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

there is funds to be able to help content -- compensate if teachers want to move and have a more equitable distribution of good teachers. i agree with senator alexander, it is tough to define a good teacher. is it based just upon grades? i do not think so. like i cannot define 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 it's sort of like, you know, i

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 and not punishment. we focused the t.i.f. grants in ensuring that the most effective educators are teaching 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. so i think we again in the underlying bill basically tried to do a decent balance and tried respect those states that have already gotten their waivers by grandfathering them in. so i would respectfully oppose

the amendment. >> mr. chairman, 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 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 of 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. i 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, by governors such as i, by a 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. i 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.

the's the essence of 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. or, what is a best practice? 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 destin 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 enrollment 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. tomakes it harder for them 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 streams to plan these -- to 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 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

district 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 of the provisions that are in this base bill, the school principal recruitment program and training program so that 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 school. 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. amendmentery simple 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 standards 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 continue 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 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 that the number of states have adopted these standards as a result of waivers and their' 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 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? conference on the 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. under your bill -- 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 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 1111 subparagraph 1-a-2, 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 it. >> 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 be construed to authorize the 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. hagan 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 title 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 franken dual enrollment. i had asked consent earlier the adoption. there was no objection.

we did not have a quorum present for voting. again, i will ask consent that the franken amendment on dual enrollment. all those in favor say aye. the ayes have it. the frankin amendment is adopted. that is all we have right now for voting. we're still on the spot amendment. >> i would like to think the senators for being here. we will continue with this got the amendment and dispose of that. hopefully we can get through her three more amendments. what time is the vote? boate supposed to have a up for col. let's continue with scott. clarification on my simple of the met. isyou said, reading the bill important. line 3-23gislation

reading the revised bill that the state make sycophant changes to the plan. news state steel deck -- student achievement standards. new academic assessments or improved targets. continuing, review of revised plans. the secretary shall review the information submitted under not approve ory disapprove changes to the state plan without undertaking the peer review or hearing process described in such paragraphs. -- the simple of amendment provides that states, not washington, have the ability to define high standards and

tests for students in the area of reading, math, and science. just a simple amendment. could be your bill is internally inconsistent forces to different things in two different places. i guess what we note -- one to know is that if the state wants to change standards, it doesn't have to get the secretary approval? senator scott just read the provisions on page 89 that says it must. does not have to have peer review, but it must get the secretary approval. you read some language that suggested it might not. we need to know which it is /pirite . this is what senator isaacson

said was, that continues the law that was adopted 10 years ago and no child left behind. that is the point of the amendment. what he just read. can defer this a little while while we talk about it. go on to something else if you look like. i would just, again, let's be honest about this. this is a direct attack on a common core standards. that is exactly what it is. >> yes, sir. >> now we know what it is. it one more time. i apologize for my slow, southern drawl. it prohibits the secretary from requiring or chorusing states or

local districts to adopt common standards and tests through federal funding streams such as formula and competitive grant. give states is to the flexibility they would desire to create a competition. language that is provided herein. can go forward or against it. my only suggestion was to both the colleagues to vote forward, but if we do not want to, that is fine. i wanted to have the opportunity to decide. i will lick my wounds and go home for the next fight. >> i appreciate the senators honesty that it is a direct attack on a common core standards that states have now adopted. the senator can have the last word as i have said before on

this amendment. i pointed out in this bill there is nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the secretary to mandate or control a state college or career academic content or student academic achievement standards for subsection 8. that is the answer to the school board idea. state submit the plan and they want to change it , if ther the standards state makes significant changes to the plan such as adopting new academic standards, new achievement standards, a new academic assessments or improve performance targets, the state shall submit a revised plan to the secretary. the secretary shall review the information and may, notwithstanding paragraph 4, approve or disapprove changes to the state plan without

undertaking the peer review or process described in such paragraph. isically, what we're saying states you can do this. if you want to upgrade, that is fine. the secretary will not tell you what you have to do. that is the idea of leaving maximum of flexibility but setting certain performance standards that you have to meet. states have already stepped forward to do this. --mr. chairman, >> that is the difference between the construction language in the language senator alexander read. one says the secretary couldn't tell you what to do but if you want to change them, you up to submit the plan and he may or may not approve the changes. chairman, we're reading the same paragraph here.

and i think maybe we agree on what the paragraph say -- says. i think what i heard to say is that the state of tennessee wants to change it, -- actually, if it wants to change its academic content standards, student achievement standards, academic assessment, or the improved performance targets, if it wants to change any of those things, it has to come back to the secretary for approval or disapproval. that is the objection. because what happens then is that transfers that authority to hear a and the secretary in the history of the past 10 years through democratic administrations, well-intended secretaries have established parameters and have said to the governor of tennessee and the whateverof iowa or

has said we know more than you do, and the less you agree with this, we will not approve your change for the 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 core standard without the approval of the secretary of the education and washington, i will say i voted against that because that is what the amendment is about. >> you only have eight minutes left to vote. vote for this got the amendment and against the idea -- i voted against the secretary approving the plan. >> the secretary was right to disapprove what i was trying to do. there were not setting up the teacher evaluation system. the secretary had every right to

disapprove the plan because they were not meeting the requirements for teacher evaluation. we can discuss this, continue to debate it. >> a very short close it by might. number one, i believe we are consistently on the same page as when it is i am trying to accomplish, which is create flexibility away from common core if the state so desires. if folks want to support that, they can support the amendment. at the end of the day, that is exactly the objective. >> do you want to vote? the clerk will call the roll. ?> osenator mikulski >> [inaudible] proxy.y >> senator casey? >> no. >> senator franken?

>> no. house?ator white hou >> no by proxy. >> senator alexander? >> aye. dburke?or >> aye by proxy. >> senator hatch? >> aye. >> 10 ayes, 12 nays. >> the amendment is not agreed to.

thank you. we have to go vote, and we will come back as soon as possible so we can continue on. we're making good progress. we will be right back. >> i have a little meeting off the floor to go to. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> coming up today on c-span, "washington journal." at noon eastern at the house returns to the floor for work on a defense authorization bill. take of the name of this place still resonates with the shuddering in the hearts of the american people. more than any other name

connected to civil war, except weekends, gettysburg reverberates. americans retain the knowledge that what happens here is the crux of our terrible, a national trial and even americans who were not sure precisely what happened on the field note that all the glory and tragedy we associate with the civil war reside here. >> the 100 but the it anniversary of the battle of gettysburg live all day sunday june 30 on american history tv on c-span3. joeoming up in 45 minutes, wilson of south carolina, chairman of the armed service committee on military personnel discusses military issues in foreign policy. sanchez ofa california, a member of the homeland security committee talks about nsa data collection progra.

our spotlight on a magazine features, forbes magazine on the car of the future. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--] >> good morning, everyone. here's what's happening on capitol hill today. e n.s.a.'s general will be testifying about cyber security threat. senators will be asking about the surveillance program. the military chief will also be on capitol hill first before the senate budget committee and then the house budget committee to testify about their 2014 budget request. we will have live coverage on that on c-span3 at 10:30 this morning the immigration debate resumes 9:30 on