -- encourage, not mandate and define, teach eevaluation. and two, it will eliminate the

highly qualified teacher which has washington defining what makes a good teacher and transfering that responsibility back to states set ill be encouraged to up their own teacher and principal evaluation systems. it's tempt for me to come and say, i came to washington, i worked hard to get here, i'm ranking member, so i want to make everybody have the same kind of teacher evaluations tennessee pioneered 30 years ago. i remember and i i've mentioned here before and forgive me mentioning it again, it was 30 years ago that as governor at the beginning of my sec term i proposed that our state become the first state to pay teachers more for teaching well, at that time, not one state paid one teacher one teacher -- one penny more for being a good

teacher. to me that didn't seem right. because i remembered when my mother who thought she knew what a good teacher was put me in one first grade instead of nor r first grade and -- our school because she thought one teacher was better than another. some of us know from experience that some teachers are extraordinary teachers and some aren't as good. we also begin to understand the more we think about education that there were two factors that make a difference, number one, parents, number two teachers, and not much else matters, that's my opinion, anyway. hard to write a better parents law, so we focus on teachers. it seemed simple to pay teachers more for teaching well and to evaluate good teaching but i found out 30 years ago, it's not simple at all. and the process i went through, i had a year and a half with the national education sole and exclusive, they won the fers round, i won the second round, we sent up a master teacher

program and 10,000 teachers voluntarily went up a career ladder. we had groups of teachers who how you went through that process and it included relating teacher performance to student performance, and nobody knew how to do it. a professor named sanders at the university of tennessee came up with a way to do it, it was controversial but our state has used it and other states have too. since then there have been a number of ways to honor and reward outstanding teaching, so you have to determine who is an outstanding teacher. there have been board professional teaching standards, master teacher program the teacher incentive fund which president bush began has given grants to a variety of school districts which i support to let them try different ways to do this, the teachers' unions have gotten involved to some degree, going

from opposing to supporting. so we're coming to realize in my view that the holy grail of improving public education is finding fair ways to measure outstanding teaching and then reward it financially. but that it's not easy to do. so we talk back and forth among us, and with secretary duncan, about how to do that. we all agree on its importance. i'm not just speaking for myself. i know senator harkin thinks that and many others think that. house republican don't necessarily agree with what i'm about to say. but my view is that, as important as i think it is, i don't think i ought to come to washington and say, i've got a great idea, it was good for tennessee, we know how to do it, let's make everybody do it that way. because the way it's done in minnesota and north carolina and georgia an wyoming and iowa may need to be different, almost certainly will need to be different, in one school

district or another school district because so much of its success depends upon teachers buying in to the process. so the conclusion i've come to is that the better way to move forward in the next five years, the way to encourage this holy grail of teaching performance, is to move away from adequate yearly -- from the federal definition of what a good teacher is we call that highly qualified teaching, and encourage states to move ahead with their own plans. and then let the secretary call attention to that and honor the governors who do it and after five years see how far we've gotten. expand the teacher incentive fund so there will be more grants to schools like the athens, tennessee district working on a five-year plan. after 30 years to implement this kind of thing locally system of the amendment proposes repealing highly qualified teacher and allowing

states, if they wish, to create principal and teacher evaluation systems related to student achievement but by their own definition. now they have to report that they're doing it but the secretary of education may not define it and may not order it. in my view, that's the best way to get the best long-term result and the reason i think it will is along with all the other things the states have been doing, together, to create higher standards, better tes, better accountability systems, there have been pioneering systems to create new teacher evaluation systems. now, the democratic bill takes a different approach. i can understand it but i disagree with it. it orders states to set up teacher and principal evaluation systems. we ordered them to set up professional development systems with title 2 money and they did a lousy job of it. that's because if you order

things from here there's no guarantee that that does anything. people have to come to grips with these things themselves. so the democratic bill says to 15,000 different school districts you have to set up a teacher and principal evaluation system and it says how to do it. now, i'm not going to read it all but it defines it, it means rigorous transparent fair, feedback to teachers, number one. multiple categories of teacher and principal performances. number two, evaluate with research and best practices. number three, directly align with professional development activities. number four, develop and implement with teacher and principal involvement. number five, of course there's another provision which gives the unions what they want. if there's collective bargaining that's got to be approved. provides training for the evaluators who are responsible for conducting classroom and school level observation. then, for principals, similar list of things.

now, there might not be anything wrong with that list of criteria, but we did that ourselves in tennessee. i mean, groups of teachers did it. for the state. and then they went around district by district and said here's what we did and here's why we did it. and the local teachers had a hard enough time accepting this. i mean, teachers don't like for people to come in and evaluate them any more than we like to be evaluated every day. so what the difference is we say states do it and the democrat ig bill says you must do it, you got to do it according to these prescriptions which are carried over from the waivers. and once you've done that you got to send it to washington and you've got to have it peer reviewed. we are going to find some smart professors somewhere and say we don't like what tennessee did or do. that happened to tennessee who

had race at the top, spent 30 years of an evaluation system and they had to sent their system up here to get a waiver and it got sent back and say do it this way instead of that way. i don't know who up here or here in the peer review community, i don't think we need their extra judgment about that. then the secretary has to approve it. so you have to conform with the statute. the secretary has to approve it and then you can go ahead. so i would say to my colleagues, there's no one here that cares more about moving along teacher, principal evaluations than i do, but i do not believe that it is any help at all to have the statute, the peer reviewers and the secretary looking over the shoulders of teachers in tennessee or any state who are working hard to develop a teacher-principal evaluation system which most of them are doing right now, most of them are doing right now.

-- so i is hard to would say to teachers across the country, if you're listening, that what we're saying in the alexander amendment is take that $2.5 billion that we now spend in title 2 and allow states to develop state and local teacher and principal evaluation systems. and then states define it. don't do what the democratic bill says which is you must do it, you must do it this way, you must let the peer reviews agree with it and you have to negotiate with the secretary to approve it. i just think that's one more bad example of a national school board. if i may finally, the second part of the amendment talks adequate alks about -- highly qualified teachers. that's become another one of

those washington definitions which in my opinion don't do much good and doesn't work the right way. powell middle school in knoxville, special education in middle school, that teacher must have, according to the federal definition, teaching license, bachelor's degree, certified as a special education teacher, and demonstrate compen tensey in each of three reading, math and science subjects. either by having a college degree or passing a state test. that's an awful lot for seventh grade teacher have to do and hard to find someone who can teach special education and do that as well. i think it's much better to rely on our state and other states to move ahead with their principal-teacher evaluation systems, find fair ways to evaluate middle school teachers, and create an environment for that. the environment we can create in conclusion, mr. chairman, is two things.

we can put in our bill, as our amendment does, for the first time you may use all of their $2.5 billion of title 2 money. in tennessee that's $43 million a year, $45 million, something like that, to develop these systems and that helps a lot. and the second thing is we would recommend the teacher incentive fund which is a federal grant and you apply for it. you come in and say our union and we want to work on this for five years. if you don't have a union, as athens, tennessee, does, we want to work for five years to develop this, get the teachers to do it. we don't need washington looking over the shoulders of tennessee teachers when they're working hard to figure out ways to evaluate themselves so they can get rewarded and paid more. i respectfully suggest this amendment to amend the harkin bill. >> mr. chairman, i want to speak in favor of the alexander amendment for a second and i want to relay a couple of

personal experiences to talk about how enthusiastic i am about this. no child left behind has been trashed by others for not doing a lot of good things, but it did some good things. it also did some things that those of us that wrote it, so i'm raising my right hand and confessing, realize over time a.y.p. would be a problem because schools get better and better and better and it became harder and hardtory meet it. this aggregation was a very important step forward and we have preserved that. the chairman's preserved it. we preserved it in the alexander substitute. but one of the difficulties with high-stakes testing which is pretty much prescribed by no child left behind in reading and math, some unintended consequences took place and one of them happened in atlanta, georgia, because of a teacher evaluation. i know the chairman and the ranking member are aware we had a major scandal in terms of cheating on tests by teachers and changing grades for pay for performance in their income. in other words, there was a motivation to change the grades

of a student to make it look like the student was doing better than they were in return for compensation for the teacher. that came out of an overly printive dictate from washington which had a perverse motivation, we never considered what happened. i personally think that cheating is a moral failing. it's not a failing of someone writing the law. we have to recognize that our states have to be more involved in establishing the parameters for teacher ooh valuation and that we tie them to high-stakes testing or federal mandates, we're liable to get ourselves in trouble. new york, chicago, the district of columbia and atlanta all had problems with this. in atlanta we have 36 teachers under indictment for rack tearing and conspiring to change grades in order for compensation. that's not a good thing for public education. it's not a good thing to have happened and it's one of the consequences of high stakes testing that took place. what senator alexander is talking about here is requiring the states to have an evaluation system and letting them use fight 2 funding to develop that system so they can

have a good system of evaluating the teacher and that they involve the families, they involve the students, they involve their parents, they involve professional educators and they involve everybody in the school process in determining what those parameters are. i just want to say that senator alexander is right on target when he was the chairman of the national board of education or the department of education when he was in tennessee, what they did in tennessee, it's all best from the bottom up, not from the top down because when you get the top down you have unintended consequences that cause problems. and in terms of teacher evaluation, that's precisely what's happened. i think the alexander approach is the right approach and i support it wholeheartedly. >> thank you, senator isakson. irst, i might just respond that -- well, in a number of ways here. i don't know where to begin.

first of all we have 37 state waivers now. those are all grandfathered in. those evaluation systems are all grandfathered in to this bill. what we've basically said to the other states, you have to come up with an evaluation system and, again, the parameters that we had set forward in here was those parameters that were set as a result of a very large study, the met study done by the gates foundation. $350 million study. what are the best parameters, best practices? and so that's where we're at. we didn't just pull this out of a sky. this was because of a very large scale intensive study that was done on that project. so, yes, we do make it mandatory that they have an evaluation system.

we set parameters. we didn't exactly say how exactly you got to do it but we set up certain parameters. i might also add, i don't need to ask my friend from tennessee, i don't think we ave a peer review mandate in there. there was' peer review in the state waivers that they've gotten but i don't believe we mandate a peer review in this. but they were in the waivers? they were in the waivers but not in our bill. and, again, what our bill focuses on is, again, on professional development rather than punitive measures. again, it's not using evaluations as a way of disciplining teachers but a way of how do you develop personal development in teachers, a very

positive approach on that. i have not mentioned anything about highly qualified teacher provisions. i just would add these are the same provisions that we had in the esea bill two years ago in 2011. but, again, keep in mind that the highly qualified teacher provision we have is for entry level, baseline for skills and knowledge for all teachers nationwide. nationwide. so it is a standard entry level baseline for all teachers. now, again, if we eliminate highly qualified teacher requirement, it will remove the requirements that teachers pass a rigorous content examination. it will create even more varying kinds of standards for teachers across the country than what we have and it would remove the requirement to be

knowledgeable in the content areas in which they teach. now, again, this was added in and in this bill because the studies showed the certificate certification and licensing requirements were not enough. many of our advocates, especially in the civil rights community and disability community urge us not to go backwards on this provision. so that provision is the same in this bill. we did add the evaluation in this bill. that is true. but, again, it was based upon, as i said, on that met project study, and i understand, i'm told that chairman kline made it the same in his bill in the house, that it was mandatory evaluation. and again we repurpped the teacher incentive -- we repurposed the teacher

incentive fund. now, again, we know there's been an unequal distribution. so that's why we put this in the bill. it was to provide these teacher incentive funds, these t.i.f. funds, could be used as having a more equitable distribution of teachers. again, these funds, i say, can be used for performance-based compensation to be able to achieve this goal. i think that's a logical step to take. we heard earlier today, teachers would have to pack up and move if you want an equitable distribution. well, there's funds in here in the t.i.f. funds to be able to help compensate if teachers want to move and have a more equitable distribution of good teachers. i agree with senator alexander, t's --

it's tough to find a good teacher. is it based just upon grades? i don't think so. it's sort of like, you know, i can't define a highly effective teacher, but i know one when i see one. i know teachers that can motivate students to learn, that exhibit great qualities of leadership that are dynamic. these are the kind of examples that we need to use and to base evaluation systems on. not as a punitive measure but as a way of instructing other teachers on how to be a more effective teacher. i saw that recently -- not recently. within the last couple of years at a school here in washington, the john full i susa school in which the school was not performing very well, middle school, brought in a new

principal and i went over to observe how they were doing their teacher ooh valuations. and are it was -- evaluations and it was quite instructive how they would do classroom observation, how they bring teachers in go in and observe another teacher. they upgraded the whole effectiveness of the whole teaching staff there. not as a punitive way bun instructive way of bringing teachers along and getting them better ideas and better instruction, i guess if i can use that word, effectively how to get their course material across. again, we made every effort to -- in our bill to ensure this is a system based in support nd not punishment. we focused the t.i.f. grants in ensuring that the most effective educators are eaching our neediest students.

so i just -- again, the only difference between this and what we had two years ago is just that, evaluations. not highly qualified teachers. that was in our last bill. but i think we have more data now. we have 37 states that have applied for waivers. all of those 37 have evaluation systems. and we have the results of the met study. so i think for those other states that are coming in we've just set out basically the same kind of parameters that we have in the 37 other states that have already gotten their waivers and grandfathered them in. so i just don't see this as any kind of onerous requirement at all. on states and local districts, i should say. we focus every district. every district has to have a teacher and principal evaluation.

i don't know -- is that the same as kline in the house? he do district, state? he did state, we did districts. they're both mandatory. i think we again in the underlying bill basically tried to do a decent balance and tried to respect those states that have already gotten their waivers by grandfathering them in. so i would respectfully oppose the amendment. , i'm tempted to say -- i'm going to say -- i said on the senate floor during the health care bill, any senator who vote for it should go home and serve as senator and try to implement it. i would say this, any senator

that votes for a mandatory teacher evaluation system defined by washington and approved by the secretary ought to be forced and go home to serve as superintendent of the school district and try to implement it. and just imagine what this is going to be like. you're going to go 15,000 school districts and you're going to call a teachers' meeting. ok. we've been ordered by washington to set up a teacher evaluation system. now you know how that's going to go over. and then they're going to say, and this is what you're supposed to do and they're going to go through these seven or eight things. and someone will ask, where did those definitions come from? they'll say our united states senators wrote them. and i believe the teachers are going to say, what do they know about it? what do they know about it? and then somebody might say, well, they got it from the gates foundation study. and they're going to say, well, they're well-meaning and have been very helpful. but if we're going to evaluate

ourselves down here, we'd like to have some say in how that's done. and we do not want to take criteria from washington, sent it to the secretary and then senator harkin has corrected me and i'll accept it partially that the teacher ooh veiluation system will be a part of the state plan assurance and then the secretary gets the state plan peer reviewed and then the secretary has to review it. but basically it's a washington-approved evaluation system for 3.2 million teachers and 15,000 school districts. and that's hard to do even if you're -- even if you're working carefully over a period f years with teachers. in 37 states they're grandfathered in because all those states have a teacher evaluation system. look, they got the waivers from

no child left behind because they had a gun to their head. they were over a barrel. i mean, they would do anything to get relief from some of the outdated, unworkable provisions of no child left behind so they submitted a plan for teacher evaluation based on these same printive things from washington. this is just -- prescriptive things from washington. this is just a plan. in 37 states now they're beginning to implement these plans. i saw what happened in new york what happened when they began to implement it. the state almost blew up. the state secretary came down here and asked for us to help them. a new york plan for teacher evaluation rather than a -- from washington. simply the best practices, i have great respect for what the gates are doing. i talked to bill gates personally about the importance of teacher evaluation, but how do we know these are the best

practices for teachers in mayor bell, tennessee? i -- maribel, tennessee? i know we came up with similar things, came up with a portfolio for teachers, principal evaluation. in our case we said if you're an eighth grade history teacher, we'll have two eighth grade teachers from a different school district to do an evaluation to get rid of local politics. why isn't that better? we found that was a good idea for us, but it might not be necessary everywhere. am afraid that rather than propel the pioneering movements across the country on teacher evaluation that have been encouraged by the gates foundation, that have been encouraged by secretary duncan, a overnors such as i, by whole variety, by the board of professional teaching centers, i'm afraid how to do it in 15,000 school districts will

create such resentment and such congestion and such trouble that the whole thing will fall flat on its face and it will be another generation before we do it again. i would much prefer us -- see us expand, as senator harkin, i believe, agrees the teacher incentive funds. he talked about that. would much prefer to see us -- let the states do that using title 2 funds, do that for five years and see where we go from there. that's the essence of the proposal. this is a national school board. i mean, you can't say it's not. if we're defining what a highly qualified teacher is in are 15,000 school districts in washington, that's a national school board. if we're defining what a teacher evaluation and principal evaluation system is in washington, that's a national school board, and i don't think that should be done here. >> i feel constrained to

actually read the language that's in the bill on teacher evaluation. hear my friend from tennessee talk, you sound it's so prescriptive that it just sets out every little thing on what everybody has to do. that's not what we do. i'm constrained just to read it in its entirety. paragraph 49, professional growth and improvement system. it doesn't say evaluation. professional growth and improvement because we want to focus on growth and improvement, not punitive damage -- punitive. the term professional growth and improvement system means a rigorous, transparent and fair system of evaluation and support based on research and best practices for teachers and principals that, one, provides meaningful feedback to teachers and principals on the results of their evaluation. number two, establishes multiple categories of teacher

and principal performance to ensure that the evaluation provides meaningful differentiation and is aligned with student academic achievement results. number three, evalue waits teachers and principals regularly, consistent with research and best practices, including by using multiple measures. it didn't say what. just multiple measures. don't use just one. four, is directly aligned with professional development activities. five, is developed and implemented with teacher and principal involvement. and six, provides training for the evaluators who are responsible for conducting classroom and school-level observations. i don't think that's highly prescriptive, but i think it does outline which should be taken into account and how those evaluation systems should be constructed. that's exactly -- exactly how a

state does that, it varies. we have 37 waivers out there for 37 states. i'm sure maybe some of them overlap and are the same, i don't know. but, again, what we did was to take basically what they're doing and the waivers that were granted and incorporated that in the language that i just read. so it's not highly prescriptive. it's not a school board telling them exactly. we're saying, ok, here's what best practices are. we say use the results of good research and do basically what we said here but how you do it, exactly how you do it, that's up to every school district. not even the state. or even better. we say leave it up to the school district, not the state. i think mr. kline says the state. we just said, no, leave it up to the school district. i think we're a little bit more lenient in that regard.

in that regard. >> well, mr. chairman, without extending this -- see, i think you made my point. i think that's extremely prescriptive. if i were a teacher in maribel, tennessee, i would say, how do you know that? how do you know that? remember we went through the same thing in our state years ago. it took us a year to come up with those five or six things because we had to discuss it with a lot of people, and teachers would say, well, i'm not sure i want the principal evaluating me. or they would say, i want to make sure my portfolio is this way instead of that way. practice?s a best what is a professional development activity? or we'd rather do this instead of that. even if this is right, if you just impose it on the 15,000 school districts without their creating it themselves, i think you're destined for failure. i think what is more likely to work, i mean, you can suggest

this. you can say here's what we understand from the gates foundation is one version of the six or seven things that work, but on item number two, which is aligning school academic achievement results with teacher performance, what we found until a few years ago is no one in the country knew how to do that. finally, a single professor from tennessee thought that was ridiculous that no one knew how to do it. none of the great colleges of education, none of the universities would admit it could be done. they developed a system to do it. everybody criticized that system. that was the sanders system. and so you still got great controversy across the country about how to align student achievement with teacher performance. you're requiring something that people don't know how to do yet. and two states, iowa and california, don't want to do. so i don't think it's our job to define this from a distance, and i'm afraid, and i've said

it enough so i don't need to say it again, i'm afraid it's so prescriptive that it will stin the whole movement to move backwards instead of forward with resentment. instead of encouraging it's imposing and that's the difference between our two bills. >> if there's no further debate -- as chair, i feel the proponent of the amendment should have the last word. so i hope there's no further debate -- >> well, that just ended. i think the ranking member has to say something because you just talked. by my logic. i am sorry. [laughter] >> well, he said that the proponent of the amendment should have the last word. so it sounds like he should say something. it's all i'm saying.

just say word. [laughter] >> well, moving right along -- it's 2:00 or 3:00. we'll set the amendment aside, then, along with the haggan amendment for votes when we get a quorum here. i'm told that the next amendment only our side is the franken amendment. a franken amendment. >> so you want me to go ahead and talk about it? >> yes, sir. >> that means i'm going to get the last word, i know that. what i'd like to do is qual up my amendment, franken amendment number 1. it's an amendment that would strengthen provisions in the bill to improve access to dual nrollment programs and early high school, college programs. dual enrollment and early high school college programs allows students to take college-level course work while in high

school for college credit. which actually helps to reduce the time and costs associated with earning their college degree. now, i have gone to a number of roundtables on this. i've been to programs like this. it works. we all, i know in our states, have had college affordability roundtables. we know that students these days are having trouble paying for college. and when i talk to kids, they're very often working 20, 30, 40 hours a week going to school. it makes it harder for them to take as many course credits. they graduate with -- still graduate with a lot of debt, but as a result we're not getting the kind of levels of graduation that we'd like because they don't complete

college. that's because sometimes it takes six or so years or seven to do it and somewhere along the line they get -- they get discouraged and they don't graduate. and what i -- what i have seen in my state where we're talking about college affordability and college completion is my amendment would help both of these issues. it would encourage states and local districts to expand the use of these two proven strategies. dual enrollment programs and early colleges. it shows to improve high school graduation rates and they've been shown to prove college success, college graduation rates. my amendment would call on states to demonstrate how their state accountability plans

promote postsecondary readiness and would allow states to include information on dual enrollment and early college high schools on their report cards and equity scorecards. again, this is totally their option. this is optional. the amendment also asks school districts to explain how they'll use dual enrollment and early college high schools to help facilitate the transition between high school and college and to improve low-performing schools. again, these programs have been shown to if kids get into an early college program, if they take an a.p. course or international baccalaureate course or go to a two-year junior college to take a course, they end up graduating from high school more often. that's been shown. and when they go to college they don't -- they take less

remedial work so they show up to college more ready. and very often they can show up to college with as much as two years of college credits. well, that increases graduation rates from college. it reduces the cost of college. so, again, this is an optional program for schools. my amendment calls on dual enrollment and early high school colleges to use the high school -- the school principal recruitment and training program that's in the base bill and the stem programs in the base bills, use those dollars to train principals and to allow them to implement dual enrollment and early college in their high schools. and the same for stem. to allow for dual in stem early college programs. so kids will very often take a

course at the local technical college in some kind of stem-related field or at the university. and when i go to college affordability roundtables, the kids who've taken advantage of dual enrollment or early college programs have really have had a step up in being able to complete -- they get to college and they complete their college earlier and to do it with less cost and less debt at the end of it. so that's essentially what this is. it's optional. and it would just create effective strategies, allow schools and school districts to create effective strategies for reducing the cost of college, improving the quality of our high schools, getting kids ready for college and getting them on a path where they can

graduate with less debt. that's what it is. >> mr. chairman. >> yes. >> isn't this already allowed? i know a bunch of kids that are taking these kinds of classes in high school and in fact i know some that have been able to save almost two years of their college education by doing this during high school. so -- >> some do actually have enough to get an associates degree out of high school. >> yeah. >> and go to -- >> they can already do that. >> i'm sorry. >> they can already do that. >> yeah. >> what changes are we making with this amendment? >> this is actually using -- this allows schools to do that and to use existing funding -- to to plan these expand this program, in other words. so what we're doing is identify something that's successful and

writing into this bill the ability for schools to opt in to do it. so it's really -- and use existing funding programs, right? correct. >> i think -- >> if my staff says it's correct it's correct. >> you're right, schools can do this. what the senator is suggesting is we're going to expand the uses of both title 4, stem program, and title 2 money in the school recruitment and training program to add that as another use for this one. >> i apologize. i should have been clear in saying that. >> are we talking about the 5% turn-around schools? isn't that what we're talking about? >> we're talking about any school, right? yeah, we're talking about any school. any school in tennessee.

>> i can't understand from my staff and you what this does. it seems to me you can already do this. >> what it does is it allows funding streams that already exist to be used to do this. so in other words, if a school istrict wants to -- wants to create an early -- a dual enrollment or an early college program, they can use existing title 2 and title 4 money to do that. and they also can use a couple in he provisions that are this base bill, the school principal recruitment program and training program so that there's funding in here to recruit and train principals for -- you're right -- for high

needs schools. that's something that originally i wrote a while ago and that senator hatch co-sponsored at that point. which takes -- recruits candidates for principals and trains them, sometimes mentoring them of people who have already turned around a successful school and use that funding, say, the principal set up a dual enrollment program or early college program in their chool. i'm sorry if -- >> mr. chairman, we've discussed it here. if we are going to be a national school board, this is a fine thing to do. and the senator is right, dual enrollment is a good tactic. since it appears to be permissive, we don't have any objection to the amendment. >> again, i have the last word

-- [laughter] >> according to the rules set out by the chairman, but i want to say thank you. for that, for the ranking member. it's very gracious of you. >> without objection, any amendment -- > thank you. >> i apologize. we are trying to get people here to vote. in the meantime, we'll continue to move ahead. the next amendment belongs to senator scott. >> thank you very much. i've learned a lot from senator franken today. thank you, sir. >> can i ask what that is? >> yes, sir. couple things, later in the day it gets, please offer more amendments. i will try to have an amendment tonight by 8:00. i'm sure we will all be on the same page. i have a very simple amendment that i'm sure we'll all be very excited to support. simply does the following -- it allows the states -- not washington -- to define high

standards and tests for students in reading, math and science. good news is it maintains current law requirements that states have challenging academic standards and annual tests in reading, math and science. it simply prohibits it's secretary of defining or prescribing the standards of measures that states or school districts uses to establish or implement or improve their tandards in tests. that would be the end. >> mr. chairman. >> senator alexander. >> i congratulate the senator from south carolina. he's made the most succinct and persuasive argument today and ought to get some credit for that. basically recommended that we ntinue the law that requires states to adopt challenging standards and annual tests in

reading, math and science but prohibits washington from defining what that is and says to south carolina or tennessee or any other state that if you choose to adopt a set of standards, whether it's the common core or any other set of standards, that you're free to amend it, repeal it, improve it, strengthen it, weaken it, that's the state's decision, is that right? >> yes, sir. it uses the notion of a national school board, as you've said so consistently today, and provides the opportunity for greater flexibility, both from the state and the local levels with you i believe will create and improve better outcomes for the average student in america. >> and if i may continue, chairman, just ask senator scott. the chairman has said -- noted the number of states have

adopted these standards as a their' waivers and grandfathered in. the problem is states have been working together for 20, 30 years now to create some common standards. i know tennessee did that and other states did that. took a long time. they shared information, but they voluntarily did that. that's the way i understand that. but the difference is in race to the top they were encouraged -- well, they had to adopt those standards in order to compete for the money. then the waiver, they have to do that, and under this law they have to do it. so what you would was free states to make their own decisions about what their standards and tests would be which is the current law, not the new law. >> absolutely. here's how i would say it, senator. i've been in a number of partnerships in my lifetime. anytime you find yourself in a

partnership where your partner will put in 10%, 20% of the money and control 80%, it is bad. if you transfer that over to public education today, what we've seen over the last several years is a decline in the most critical aspects of education. so what this does, it restores flexibility, creativity, innovation and allows for that conversation that you had as a governor and as secretary of education to continue on a state-by-state basis so that the collaboration of the 50 states creates a higher standard. what i understand about the process that we're currently going through, it creates a ceiling so we have an opportunity to really dumb down some states and some states based on the curriculum that would be established through the incentives of receiving that 10% or 12% resources from the national partner that simply has way too much control. so this once again diffuses the

control from the national level, as you like to say, the national school board, provides for greater flexibility, greater opportunities on the state level. and i believe 50-state competition will create better results than the national board of education that you have articulated so well. >> mr. chairman -- >> senator isakson. >> mr. chairman, you were on the conference committee on no child left behind, right? you were on the conference committee of no child left behind? weren't you on the conference committee for no child left behind when we wrote it originally? >> you know, at that time i was chairman of the agriculture committee. i was more interested in getting a farm bill down. >> i know senator enzi -- >> i was not involved at that time. >> senator scott has made a tremendous amendment. i want to refresh everybody's memory. when we got to the end of no child left behind. it almost caved because there

was a group that wanted to mandate a singular test for performance nationwide and the national association of educational progress, did was the -- test, was the one that everybody tried to adopt. no child left behind almost cratered because a single mandate for a single test to be a factor. that's when we gave flexibility to the systems getting the test of their choice and the bill finally passed. all senator scott is trying to do is assure people in the educational systems around the country that we're not going to mandate a curriculum or mandate a -- going to let the states do it? >> yes, sir. >> have the state control of that. this is the type of amendment that will help us pass the re-authorization of esea whenever we get to that point. i know the chair and ranking member want to do that. this will be the type of amendment that will be a good closing amendment to pass the re-authorization of elementary, secondary education act and i

commend the senator for his work. >> don't think i was on that conference committee. like i said, i was chairman of another committee at that point in time. and i think that would have been -- >> senator kennedy. >> yeah. >> but you were very active on issues -- >> i've always been active on that one, sure. >> mr. chairman, i want to see if i'm correct here. -- let's say south carolina, has adopted the common core standards, which 45 states have -- >> 46, i think. >> plus the district of columbia -- >> right. >> adopted those standards and your bill passes and south

carolina wants to change those standards, it would have to get the secretary's approval first, is that correct? >> that's my understanding, yes. part of the coercive nature of the 10% partner that controls 80% of the decisions on a local level. you provide 12% of the funding and you have the ability to coerce the partner that owns 80% or 88% of the funding to do whatever it is they do to mandate and you have little flexibility. >> i think the procedure would be -- south carolina would -- or any other state, would have to submit an amended state plan. the secretary would peer review it and make a decision so the secretary would have to approve it. >> i understand a state could change it. all they would have to show what they were moving to would also provide for college and

career readiness, is that right? >> i think the conjunctions are important. >> i think also it still requires approval from the secretary as opposed to allowing the state to have that ultimate decision on changing the course or the pathway for the result of their system in the state as opposed to asking a bureaucrat and/or the secretary in washington to make those decisions on behalf of the kids in south carolina or tennessee or north carolina. >> as we said, 46 states, 45 plus the district of columbia have already adopted these standards. these common core standards. i suppose what the senator may be arguing is, well, let's say that we have a change in state government, in some state and

they don't like these rigorous standards they've set up and they want to weaken them and they want to continue to get -- i continue to say -- continue to get title 1 money even though they've agreed to a set of standards that they want and now they want to reduce them down and make them less, we're going to say that's fine, race to the bottom? now, we said -- i'm told and i thought states could change their standards just as long as they show to the secretary -- i will say, yes, the secretary has to sign off on it to show they are equivalent to or stronger in terms of making students career or college ready so they don't have to take remediation courses. that's the idea behind this, ok, so they don't have to take remediation courses. >> mr. chairman, i see it's well intended legislation, i'm certain. the question is the outcome of

the average student in the education system? in south carolina and other places around the nation that the actual performance of our kids are lagging further and further behind than the international standard, global standard. so at the end of the day when you're 14th, 27th in science, math -- reading, i think you have yourself a problem that is not going to get better under our current system. so we're looking for an alternative which may be a 50-state competition that provides for a better transformation or more transformation of our education system and provides better access to opportunities for students, both on the college track, as well as those folks who are going to go in high-tech manufacturing. -- who are going to go to work in high-tech manufacturing. >> well, i may stand corrected here -- >> if you vote for me, i appreciate it, sir. >> i may stand corrected that in fact they do not need secretary approval.

>> mr. chairman, my understanding would be, if the state of tennessee -- let me pick on our state -- if the state of tennessee which adopted the common core curriculum before the secretary ever included it in race to the top or anything else and help write the common core curriculum, if tennessee now if your bill passed and then in tennessee then wanted to change its standards, the common core curriculum, it would have to amend the state plan, send it to the secretary, he'd peer review it and he can approve it or disapprove it, is that not correct? >> i don't believe that's correct. i thought that was but i was wrong. it is not correct. that's where i stood corrected. again, i will read -- again, sometimes it's good to read the bill. >> yes, sir. [laughter] >> and here it is on section 1-a-2, aragraph alignment of career ready standards. each state plan shall demonstrate the state has

adopted college and career ready academic content standards and college and career ready student academic achievement standards aligned with, one, credit bearing academic course work without the need for remediation at public institutions of higher education in the state. and two, relevant state, career and technical education standards and the state performance measures identified in the state plan under section 113-b, carl b. perkins and career act, and, three, appropriate career skills or standards that are state developed and voluntarilyly adopted by a significant number of states. so if doesn't say that the secretary has to sign off. what they say is they have to have, as i read it, their public institutions would have to verify. assert or verify that they

don't need remediation. they would have to do that. the public institutes of higher education would have to say that the plan, whatever new plan they come up with, will not need remediation and that the relevant career and technical education standards and appropriate career -- that are state developed and voluntarily adopted by a significant number of states. i'm not sure what that understands. >> what that means is the common core. would you be willing to accept an amendment, under no such circumstances, if a state decides to change its standards, such as common core, which is what 45 have adopted, that under no circumstances does it require the secretary's approval or disapproval in order to do that? >> as long as we keep this language? >> well, why would you keep the language if it didn't require

the secretary's approval? >> add the paragraph and say the above doesn't require secretary approval. >> so the above is just a pretty good speech or a nice set of suggestions? >> no. it says that the public institutions have to certify that -- >> no, that's an option, i believe. >> either the public institution certifies it or you have to do the common core, basically. and the secretary has to approve one or the other, that's what it now says, i believe. and the way to clear it up would say under no circumstances if a state chooses to change its standards would the secretary -- we have standard boiler plate language like that, would the secretary may not disapprove or approve t. >> this is a simple one, by the way. >> ok. i will read -- again, read the bill.

here's the language. nothing in this section shall the nstrued to authorize secretary or officer or federal employee of the united states to mandate, direct or control a state's college or career ready academic content or student academic achievement standards under subsection a which is that long section i just read. >> mr. chairman, that's current law, but your bill says in a state makes significant changes to its plan, such as adopting new state academic content standards, new state student achievement standards, new academic assessments or improvement performance targets under subsection a the state shall submit a revised plan to the secretary. the secretary shall review the information and approve or disapprove changes to the state plan without undertaking the peer review or hearing process described in such paragraph. so the secretary must approve that revised plan, according --

if i'm reading this correctly - on page 89 of your bill. >> can we set this aside? >> of course. >> we'll set aside this amendment. we do have a voting quorum now and we'll vote on the pending amendments in the following order. senator hagan amendment, alexander, title 1, amendment. the franken dual -- and the scott title 1 amendment. that's -- is that the one -- that debate will continue on the scott amendment. so i'd like to -- then the first vote will be on the hagan amendment, title 1, amendment 1. is there any follow-up that you need on that, senator hagan?

>> go ahead and vote on it. >> all in favor of the hagan amendment say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. agan amendment is adopted. we'll move to vote on alexander title 1 which is a teacher evaluation and highly qualified teacher amendment. do you have any more to say about that? >> no, i've said plenty. >> would like a roll call on this. >> roll call vote has been -- is requested and the clerk will call the roll on the alexander itle 1 amendment number 3. >> senator murray. >> no. >> senator sanders. >> no by proxy. >> senator casey.

>> no. >> senator hagan. >> no. >> senator franken. >> no. >> senator bennet. >> no by proxy. >> senator whitehouse. >> no by proxy. >> no. >> senator murphy. >> no. >> senator warren. >> no. >> senator alexander. >> aye. >> senator enzi. >> aye. >> senator burg. >> no by proxy. >> senator isakson. >> aye. >> aye by proxy. >> senator hatch. >> aye by proxy. >> aye by proxy. >> aye by proxy. >> aye by proxy. senator scott. >> aye. >> chairman. >> no.

>> 10 ayes and 12 nays. >> 10 ayes and 12 nays. the amendment is not agreed to. the next was on the i had asked consent earlier, its adoption, there was no objection. however, i believe i was -- i shouldn't have done that because we didn't have a quorum present for voting. again, i will ask consent that the franken amendment on dual enrollment -- all those in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes have it. the franken amendment is adopted. >> that's all we have right now. >> that's all we have right now for voting. but we're still on the scott amendment. >> mr. chairman. >> i thank senators for being here. we'll continue with the scott amendment. and dispose of that and if senators can stay here, hopefully we can get through a couple, three more amendments

-- what time's our vote? we're supposed to have a vote at 4:00 but let's continue. yes, sir. >> just a point of clarification, once again. my very simple amendment allows the states to have greater flexibility and not washington. and as you said, reading the bill is important. page 89 of current legislation 23, the -- line 3 through reading in your bill, revised plans that the state makes significant changes to its plan, such as adopting new state academic content standards, new state student achievement standards, new academic assessments or improved performance targets under subsection a, the state shall submit a revised plan to the secretary. continuing, review of revised plans. the secretary shall review the information submitted under

clause i and may not, with standing paragraph 4, approve approve changes to the state plan without undertaking the peer review or a hearing process described in such paragraphs. so, once again, the simple endment provides the states, not washington, with the ability to to to define high standards and test for students in the areas of reading, math and science. so it's just a simple amendment. >> mr. chairman, it could be that your bill is entirely inconsistent or says two different things in two different places. we want to know if the state wants to change its standards, and most of them have the common course standards now, does it have to get the secretary's approval? senator scott just read the provisions on page 89 that ays, yes, it must.

it must get the secretary's approval. you read language that suggested it might not. so i guess we just need to know which it is. the whole point of senator scott's amendment is to say that states are free to adopt or change or amend or improve or strengthen or weaken their wn standards, their own tests. that was what senator isaacson said. that continues the law that was adopted 10 years ago in no child left behind. and that's the point of senator scott's amendment. what he just read. >> we can defer this a little while, while we talk about it. go onto something else if you'd like. >> i would just again, going through the language and the , let's be honest about this. at least as i see it. this is a direct attack on

common course standards. that's exactly what it is. >> yes, sir. >> thank you. >> absolutely. >> oh, there you go. >> we agree. >> now we know what it is. >> yes, sir. let me read it one more time. i apologize for my slow, southern drawl. that's exactly what it was. it prohibits the secretary from requiring or coercing states or local districts to adopt common standards and tests, including common course, to federal funding streams such as formula and competitive grants. so my objective is to give states the flexibility they would desire to create a 50-state competition. so it would strike page 89 of the bill, that you suggest that we read, the language that is provided herein. , so we can vote for it or against it, my only suggestion was that i would encourage my colleagues to vote for it, but if we do not want to vote for it, that's fine. i get the fact that when you're not in the majority, you typically lose these type of

votes. i'm ok with that. i just want to have the opportunity to fight for my cause. but if it loses, i will lick my wounds and go home for the next fight. >> i appreciate the senator's honesty. >> yes, sir. >> it's a direct attack on common course standards. >> sir, yes, sir. >> states have now adopted. and i will just -- the senator can have the last word, ass i've said before, on this amendment -- as i've said before, on this amendment. i pointed out that in the bill, in the construction language, nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the secretary or other officers, etc., to mandate, direct or control a state's college and career-ready academic content or student academic achievement standards under subsection a. ok. that's the answer to, i think, the school board idea. no, we can't -- [inaudible] but if a state submits that plan and they want to change it and say, lower their standards, if a state makes significant

changes to its plans such as adopting new state academic standards, new state achievement standards, new academic assessments, for improved performance targets, the state shall submit a revised plan to the secretary. the secretary shall review the information and may, notwithstanding paragraph four, approve or disapprove changes to the state plan without undertaking the peer review or hearing process described in such paragraph. so basically, we're saying, a state, you can do this, if you want to upgrade, that's fine. the secretary's not going to tell you what you got to do. again, that's just the idea of leaving maximum flexibility but setting certain performance standards that you have to meet . states have already stepped forward to do this. >> mr. chairman -- >> common course standards. >> mr. chairman, if i -- >> i just wanted to finish

that. that's what the difference is between the construction language i read and the language that senator alexander read. one is saying, secretary can't tell you exactly what to do but if you want to change them, you've got to submit the plan to the secretary. and he may or may not approve or disapprove these changes. , we're reading the same paragraph here. >> absolutely. >> and i think maybe we agree on what the paragraph says. i think what i heard you just say, that if a state of tennessee, one of 45 states which has the common course plan, wants to change it, actually if it wants to change its am deckic content standards, its new state student achievement standards, its academic assessments, that's fannie -- fancy for tests, or its improved performance targets, if it wanted to change any of those things it has to come back to the secretary for approval or disapproval.

that's our objection. that's our objection. because what happens then is that transfers that authority to here and the secretary, in the history of the last 10 years, has been well intended secretaries and their assistants have established, quote, parameters and said to the governor of tennessee, the governor of iowa, whatever, we think we know more than you do about standards, tests, academic assessments, performance targets and unless you agree with this, we won't approve your change for your plan. so if i go back to tennessee and someone says to me, did you vote for or against an amendment that denies tennessee the right to change its common course standards without the approval of the secretary of education in washington, i'm going to say, no, i voted against that amendment. because that's what the amendment's about. >> we only have eight minutes left to vote. >> yes, sir. >> we'll recess here.

we'll go vote and come right back and hopefully -- what? well, i meant vote for the scott amendment and against the idea that -- i voted against the secretary approving the plan. >> i can say just like what we did in iowa. the secretary was right to disapprove what i was trying to do. i say that forthrightly. because they weren't setting up a teacher evaluation system. the secretary had every right to disapprove iowa's plan because they weren't meeting the requirements for teacher evaluation. so we can discuss this, we can continue to debate it. senator scott, do you have any more to say? >> just a very short close, if i might. two things, number one, i believe that we are consistently on the same page as what it is i am trying to accomplish. which is flexibility away from common course, if the state so desires. if folks want to support that, then they can support the amendment. if they do not then they don't have to support the amendment but at the end of the kay, that is exactly the on -- day, that

is exactly the objective. >> you want to vote? yes. clerk will call the roll on the scott amendment. >> yes. >> no by proxy. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no by proxy. >> no by proxy. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye by proxy. >> aye by proxy. >> aye by proxy.

>> aye. >> aye by proxy. >> aye by proxy. >> aye by proxy. >> aye. >> no. 10 ayes, 12 anyways. >> 10 ayes and 12 anyways. the amendment is not -- nays. amendment no s not agreed. to thank you, senator. we got to go vote and we'll come back as soon as possible so we can continue on. we're making good progress. thank you all very much. we'll just recess for this vote. we'll be right back. >> i have a little meeting off the floor. i'd like to go to after the vote. if i'm a little late, can lindsay take my place for a few minutes? >> sure. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> members of the senate education committee are heading to the senate floor for a vote. later this afternoon, the committee will continue reviewing amendments to the legislation that would replace

the 2001 no child left behind law. currently 37 states have a waiver from the government to operate outside the law. which ties federal fund to school performance. when members of the committee return from the vote, our coverage will continue at c-span.org. here on c-span, we'll be going live to the house, expected back in at 5:00 eastern to debate a handful of bills. until then, we'll watch this morning's session of the education markup.

>> can we get more chairs for the back, for people in the back? i don't know who's in charge of hairs. there is an overflow room i'm told in 428. our normal committee room. that's being telecast upstairs. so if people want to sit down, they can go to 428 and watch the session. we're here today to consider a critically important piece of

legislation, 16rbings1094. we'll take the time we need to give members of the opportunities to share their ideas and express their concerns but we're also going to try to move through the process, as there's a lot going on in the united states senate right now and members have many demands on their team. need i add that the immigration little will be coming up. this has been a very smooth process so far. i appreciate everyone's continued cooperation as we move forward. my hope is that if senators can commit to being here so we can maintain a quorum, we can proceed through amendments in time to wrap up work on the legislation, hopefully tomorrow. and i understand that senator alexander believes that this could be feasible also. in the interest of time, we will limit opening statements to the chairman and ranking member. other senators who are interested in submitting opening remarks can include their remarks in the record. now, for planning purpose, members should be aware that we'll move through the legislation title by title, starting with title one and so on, giving members the opportunity to offer amendments

on each amendment in order. if there are amendments that touch multiple titles, that amendments can be offered in conjunction with any of the titles they amend. i know that ranking member alexander has a complete subsidy amendment and that will be what we consider first, since obviously it covers all the titles. i know we have votes scheduled today at 2:15 and 4:00. so we'll plow through as many amendments as we can before we break for lunch. hopefully we can keep going until about 1:00. then we'll reconvene after the 2:15 vote, get through as much as we can, break for the 4:00 vote, and then reconvene after that vote. for the convenience of members and also for the sake of expediency, we might debate several amendments at a time, then stack the votes at a time when most of the committee is present. of course we'll do that with agreement on both sides, if we have an greemed to do that -- an agreement to do that. in particular, i understand -- >> no, i'm fine. >> well, then, i won't say

that. anyway in terms of doing several amendments and stacking the votes, that will be done with mutual agreement on both sides. we'll try to get people as much advanced heads up as possible about the process as we move along and those are just the logistics i wanted to mention. now we'll turn to the substance of our discussion. i will start with an opening statement and then recognize senator alexander. so again today, we're marking up a bill to re-authorize elementary and secondary education act, esca. the last re-authorization of this bill expired in 2010. with this markup we have the opportunity to improve on the lessons of the past and ensure a brighter future for our children and the nation. what i think we all recognize is that it's time to update the law to ensure that every child in this nation receives a great education. this is a matter of basic fairness, it's critical to america's economic strength and to the general enlightenment of our society for future growth.

i want to speak briefly about the federal rule on education, since esca and large measure determines that role. while it is certainly true that education has been primarily a state and local function, the federal government also plays an important role and a well-educated citizenry is clearly in the national interest. the essential role of the federal government is to ensure that all americans, regardless of race, gender, national origin, religion and disability, have the same equal opportunity to a good education. likewise, the constitution expressly states that our national government was formed to, quote, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty. the general welfare is greatly endangered when the populous is not adequately educated and education, i believe, is critical to liberty. the role of the federal government in education has been primarily about equity and exs -- excess -- access. access to the school house itself and equity in

educational opportunities. the two most significant educational laws in the country, esca and the individuals with disabilities education act, or ieda, both promote access and equity. idea seeks to ensure students with disabilities can get into school and that they can have the appropriate education to meet their needs. and esca seeks to ensure that schools serving children with the greatest needs have equal resources to address those needs so that all students have the opportunity to achieve. but clearly we have yet to fully achieve those goals. the aim of the bill before us today is to do everything we can to make this vision a reality. the elementary and secondary education act was first passed in 1965 to provide aid to states and school districts to improve education for children from low-income families. for almost 50 years the federal

government has trained its focus on the mission that all children should have the chance to fulfill their full potential. our challenge today is to build on this remarkable records of partnership among federal, state and local governments. by redesigning the no child left behind act for the new era , retaining the commitment to educating all children to high standards while overhauling elements of the law that have proven ineffective. the no child left behind act represented a departure from previous re-authorizations of esca. lawmakers felt compelled to be more prescriptive with states to ensure that they improve their low-performing schools and focus on closing pernicious student achievement gaps. nclb defined adequate yearly progress for schools and districts that required districts to put aside money to implement public school choice and tutoring in schools identified for improvement.

it included a list of rigorous interventions for low-performing schools. and an additional category of restructuring for the most chronically low-performing schools with even more severe sequence consequences. -- severe consequences. it reflected good intentions. however, as week of seen over the course of the past 12 years, those good intentions did not always translate to good policy on the ground. now, the secretary of cationd has given schools -- of education has given schools a reprieve of these requirements through a flexibility requirement. while this reflects a positive change for the time being, it is no subs tight for -- substitute for a new, permanent law. the bill we're marking up today follows a different course than nclb and one similar to the flexibility agreements instituted by the u.s. department of education. what we're asking for is a system of shared responsibility with states and local school

districts. i believe that we are entering an era in which the federal government can work in partnership with states to improve our nation's schools while continuing to provide a backstop to avoid returning to old ways in which certain groups of students did not have access or opportunity. our bill does get rid of a.y.p. but sets federal parameters for state and locally designed accountability systems. our bill also asks states to put greater emphasis on the learning of children in early years because we know that so many of our children, particularly children from low-income families, have gaps in learning before they even enter the school door. our bill strategically consolidates programs and focuses grant funds on a smaller number of programs to allow for greater flexibility. it supports districts in extending the school day and year, strengthening their

literacy, science, math or technology programs, fostering safe and healthy students and offering a more well-rounded curriculum that includes the arts and physical education. the bill invests in effective programs to train and support principals and teachers from high-need schools. it fosterers innovation through new programs like race to the top, investing in innovation and promise neighborhoods. and we recognize the central role of parents in this bill. we make sure they are integral partners in their children's education. providing parents with critical information so they can make decisions about their children's education, i believe that empowers families. our addition of an equity report card, an equity report card, that allows parents to see what resources are available to a school and what educational opportunities, such

as advanced placement courses, and full-day kindergarten, that chir children have access to. i believe this allows them to make informed decisions about their children's education. so a very strong emphasis on keeping parents informed of what resources are available. i believe this is a good bill, i am proud of our efforts, we owe to to our kids in our nation to produce a law that provides states and districts with certainty, support and resources they need to make meaningful strides in improving our schools, ensuring access to high-quality education and guaranteeing opportunities for all of our children. i will now turn to our committee's ranking member, senator alexander, for his opening statement. >> [inaudible] it is. ok. thank, mr. chairman. as the chairman said, i would

like to start with a record of process. first, my thanks to him for the way we're proceeding. i think we've shone that even though we deal -- shown that even though we deal with some pretty big issues, and we have differences on this committee, that we can work together and sometimes we agree fundamentaly at the beginning. for example, on finding a way to track and trace four billion prescriptions every year on dealing with kblet and compounding pharmacies on mental health. already this year we've approved bills and we've agreed on them. here we have a disagreement at the beginning anyway. but the chairman and i have agreed on a way to proceed because if we can't agree auto the ath -- agree at the beginning, maybe we can agree at the end of the process. what our goal today is to move forward with competing proposals, having good amendments, good discussions, move the bill to the floor in whatever form it comes out of committee, if we can then bring it up on the floor and have the same kind of debate with

amendments, i would be in favor of moving ahead to see what kind of bill we can get there. the house of representatives is moving ahead at the same time with its version, maybe different than what dumb comes out of here, but we have a procedure called conference, the idea is to throw both ideas into a conference and then at the end we can make a final decision and see whether we agree. i hope we follow that because i agree with the chairman, it's time for us to do our job and re-authorize no child left behind. we're six years late. i thank him for this process. second, if i could just mention, particularly my republican colleagues, how amendments will work, as the chairman said, we'll go through the titles. we've given him a suggested list of the first 10 amendments that we like to offer. and to go quickly over those, i'll offer a substitute at first. that will be the first republican amendment. the amendments will alternate back and forth. that will take a little time. as i understand it from the

chairman, any senator's free to talk on any amendments although we'd like to move on ahead as expeditiously as possible. i would encourage our colleagues to be involved in more than just the amendment they offer. senator inslee has the second republican amendment on state and local control. then i have one on teacher evaluation, then i have one on title two funds following the child to public schools. senator scott has one on standards and tests, senator bureau on flexibility, senator paul on title one money following children to public and private schools. flexible standards and tests, senator isaacson, isaacson on burdensome reporting requirements, and senator roberts on the secretary's waiver authority. so that's the order in which we'll start. there could be other amendments after that. does that sound correct, mr. chairman? thankings. that's what we'll do.

if you have to leave or come back, we'll work around that and try to make time to suit your schedules. mr. chairman, over the last decade, the united states department of education has become so congested with federal mandates that it has become in effect a national school board. if you remember the childhood game, mother may i, then you have a pretty good sense of how the process works today. states must come to washington for approval of their plans toadcation 50 million children -- to educate 50 million children in 100,000 public schools. during this discussion, you'll hear me mention those 100,000 public schools many times. because every time we make a rule here in our wisdom, it affects 50 million children in 100,000 public schools. it takes a lot of wisdom to be able to justify that. the congestion of mandates that i mentioned is caused by three things. one, no child left behind. two, race to the top, and

three, the administration's use of waivers. first, no child left behind imposed federal standards for what children had to know in reading and math as well as federal definitions for whether schools or teachers were succeeding or failing. second, race to the top, which was a competitive grant program, but the secretary used it to essentially mandate that 46 states that applied, along with the district of columbia, adopt common course standards and tests for their students in reading and math. it also mandated four turnaround nod moddles for failing schools and predictive teacher plans. and then third, congress' failure, our failure to fix the problems with no child left behind, and to restrain the secretary has allowed this administration to turn its waiver authority, where states are supposed to ask relief from unworkable requirements in the law, into a conditional process where the secretary tells states what they have to do to

obtain that relief. a waiver states have had to adopt common course standards and measures for studentses' performance in reading and math. federal definitions of how states should perform and teacher and principal evaluation systems. so far 47 states, plus the district of columbia, have applied for these waivers, mostly because no child left behind requirements have become so unworkable that the secretary literally has had states over a barrel. so you've had mandates from no child left behind, you've had the affect of mandates from race to the top and then 47 states are over a barrel and they applied for waivers and they received a number of mandates. so senate democrats have offered 1,150-page plan which is before us here that would not only freeze these mandates in place, but double down, creating more than 25 new programs as well as more than 150 new reporting requirements for which states and local school districts must secure

approval from the secretary of education. republicans propose to move in a different direction. we offer 220-page plan, here's our plan. to help children in public schools learn what they need to know and be able to do by restoring responsibility to states and communities and giving teachers and parents freedom, flexibility and choice. we call it every child ready for college or career. our plan emphasizes state and local decision making. it puts washington out of the business of deciding whether local schools are succeeding or failing. freeing all schools from meeting the adequate yearly progress mandate. it rejects the federal mandates that create a national school board. prohibiting the education secretary from pry be states or accountable systems for states. it continues the requirement that states have high standards and quality tests, you but doesn't proscribe those from washington. our proposal makes it easier for states to offer low-income

parents more choice in finding the right public school for their child. it gives teachers and principals more freedom by encouraging the expansion and reply cavings successful charter schools. it encourages states to create teacher and principal evaluation programs, free of federal mandates. it offers states more flexibility and spending federal education dollars while cutting waste by consolidating 62 federal programs into two block grants. this is not a proposal just for republicans. we believe this proposal represents the views and will attract the support of governors leading the charge for education reform, teachers who value the freedom to teach, parents who want more choices for their children and state legislators who are working for better schools. our proposal builds on 30 years of work by governors, legislators, school boards, teachers and parents, especially over the last decade. states and have worked to raise their standards, parents and communities have more information than ever before

about how their sturents are performing thanks to reporting requirements in no child left behind. the democratic proposal is a mother, may i proposal. it establishes in effect a national school board. what that proposal really says is they don't trust parents, they don't trust classroom teachers and states to care about and help education their children and they want someone in washington to do it for them. we completely reject that. our proposal places responsibility for helping our children learn squarely where it ought to be. on states and communities and it does that by giving teachers and parents more freedom, flexibility and choices. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator alexander. , i said, we will proceed i've agreed to let senator alexander offer the first amendment and then i will have an amendment and i would say

that, just for heads up, what my amendment does is it would clarify, clarify that this is not a mandate. i keep hearing about mandates. no state has to do one thing. we say in this bill. as long as they don't want to take any title one money. if they don't want to take title one money, they don't have to do one single thing in here. so states can opt out. any state can opt out. and that's their prerogative. so that's not a mandate. a mandate would be where we say, you have to do this, no matter what. we're just saying that in our bill, we set up these programs, -- parameters, if you take title one money, those of white house are here as senators -- of us who are here as senators, arounders to of what happens to taxpayer dollars. not state taxpayer dollars. that's for the state legislatures to handle that. but our federal taxpayers' dollars that go out for title

one and other programs, we're focused here mostly on title one, idea, it would seem to me that we have an obligation to say how those dollars should be used. i suppose some believe that we should just collect all that money and just block grant it back to the states. that's a philosophical view that some people might have. that's all right. but i think most realize we have an obligation to be good stewards of federal taxpayers' dollars and say, if you're going to put the money out, we just don't want to discriminate any longer and we want to make sure that kids with disabilities and poor kids have equal opportunity. equity. so, that will be my first amendment and that will follow after senator alexander's. i know senator alexander has a substitute and we will turn to that at this time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to call up alexander amendment one to title one. >> without objection, we'll call up senator alexander's and

other amendments. >> i call up how succinct this is compared to the 1,100-page proposal from the chairman. while we'll be emphasizing our differences a lot in this discussion, let me point out some things we do agree on. both senator harkin's bill and this substitute set a new goal. the words are important. college and career are the words used in the bigger bill. in our bill, we say, college or career. because only 70% of high school graduates go to college. and we want to recognize the importance of those who go straight to careers. two, both bills reaffirm the requirement for states to set high standards aligned to the goal i just mentioned. both bills continue testing students in states three through eight. these are state tests, in reading and math and once in

high school, reporting the results of those tests for each student subgroup. so that's common to both bills. both bills establish a new secretary's report card, reporting on our national progress. senator harkin and i discussed that. he included it in his bill. we've included it in ours. in other words, a sort of consumer report. that seems to me to be a very appropriate role for the secretary rather than mandates. it encourages the expansion of high-quality charter schools. a number of us on both sides of the aisle agree with that. and the democratic bill also includes the centers of excellence head start program which i had recommended a few years ago, and which already is law, as a way of getting the need to expand and make more efficient federal funding for early childhood education. so those are similarities between this bill and this substitute. the big differences are the following. and there are six. one is performance targets and

school accountability. now, both bills replace the adequate yearly progress provision that was in no child left behind. that's a provision whereby the federal government sets up a system of performance to judge whether schools are succeeding or failing. where state does it subject to the federal government's approval. the democratic bill, in our view, replaces adequate yearly progress with another form of adequate yearly progress which is called performance targets subject to the secretary's approval. our substitute gives states control over their own accountability systems. number two, school turnaround requirements. the larger bill requires that districts intervene in roughly 20,000 schools. using federally defined turnaround strategies in all 5,000 of those. our bill does not. number three, highly qualified teachers.

the larger bill continues the federal definition of what a good teacher is. requiring that all new teachers meet the federal definition. our bill eliminates this requirement. number four, teacher evaluation. i've got a long history in this and we can talk about it and we will, later, with an amendment. our state became the first tate 0 years ago to pass a law paying teachers more for teaching well. and it required a year and a half brawl with the national education association and it worked pretty well for several years. senator harkin's bill requires districts to develop teacher evaluation systems subject to the secretary's approval. our bill encourages teacher evaluation systems by allowing states to use title two money, which we all seem to agree isn't well spent right now, on those systems, but states define what they mean by teacher evaluation. my own view of that is it's

much too complicated. let me speak of tennessee. the last thing we need in tennessee is someone in washington looking over our shoulder after we've spent 30 years trying to develop a system of teacher performance evaluation, and making some pretty good progress on it. number five, i know senator bennett cares a lot about this, it's called exrabblet. it sounds very on use it. i guess it is -- obtuse. i guess it is. but basically title one money, which is a lot of money, it's $14.5 billion, about $1,300 per low-income child, is supposed to benefit the low-income children in the schools they attend. but because of a formula that has developed over the years, it ends up in the wrong place lots of times. or in schools that don't benefit those children so much. to put it most simply, it's because -- it's a performance

that puts a high value on the amount of teachers make in the wealthier schools. i think we agree on that. but our suggestion for solving the problem is a pretty simple one. it says, just let the $14.5 to each low directly -- to the school that each poor child attends. that's $1,300 to the school the child attends, that's the public school. the senator paul late harris an amendment which i support which would include -- later has an amendment which i support that would include any school, public or private, but in this substitute we're only talking about public dollars and we hope you'll consider that. finally, the democratic bill includes at least 27 new programs. our bill consolidates 62 existing programs to provide states and districts in their use of federal funds. if i may just take one more minute. this is the substitute bill. want to talk about -- that

there's a little history. a little history here. on what states have been doing. i've been around long enough, probably shouldn't say, to participate in much of it. when we say restore to states their responsibilities, what we're talking about is looking at states that have been enormously active over the last number of years in improving test standards and accountability. with a started in 1983 nation at risk. that was a federal report. i require he was governor at the time and all the governors, governor clinton, governor riley, many others, bob graham, all working together to try to take advantage of that, make our schools better. that led to a whole series of actions, 1985, governor clinton and i were head of the governor's association. we devoted the whole year to

higher standards and better schools. and president bush, first president bush, held a conference of governors in 1989 and set some national goals and all through the 1990's, governors and chief state school officers worked to create higher standards and better tests and accountability systems that were tailored to the needs of the students. and they worked together to do that and came up with common standards which all but five states have adopted. they did that without the federal government making them do it or telling them to do it. what has happened since then has been that the combination of no child left behind, then race to the top, and then the waivers have in effect imposed those standards on states and made it not possible

for them to change it in a practical way. so, that's what has happened in history. and what we're trying to do is free the states to take this 30 years of work and move in the next five years, during the re-authorization of this act, to help children in 100,000 schools meet their needs in their individual and particular ways. they have the benefit of this work. states have done to work together. but the state of tennessee should be free and senator scott's amendment will talk about this. if it doesn't like the common standards, to change them. or amend them. in some other way. or to adopt them or improve them or make standards higher or make standards lower. senator harkin mentioned, this that e my last comment, states could take or leave the money. well, i don't think that's a realistic proposal. i mean, what if republicans

were in charge of congress and i said, i really do think that we ought to take all the federal dollars that are spent, which are 10% of the funding, and use that to require states to take every single bit of their money, all their money, the 90% they spend, 10% we spend, and turn it into vouchers and let it follow children to the school of their choice? that used to be a big idea on the left. i remember when ted sizer was 1960's. in the he proposed a poor children's bill of rights that did just that. took all the education money and just gave it to the poor families and took it to the schools. i wouldn't do that. because even though i'm for that, i don't think the federal government should be able to mandate that. and recently the supreme court addressed that. when it held a health care law constitutional. chief justice roberts said,

i'll see if i can find exactly justice here, chief -- thank you. a year ago chief justice roberts explained in the decision, upholding the health care law, that ruling that the requirement of medicaid expansion amounted to a gun to the head of states across the line between encouragement and could ergs, the chief justice said, quote, the threat and loss of over 10% of a state's overall budget is economic dragooning that leaves a state with no real option but to acquiesce in the medicaid

expansion. well, it's convenient that the 10% figure was used in the supreme court case because that's about the amount of money that the federal government spends on k through 12. and it seems to me exactly analogous that if we were to say that we could say just because we provide 10% of the money we can make states do anything, that that would be economic dragooning in violation of the 10th amendment. so, mr. chairman, i offer this substitute of 220 pages respectfully to the 1,100-plus-page bill offered by the majority. and i ask for its consideration. >> thank you very much, senator alexander. we'll begin discussion on the substitute. i don't mean to cut anybody off. we'll recognize people as they -- if they want to be recognized, trying to go back and forth on this.

it the -- is the type the same size on this as it is on -- [laughter] >> actually, i think it's pretty close. >> i was just kidding. >> i know you are. i think my friend has correctly summer rised that -- summarized that there is a philosophical difference. obviously there is here. on this. although i think -- i would respond to some of his comments by just saying that it's sorts of a philosophical difference. should we just say to states, go it on your own? whatever you want to do, just go it on your own. or are we going to set up a partnership with the states? and that's what this bill is -- what we have designed to do, is september insurgent up a partnership with states and local governments. -- to set up a partnership with states and local governments. people ask, what's the greatest health care crisis in america?

and i've come to believe it's not what most people think. the greatest health care crisis in america is something called amnesia. e forget what went before. as far as i'm concerned, what the substitute does is basically takes us even way back before no child left . hind again, we all have those parts in our past that got us thinking one way or the other about certain parts of our society. i think what was seminal for me in terms of thinking about education was savage inequalities. when i read that book. i got to thinking about the disparity between what happens with low-income families, kids of color, kids with disabilities in terms of their access and inequity in education. we've been struggling for a

long time to try to address those issues. go back to the 1980's, sure, 1990's, no child left behind. now as we do this, obviously sometimes society changes. and we begin to see different ways of doing things. and i think armed now with what knowledge we have of the past, i think the proper way forward is through a partnership. again, mandates, senator alexander talks about performance targets. well, i would point out that 37 states have already adopted performance targets. we're doing nothing -- we're not saying you can't do that. we're saying, fine. adopt those performance targets and then we're saying to the other state, you adopt performance targets. we didn't say exactly what they were. we're just saying, adopt performance targets. you need some performance

target by which you can judge your progress. 37 states have already done that on their own. and we've sort of blessed that. 37 states are doing turnaround models. we don't disrupt that. we're saying, fine. and we'll join with you in helping you with those turnaround models. we're just saying to other states, set up turnaround models. 37 states have adopted teacher evaluations. we don't disrupt that. you have your evaluation system, fine. we're just saying, we'll join with you. and support that. and we're asking the other states, set up teacher evaluation systems. so, again, i think what this bill does is it just really recognizes the reality that exists out there. and again, tries to make the a eral government a partner,

partner. i think the hard truth is that we can't -- what we can't ignore is that the federal government is in the education space it's in today. as i said about amnesia. because states and districts have repeatedly and over a long period of time consistently failed low-income children in this country. if someone has evidence to the contrary of that, please bring it forward. if we had an education system that was successful for every child and every child was treated and accommodations were made for children with disabilities or low-income kids, fine. but that's not the reality that we face. that's not the reality facing kids today. they want the same chance to succeed. i don't think we should abandon them. and the exrabblet -- extraability, we'll get into

that. more money goes to more afluent schools and less money goes to less afluent schools. what sense does that make? simply because of a loophole. well, this bill addresses that. so again, i recognize that there is a philosophical difference. but i want to make it clear, once again, this is not the heavy hand of the federal government telling you exactly what you've got to do. we recognize that what has happened with states coming forward, with the common course standards, the 37 states stepping into the breach and doing good things, we're saying, let's be a partner. let's be a partner. let's work together to make sure we have access and equity r our kids, that are

disadvantaged. that's really the essence of the federal role in education -- elementary and secondary education. anyone else seeking recognition? is my mike -- hard to tell if it's working or not. >> i think it is. >> i think maybe now it is. yeah, ok. this bill has grown from what i orked on last time and thought that it should have gone the other direction, but we kind of had a compromise last time that we thought maybe we could get fixed on the floor. but i have some difficulties with the bill that i think the alexander version has fixed. one of the areas is the annual performance targets, that's much like in no child left

behind, and it's added gapping for minorities and childrens with disabilities which means that it sets different targets for proficiency for those minorities and children with cognizant disabilities. the states are given three options, one, they can accept the current waiver and we'll have some commentses about the waiver system a little bit later, or they can strive to get all schools up to the level of the highest achieving schools. that's a.y.p. on steroids. or they can submit another equally ambitious plan to the secretary for approval. that's a pretty high bar that we're requiring for our 10% of the money. the gaps that we're required to do. but one of the problems that we have is with the teacher and principal provisions. because the states will be required to move good teachers throughout the district, to low-performing schools, as well as moving low-performing

teachers to higher-performing districts. i'm not sure how that goes over with the teachers. many of thch them buy a house, locate it near where they're going to teach. and they don't anticipate they're going to have to sell their house or take on another one-hour commute as we move people to other areas. when we talked about the comparability before, we talked about gathering the data to see how well they compared but we didn't impose anything at that time on exactly how it would be used. now, i anticipate that somehow we'd have to either increase the pay to the lower-performing ones, providing they became better performing, but i don't think we anticipated moving the teachers unless we gave them an economic incentive to move. which meant paying the higher performing teachers considerabley better, to be willing to commute. the turn jrn and models, -- the

turnaround model, we've always had difficulty with that, particularly those of us in the rural states. we still have schools in wyoming that are one-room schools, where one teacher teaches several grades. and that teacher might be the principal, she's probably under a principal who handles four or five different schools. so if one of those schools doesn't perform, you have to fire the principal because he's been there for two years, how do you get another principal that's willing to be a circuit rider like that? you have to fire 35% of the teachers and it's a one-room school? 35% of the teachers is pretty hard to get rid of. so there's some difficulties with the turn jrn and models and -- turnaround models and i think that the states can, if the biggest thing that no child left behind did was disaggregate the information, that's the first time that parents got to see how their child in their economic or social group were doing.

and it was so disturbing that there were some lawsuits that came out of that and some corrections were made. that's an extremely important part of the bill. now, one of the things that we've done with this bill, though, the bigger bill, is to add a whole bunch more data reporting. there are 80 new data reporting requirements and then it requires that those 80 be reported by major subgroups as well and then it requires that there be further cross-tabulating and that could lead to almost 500 new data reporting requirements and calculations. now, this one-room school teacher is the one that's going to have to collect all that at the bottom and pass it on up the line. and i think that's a pretty big burden to put on the teachers. they're already complaining about how much testing they're going to have to do and now they're complaining about how much reporting they're going to have to do. those are a few of the areas that this bill i think is overreached in. i think we ought to have a

little bit of confidence in the states and their capabilities and their state school operation and the pressure that's put on for parents and legislators and let them have a little bit of flexibility. i really like the disaggregating, i think that made a difference, but i don't want to make it so complicated that we wind up with data that doesn't make any difference. my first year in the senate, i had a school principal in wyoming who wanted to come back and intern for a semester because he'd been filling out federal reports already. and he wanted to know what happened to them. it was free. i had to come back to washington to spend a semester and he spent it all down at the department of education and when the semester was over, he came back and reported to me and said, you know, every single report that i have sent in, and everybody else's report, is scrutinized in detail. they have a huge staff that

does that. and they make sure that it's filled out completely, that it's filled out correctly, if it's incorrect or incomplete, they send it back, they make them redo it, they get it back, they check it again and when they're done with it, they file it. and nobody looks at it again. so, a lot of worthless reporting is done to the federal government in order to get the 10% of the money that we provide for them. and one of the things that may happen with this bill is there may be states that will say, that's a lot more work than 10% deserves. and we're going to be spending more than 10% of our money just getting data for you. and consequently they might turn down the 10%. i don't think that's our goal either, though. i think our goal is to get the schools to be better and i think there's a better way to do it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator enzi. i just want to recognize senator bennett.

go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank you and the ranking member for all the work that both of you have done. and just express my hope that at some point we're going to be able to come together on a bipartisan effort to actually fix this legislation. as you mentioned, mr. chairman, or maybe the ranking member said this, we're six years overdue in terms of a re-authorization here. and i just want to talk for a second about why i think this is so important. to find a way to bridge this so-called philosophical difference here. because i share a lot of the views with the ranking member on the question of compliance. having been a school superintendent, i've seen how much time and effort is put into compliance with rules from the federal government. by the time they make it to a school and a classroom, it really doesn't make sense to the people who are in that school and classroom. importantly the teacher. most