i rise to mourn the loss after united states marine and a kentuckian from the hometown of abraham, lincoln, lance corporal matthias n. hanson, killed on february 21, 2010, aof wounds resulting from kuking operations. he was 20 years oavmentd for his service in uniform, lance corporal hanson received several awards, medals and decorations, including the national defense service medal, the global war on terrorism service medal, and the

purple heart. matt is our hero because of how he lived, says the reverend who spoke at matt's memorial service. he didn't miss life. he lived life. service was a proud tradition in matt's family. his father lowell r. hanson jr. served in the army. one of matt's brothers is currently active duty army, while the other is in the army reserves. matt himself was born in germany on a military base. as mary, matt's mom puts it, matt to go rogue and join the marines. matt had a strong work ethic in high school, says his father lowell. he used to get up at 4:00 in the morning to milk kowrks then go to school, then on to football practice and back to work on the fannie mae farm. other people noticed and were

impressed by his work ethic appeared i was proud of him. he was determined that when he got old enough he would join the marines and serve his country. growing up, matter matter was known for his blue eyes and sneaky smile, and aide way of talking himself out of anything. he had an easy-going manner and a lust for life. he was quiet, a trickster, and a charmer, says his mother, but ultimately he was a country boy who wanted to do right by his country. matter was a country music fan who particular liked the song "way out here" j.i. by josh torch son. he was funny, energetic, and eelly outgoing says family friend emily johnson. he could make anyone laugh. he had the brightest blue eye es ever. matt graduated from larue county high school where he was

a member of the football team and the student technology association. next to his picture in the school yearbook he put the following quote: "life moves pretty fast. if you don't look around and pay attention, you could miss it." soon after graduation he enlisted in the marine corps in the spring of 2008. he was very proud of what he had done when he signed up to go to the marines, remembers larue koingts high school football coach and assistant principal rodney arms. he got his hair cut short and he was a marine from the day he signed up. matt was trained as a rifleman and assigned to the 3rd pa balance onsecond marine division, second mearn marine expeditionary force based out of the camp le jeune, north carolina. he was deployed to afghanistan in support of operation enduring freedom in january of 2010. matt played a key role in a

crucial multi-day battle in afghanistan just days before his death in mid-february 2010. matt's platoon came under fire from taliban forces in the town of marja. matt walked up under air cover to the bunker where the enemy fire was coming from and fired a grenade with great accuracy killing the enemy forces. the battle was over, said matt's father, thanks to his bravery. he played a critical role, said matt's platoon commander. any time he shot, he was on impact. marines were cheering with his shots. matt's father was told by matt's platoon that c.a.p. hanson, once the biggest position in marja was established at the site in matt's honor because of his actions. the last time i saw matt was on

christmas eve 2009, says matt's father. he hugged me around the neck and said, dad di daddy, don't worryt me. everybody dies. not everybody has jesus. not ive gets to be a marine. we're thinking of matt's family as i recount his life for my senate colleagues today. they include matt's mother and stepfather, mary and larry, his father and stepmother, lowell hanson jr. and cynthia hanson, his siblings, his grandparents and many other beloved family members and friends. matt was buried with full

military honors in hodgenville, the town of one of america's graiflt patriots, abraham lincoln. it is a fitting resting place for this young man and marine. the commonwealth of kentucky will never forget the life and service of lance corporal matt matthias n. hanson. it is thanks to men like him that our nation is free. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s.j. res. 19, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed motion to proceed to s.j. res. ^19, joint resolution proposing amendment to the constitution of the united states relating to contributions and expenditures

intended to affect elections. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to proceed as though in morning business for up to four minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. leaf leamr. mr. levin: leaf mr. president, i believe that the president will lay out a strong approach against isil tonight and that that approach will include going after them wherever they are located, including syria. the president and secretary kerry are making every effort to help lead a broadly based coalition, which is so critically important to avoid the consequences of a western go it alone approach, which was mistakenly used when we invoided iraq. this president, like all presidents, will welcome bipartisan congressional support, even though he has the authority in this situation to act without explicit congressional authority. i hope our friends on the other

side of the aisle will lay aside partisan attacks and make a true effort to find a way to take on isil in a united manner. a strong bipartisan approach here in the united states will help the president and secretary kerry obtain the explicit, open support of a broad cross section of this world, including arab and muslim countries. mr. president, i thank the chair, and i yield the floor. mr. udall: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to talk about our constitutional amendment, and i think we've had a very good debate this week, an overdue

debate. and i want to thank my colleagues for coming to the floor and for speaking out. but there have also been many misrepresentations by the other side about what our constitutional amendment would do. michael ke keegan wrote a piecen the "huffington post" yesterday and i summed up the debate from the other side of the aisle quite well. he said, and i quote, "a good rule of thumb in politics is that the scarier someone sounds, the more you should doubt what they are saying." we heard some scary things in the last couple of days. lorne michaels i has gone to jal and he's sharing a cell with a little old lady at that public property a yard sign. books and movies are banned. the sierra club and moveon

are prohibited from speaking. scary stuff but none of it is true. a great constitutional scholar recently wrote an op-ed in "the hill" re-but ting many of the claims we've heard. he wrote, "the amendment gives no authority to the government to ban or limit anyone's speech. it provides the government no power to muzzle messages the government doesn't like. it does not change in any way the long-standing first amendment principle that government cannot restrict speech based on the content of the message or the views expressed. the amendment would do no more than allow the government to regulate spending in election campaigns." that's the heart of what we're doing: regulating spending, out-of-control spending, in election campaigns; dark money,

big interests weighing in in an unprecedented way. professor tim are insk are timo. it will undo the damage done by the court over the years. most recently with citizens united and mccutcheon. that said, those with the most money have the most free speech. nothing in the amendment would permit the arrest of anyone for engaging in political speech. it would not allow books or movies to be ba banned. all the amendment does is restore to congress and the states the power to set reasonable limits, reasonable limits, on campaign contributions and expenditures, a traditional power that the court has stripped from us. the amendment returns the first amendment to its pre- pre-buckly

interpretation when money and speech were not the same thing. prior to buckley, we didn't see the kind of legislation against free speech that my republican colleagues are envisioning, oarvetion extreme examples of laws congress could pass. that is o'one way to argue against this amendment, but it ignores the long history of laws congress did pass to protect the voices of individual voters. these reforms were not radical. they were narrowly tailored re-sponges to restore -- responses to restore americans' faith in the political system. after scandals led to corruption, let's not forget any law must pass both houses of congress and be signed by the president. that is a significant check against any radical legislation getting passed or these days

against almost any legislation getting passed. critics also fail to acknowledge something else. our amendment does not give congress free rein to pass any and all campaign finance laws. when the court interprets any amendment to the constitution, it reads in a reasonableness standard, a reasonableness requirement. this means that even if congress does abuse its authority and pass the extreme laws that conservatives suggest, they can still be overturned as unreasonable. but, more importantly, members of congress who pass extreme laws can be held accountable by their constituents. the same can't be said for supreme court justices willing to strike down sensible regulations bay narrow majority. we also heard a quote from the late-senator ted keening did i.

senator keening did i did oppose a similar amendment in 2001. the truth is we don't know if he would oppose the amendment today. citizens united and m mccutcheon changed the landscape and changed it dramatically. senator kennedy was a champion for the underprivileged throughout his career, in civil rights, education, health care, the minimum wage. he stupid for those who didn't have a voice -- he stood up for those who didn't have a voice, the very people who are harmed by most of these misguided supreme court decisions. we do know some of senator kennedy's colleagues who also oppose the amendment in the past are still here in the senate. they have reconsidered -- chairman leahy, senator durbin, thoughtful senators who felt an amendment was unnecessary in the past now see that it is the only

way to fix a broken system. changing the constitution is a big step not to be taken light lightly. in "the federalist" paper number 49, james madison argued that the constitution should be amended only on -- quote -- "great and extraordinary occasions." i agree. i also believe we have reached one of those occasionses. thank you, mr. president. i ask that the op-eds i referenced by michael kegan and erwin chemerinsky be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: and to be recognized to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. durbin: mr. president, most members of the united states senate have a house, and the american people are awaiting the president's speech this evening. it is a critically important speech about america's national security from our commander in chief. it is going to address the horror of terrorism in the middle east, and particularly the islamic state, a terrorist group like few others, maybe like no other we've ever seen. this islamic state known as isis or isil has been moving in full force in both syria and iraq. they are different than other extremist terrorist groups

because they take and hold territory. that has not been seen in the past. they are also hellbent on establishing resources and ongoing visible treasury. some say they generate $1 million a day in revenues from the oil production that they're in charge of. they swoop into a city and take over the banks, raiding all the money they can get their hands on. in addition to that, they're engaged in some of the most barbaric and depraved tactics we have seen. the beheading of two americans comes to mind instantly, a heartbreaking situation for their families and friends but an enraging situation for all of america to think that innocent journalists would be subjected to such horrific treatment. and they threaten to do more. and it isn't just americans that are in their sights. they have targeted minorities. they have targeted those who are struggling in iraq to survive. and they are prepared to

literally force them into starvation or death. it is a harrowing situation. to think that some 11,000 or 12,000 of these isis terrorists have wreaked such havoc on iraq and syria really is a wakeup call for america. the president is going to speak to that this evening. we of course want him to lay out the threat, and he will. we want him to spell out why this threat is important to the security and future of the united states. i am certain that he will. i want him as well to speak to our approach and how we're going to deal with this threat, and i believe that he will with some detail. i want to know who else is on our side in this effort as we move forward, what the scope of our activities will be and the limitations of that scope of activities, the duration and the justification, the constitutionality and the legality are all critical

issues, and we await the word of the president of the united states. most of us have held back at this point waiting for the president's statement, but some have not. some have already come to the floor of the senate this morning to criticize the president when it comes to this issue of foreign policy. that's unfortunate. i think the president is entitled to at least present his case this evening before people come to the floor and condemn the president's foreign policy. we need to hear from the president what his plan is, and my hope is -- and it would be nothing short of a political miracle in washington, d.c. -- there would actually be bipartisan support for a plan emerging from the president's statement tonight. some of us may have our differences with some part of it. that's natural. that's our responsibility in the legislative branch of our government. but we should try to find common ground where we can. when america speaks unified with one voice, with one determined

effort, that's when we're strongest. you know, madam president, there was a time in the history of this country -- and i lived through part of it -- when there would be vigorous debates on foreign policy on the floor of the house and the floor of the senate, leading up to a vote on a critical question such as the invasion of a country or a war. and even after a contentious and sometimes partisan debate, without fail -- without fail -- there would be bipartisan support for the emerging policy. the war in kuwait, people remember that. i was one who voted against it. you know that there was offered on the floor of the house immediately after the vote in favor of the president's policy, a resolution, bipartisan resolution, then supporting the president's policy. that was considered the natural, reasonable thing to do. look back on this war in iraq. go back to october 11, 2002.

on the floor of the united states senate, we had a debate that ended up in a vote on the invasion of iraq. it's one of those moments in my career i'll never forget. 23 of us voted "no." one republican, lincoln chafee. and 22 democrats. we voted "no" on the invasion of iraq. it wasn't long thereafter, though, that we were presentd with appropriations bills to fund the military effort in iraq. i voted for them. the reason i voted for those appropriations was pretty obvious. if it were my son, my daughter, my spouse fighting in iraq, i'd want them to have every resource necessary. come home safely. so there was a bipartisan consensus even though a difns in the formulation of foreign policy. i hope that is what emerges tonight. i hope once the president has stepped forward and said that this is a plan, let us work

together toward that plan, that we will see some bipartisanship emerging in the united states senate and the house of representatives. we can have our differences and questions, but at the end of the day, we need to come together as a nation. this horrible terrorist group, wise which has beheaded two innocent americans and is absolutely depraved in its conduct, is going to continue. it's going to create chaos in iraq. it's going to destabilize that country, and i.t. going to endanger not only innocent people but it's going to endanger americans. so let's listen careful whaly to what the president has to say. this morning, the majority leader came to the floor and talked about a chance occurrence yesterday. who should return to the halls of the united states capitol yesterday? former vice president richard cheney. what a moment for him to return to washington as we debate foreign policy. we remember the foreign policy

of vice president cheney and others. we know the price we paid for what turned out to be some very questionable, if not wrong, decisions. at the end of the day in iraq, 4,476 americans lost their liv lives. 30,000 came home with serious injuries. we added a trillion to our national debt to pay for that. it was vice president cheney's idea that the united states would be strong and muscular after the 9/11 attack and he picked iraq as a target. we'd take out saddam hussein, the purported weapons of mass destruction never existed, never were found. but we invaded, nevertheless. now comes former vice president cheney again to inspire his troops in terms of this confli conflict. i hope not only democrats but republicans as well will think twice about that advice. we have listened to this man's

counsel before and the world did not turn out to be the place he promised us it would be. so let us listen carefully, objectively, honestly to the president tonight. let us try to find some common ground as americans where we can stand together against this terrorist threat. the president has made it clear to all of us he's not going to be sending ground troops into this iraq situation. and i think we want to be careful that we don't engage ourselves in a long-term war involving the vulnerability of our troops for a long period of time. so i was disappointed with some of the statements made on the floor this morning on the other side. i hope americans will listen carefully, as i will, tonight to the president. madam president, i ask consent to enter into the record very briefly one additional statement at a separate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, tomorrow marks the 13th anniversary of 9/11 and our thoughts turn to the americans we lost that day and to the men

and women who showed such heroism above and beyond the call of duty. firefighters, police, first responders and americans from all walks of life showed on that day that though terrorists might try to destroy our way of life, they cannot keep us down. americans do stand together when we are threatened. since that day to support the global war on terror, the defense department says about 2 1/2 million americans, members of the army, navy, air force, marines, coast guard and related national guard units, have been deployed in afghanistan and iraq war. 2 1/2 million. of those, more than a third were deployed at least one time. more than 11,000 lost their lives in those two wars. there are ways we can show our gratitude and help our veterans, including service members, from operation enduring freedom and operation iraqi freedom, now that they're home. tomorrow i'm introducing with senator blumenthal of connecticut the veterans small business enhancement act. it will allow veterans who own small businesses to participate

in g.s.a.'s excess federal property program. this program makes items that the federal agencies no longer need available to nonprofits and other groups who have a justifiable they'd for the property. -- need for the property. we're talking about everything from vehicles to computers, office furniture, tools, even heavy construction equipment. participants in the program can claim the items for their businesses if they demonstrate a justifiable need for the property and they agree to pay for shipping and handling. so there's no expense to the federal government. by keeping their equipment overhead low in this way, these small businesses can grow their businesses. if unclaimed, the federal property has to be disposed of by our government as excess property and that costs money. the items have to be organized in a location, photographed, cataloged and ultimately auctioned off to scrap dealers who pay just pennies on the dollar. the national association of state agencies for surplus property, which helps facilitate the g.s.a.'s excess federal property program, estimates that

taking surplus property off the federal government's hands, paring it with those who -- pairing it would those who could use it, saved the government $ $2.5 million last year alone. my bill would extend the opportunity to veteran-owned small businesses as well. veterans throughout illinois have contacted me to let me know how the surplus property program might help their businesses. jim ward, for example, a retired army veteran, owns a popular tile company in mount sterling, near my hometown in west central illinois. his small business could benefit from maintenance equipment typically found in the federal surplus program. tile saws and cutters, knee pads, mixers, scrapers, trowels and other hand tools are all items that appear from time to time in the program. he says he doesn't need state-of-the-art equipment. getting his hands on something that works would be a big help to his veteran-owned business. then there's jim sedero, owns a bar and a snow removal business in springfield. there are quite a few surplus

items that could help him operate his business and free up his resources for paying his employees and overhead. jim says he needs things like tables and brooms, paint, hand tools. his snow removal business needs a pickup truck and other vehicles. i heard from jason harris, marine corps veteran, runs a landscaping business in carbondale. shawny landescaping designs and installs patios, fencing and retaining walls. mr. harris could benefit from federal surplus equipment too. bobcats, tractors, loaders, hand tools, office supplies. tom lomelino, a retired army vet and owner of the lom helino sign company. he could use a backhoe and other equipment for installation and maintenance. all these illinois veterans have a legitimate need for items that otherwise would go to waste and we would pay to destroy. wouldn't it be better to put these items in the hands of veterans so that their businesses can succeed and they can hire people in their local communities? i think so. small business is the engine of

the american economy. our veterans have served our country well. let us serve their next phase in life and make sure their businesses are successful. i encourage my colleagues who want to support the veterans and dispose of surplus property in a productive way, not an expensive way, so that it continues to make money for the united stat states, to join me in supporting this legislation. and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: thank you, madam president. i rise today to speak about an issue that is fundamental to our democracy and vital to the future of our nation. this is an issue so important that it requires us to take the monumental step of amending our constitution. this is not an action any of us should take lightly, but our democracy is under assault and i will not stand by and watch the

damage being done without trying to do something to repair it. because of the supreme court's decision in citizens united, a tsunami of undisclosed, unlimited campaign funding is corrupting our democracy. our government is supposed to be about checks and balances. well, citizens united and the recent mccutcheon decision makes it more about who is writing the checks and how big is their bank balance. in the 2012 election, 60% of the contributions to super pacs came from just 159 donors. 64% of the money raised by the united states senate candidates came from a mere .004% of the population. our government is in jeopardy of no longer being of the people but instead becoming of and for the wealthy. the voices of the majority of the american people, those of middle-class families, seniors on fixed incomes, workers making

minimum wage, are being drowned out by an ocean of campaign cash. this is utterly undemocratic and it needs to stop. congress has tried to stop this tidal wave of unlimited money but this supreme court interprets the first amendment not as a guarantee of free speech but of who can pay to speak. as a result, our democracy is in peril. campaign finance limits don't limit our free speech, they increase it by ensuring that every citizen can be heard and that no one gets unfair access to our government at the expense of everyone else. campaign finance laws don't stifle democracy, they enhance it. we need to fix our broken campaign finance system. we need a constitutional amendment that overturns the citizens united and mccutcheon decisions. our democracy is based on the fundamental principle that all voters and each and every vote

cast are created equal. people, not dollars, are the true currency of our constitution and democracy, and that's why i will be voting for senate resolution 19, to support a democracy for all attitude in the united states. and i also rise today in support of another principle that enshrines democratization of access of information and ideas, net neutrality. net neutrality is as basically to functioning of the internet as nondiscrimination is to the united states constitution. in fact, net neutrality is just a fancy word for nondiscrimination. the internet is a success today because it is open to anyone with an idea. an open internet enables freedom of expression and the sharing of ideas across town or across the world. yet the vitality of this open platform is at stake.

the sec is currently considering a proposal that could allow broadband providers to charge web sites, applications and services more for faster delivery times to consumers. we cannot allow that to happen. and that's why i am proud to stand with the nettisicitizens, all internet users, to show what the internet would look like with slow and fast lanes. today is a battle for net neutrality. today we demonstrate on our web sites what paid prioritization really means. web users stuck on a bumpy gravel path while the select few wiz by on a sleek highway with their internet easy passes. in solidarity with neticitizens everywhere, i have posted on my web site a symbol familiar to internet using everywhere -- the

unloading symbol you get when your video is waiting to appear because there's congestion on the net. my web site today, along with countless others, serves as a harbinger of the dark dies that lie ahead if we let the broadband behemoths win. i believe we should never forget that the internet comes with a manufacturer's guarantee. no one should have to ask for permission to innovate. to prevent this from happening, this summer i led 12 of my senate colleagues in urging the f.c.c. to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service under title 2, enabling the commission to put the strongest rules on the books to prevent discrimination 6. internet access -- discrimination. interset access today is like traditional phone service was decades ago. it's essential for everyday living. but if the i.s.p.'s have their way, the f.c.c. would turn the

internet from a democratic field of dreams into an exclusive set of aggregated communities. but the good news is the on-line activist community, the net roots and the start-ups, the internet investors have spoken out in favor of implementing title 2 to protect net neutrality. i will continue to join with my colleagues here in the senate to fight for an open and nondiscriminatory internet because the future of our country depends upon it. i yield back, madam president, the balance of my time. and i doubt the presence of a conform. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. tester: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i.t. i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: thank you, madam president. as many of you know, my wife and i still farm and for part of

august i had the pleasure of being able to be on the tractor and have some quality time to think about what makes our nation great. and there are many reasons, but one of them is the belief that everyone has a say in the decisions we make in this democracy. that each of us from the richest to the poorest has an equal stake in electing our leaders and impacting how we govern. unfortunately, the supreme court hasn't figured that out. from the citizens united case to this year's mcdutch on decision -- mccutcheon decision, the justices continually side with big money and corporations. they're siding with those who think government should work for the rich and elite. they're siding with those who think that money equals speech. they think it's okay for the

wealthy to drown out the voices of the working folks, of the middle class, of fe everyone el. madam president, our current election system is hurting our democracy by reducing public confidence in our elections and increasing apathy in the political process. after all, why should someone take time out to follow our political process and vote when our system leads them to believe that their vote doesn't make a difference? we simply can't let that havme . i agree with my colleague from arizona, senator mccain, when he says that sooner or later our current system is going to cause a scandal in this body. this body cannot forward to fall further out -- this body cannot afford to fall further out of favor with the american people. negative numbers are right around the corner. the unprecedented amount of money is allowing corporations to have an outsized say in not

just who gets elected but how they act once they get into office. and, trust me, corporate voices already have plenty of influence in congress. it is putting up walls between regular folks and elected leaders who spend more and more hours on the phone with donors or bowing to those who might finance an outside ad campaign on their behalf and leaves less time for constituents. madam president, too many of the justices and too many of our colleagues don't understand that many of washington's current problems are tied to our campaign finance system. a lot of folks in the senate and the house talk about working together. they talk about reaching across the aisle for responsible solutions that move our country forward. so what's holding them back? in many cases, it is the threat of big money coming after them in their next election. we're not talking about rick who works at wal-mart or amanda who

teaches third grade, we're talking about corporate executives plowing millions, sometimes tens of millions of dollars into independent and often secretly financialed campaigns. we've all seen colleagues hesitate to introduce legislation that's popular in their home state but who are fraid it would spur big-time corporations to spend money to defeat them. when that happens, it leaves constituents without any real say in who represents them. lawmakers are also held back by a hostile political climate. when you constantly see an ad that distorts your record and then you see a fellow senator from out of state endorse that ad, it makes it hard to compromise on legislation with somebody that quite frankly you just don't trust. politicians also know that most of the money in campaigns is on the extremes of the political

spectrum, and the extremes fight almost any sign of compromise and the folks that are willing to get things done. heck, why are we having trouble confirming ambassadors? it's because compromise is a dirty word. it leaves me to wonder, could we do big things today like our predecessors did? could we pull it together to build an interstate highway system or send a man to the moon? right now i think not. supporters of the current system defend their views by citing the constitution. they put up some fun charts here on the senate floor that cross out lines of the first amendment pretending as if this legislation actually changes the first amendment. it is entertaining, but it is incorrect. i guarantee you that our founding fathers, men like george washington, thomas jefferson, wouldn't want to see the constitution used to justify our current campaign system. leaders like washington and jefferson had a vision for our

nation. they knew that america would change with the times as new technologies were developed. back in 1 1887 there was no montana. if the framers warned against political parties, i can only imagine what they would have to say about the rise of sprp pafntle folks talk about protecting free speech and the first amendment of but who is protecting the free speech of regular working-class folks? who's protecting the voice of the schoolteacher or the repairman that's being drowned out by special interests? with this amendment, madam president, we are -- and if the congress needs inspiration, they should look at my home state of montana. more than 100 years ago montanaans voted to limit the influence of big-money elections. we were ahead of the curve. we called for fair elections after mining corporations bought influence, support and even a u.s. senate seat.

and our laws worked pretty well for those 100 years. but two years ago the u.s. supreme court struck down montana's law citing its citizens united decision. in 2012, montanans stood up once again to big money and its influence over our democratic process. in a voter referendum passed by a 3-1 margin montana voters called on the montana delegation to overturn citizens united and i proudly accepted that challenge and that is why i'm cosponsoring senator udall's amendment. together we're saying enough is enough. congress and the states should have the power to regulate campaign spending, assure election spending does not corrupt elections. states should be able to decide whether to allow corporations unchecked spending power in governor and legislative races. i heard one of my colleagues suggest yesterday that we're threatening to silence the voice of the little old lady who wants to put up a yard sign in front of her home. in fact it's quite the opposite.

we're working to assure her voice is louder than that fortune 500 corporation, or at least as loud when deciding the future of her town, her state, or her country. because that's what our country is supposed to be about. one-person, one-vote. spending for the senate election in montana in 2012 topped $50 million. that's more than $100 for every vote cavment in -- cast. in montana where the average household pulled in $2,000 in 2012, that is a lot of money. it can give awe platform -- a platform to drown out any other voice. according to the center for responsive politics spending by outside groups in the 2014 election cycle is currently three times higher than the amount spent at the same point in 2010. and as of the end of august,

outside groups spent about $170 million on federal midterm races. just the federal part. folks don't spend that kind of cash without thinking they're going to get a return on investment. things are out of control, madam president. make no mistake. senator mccain is right. sooner or later it will lead to another watergate or worse, and that's the frustrating thing. we know how the story of unchecked money in politics ends. we've seen it before. yet, the supreme court has opened the door to yet another scandal. so it is time to overturn citizens united and it is time to overturn this year's mccutcheon decision which invalidated a 40-year-old law that limits the total amount of money an individual can contribute to campaigns each cycle. since that ruling in april, about 300 folks have taken advantage of that ruling contributing over $11.5 million in political campaigns this year just since april. 300 in this nation.

300 in this nation of 300 million. we must put regular people and their ideas back in charge of our elections. amending the constitution is not something that we should take lightly. the constitution is our founding document and it's held up under the test of time. but big-money interests and defenders of citizens united are distorting our first amendment for their own gain. getting big money out of elections is critical to improving how we govern, make responsible decisions for all americans. it's critical to electing leaders who put people first. i am proud to step forward in this fight. our democratic system worked for over two centuries, made our nation the greatest nation in the world and i will not let that be jeopardized without a fight. madam president, back in montana, it doesn't matter whether you've got five acres, 5,000 acres. jump on that tractor, the tractor is still going to break

down. the weather can be good, the weather can be bad. it's still going to happen. the lesson is this, we're in this together. we all need to pitch in, and we all deserve a fair and honest say in how our election process works and our leaders are elected. i urge my colleagues to support senator udall on this important amendment. it is simply the right thing to do for our democracy. madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: i rise to speak in opposition of the bill before us snches -- s.j. res. 19, a constitutional amendment that would significantly curtail the

free speech rights of all americans. i oppose this amendment because i believe that while it's critical to support speech with which we agree, it is even more crucial to support speech with which we disagree. now, whether it's been campaign finance laws or amendments to prohibit flag burning, i consistently opposed amending the constitution to limit the first amendment. as others have mentioned, if this amendment were adopted, it would be the first time congress has limited rights protected in the bill of rights. this would be a very dangerous precedent to set. by limiting the amount of money that individuals and corporations can spend on elections, this amendment would clearly limit their rights under the first amendment. the supreme court has made clear that this would be tantamount to a restriction on -- quote -- "the number of issues discussed, the depths of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached." this amendment would allow us to decide what amounts of money is

speech and who can use it. this is a perilous amount of power to place in the hands of politicians. i don't think we need to protect incumbent politicians. i think we need to protect the rights under the first amendment. in addition to concerns with which we -- that we know about this amendment, i'm even more concerned about what we don't know. before we amend the constitution, we're obligated to understand the effects of the legislation. what does it mean to -- quote -- "influence elections?" as the bill states, who is a -- quote -- "candidate?" what is the -- quote -- "press? " does that include bloggers? what about a citizen who writes his -- i'm sorry. what about a citizen who writes his or her own newsletter to her community association and prints it on her home computer or

printer? all of these terms and more seem right for litigation, which leaves the true meaning of this amendment in the hands of unelected judges. it also bears mentioning that opposition to this amendment is not limited to republicans or conservative organizations. the aclu wrote a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the judiciary committee on which i serve opposing this legislation. the aclu states, as we've said in the past, this and similar constitutional amendments would fundamentally break the constitution and endanger civil rights and civil liberties for generations." i could not agree more. amending the constitution is serious business. i believe limiting the bill of rights for the first time in our history is a bad decision. i will once again vote to preserve and protect the first amendment, and i would urge my colleagues to do the same by rejecting s.j. res. 19. as an incumbent politician, i'm

the first to concede that elections are daunting. they're unpredictable. it's unnerving to see other groups and individuals spend money to run ads against you. but the alternative is to have me as an incumbent politician write rules and regulations to limit the speech of those who would run against me or support those who would run against me. that is wrong. it is wrong for people in this body to define speech, to define who is entitled to it. we need to tread carefully here. that's why we need to reject this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cardin: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president, i rise today to discuss the tragic shooting of michael brown last month in ferguson, missouri. michael brown did not need to die. the cycle of needless sacrificing of our teens to violent ends must end. it's been heartbreaking to see yet another american town gripped by such a tragedy. i welcome attorney general holder's decision last week to begin a pattern and practice investigation into the allegations of unlawful policing by the city of ferguson's police department. i also strongly support the justice department's outreach efforts through their community oriented policing services

office. this office, known as "cops" office, can help bertie valuate and train local -- better evaluate and train local law enforcement to carry out fair and impartial policing. in addition to the recent investigation announced by the department of justice, i urge attorney general holder to expedite the issuance of new guidelines that would once and for all prohibit racial profiling by law enforcement officers at all levels of government, including the federal, state and local law enforcement officials. congress should also examine the program that provides for the transfer of surplus military equipment to local law enforcement agencies to ensure that local government is not inhibiting the first amendment rights of people to peacefully assemble and petition their government for the redress of grievances. local governments must also respect the first amendment rights of the press to do their jobs, report the story and help provide the truth to the american people.

for a more permanent fix, congress should take up and pass legislation that i've authored, the end racial profiling act, known as erpa, which is senate 1038. i want to thank my colleagues who have cosponsored this legislation, including senators reid, durbin, blumenthal, coons, harkin, menendez, stabenow, levin, mikulski, warren, boxer, gillibrand, hurricane katrina, d murphy. i'd also like to thank congressman john conyers, the ranking member of the house judiciary committee, for introducing the house companion legislation, h.r. 2851, which has 54 cosponsors in the house of representatives. this legislation provides training and monitoring for law enforcement agencies at all levels of government. by enacting this legislation, we can begin to reduce the racial disparities that plague our nation's criminal justice

system. we need to do better at educating more law enforcement officials in the differences between specific suspect descriptions and sweeping generalizations or profiling that waste valuable resources. racial profiling is un-american. it has no place within the values of our country. it turns communities against the partnership needed to keep our neighborhoods safe. two years ago, i want to remind my colleagues that the united states senate and the american people were having this very same conversation, so it's heartbreaking to me that we are having this conversation again without having taken up more definitive action. in 2012, the nation's attention was riveted to the tragic, avoidable death of treyvon martin in florida in february 2012. as we all know from the news, an unarmed martin, 17, was shot in sanford, florida, on his way home from a convenience store while wearing a hoodie and carrying a can of iced tea and a

bafbag of skittles. after the tragedy, i met for faith and rights group at the center of urban families in baltimore to discuss the issue of racial procee racial profili. many joined in. i heard firsthand accounts of typical american families that were victims of racial proceed filing. one young -- profiling. one young woman recounted going to a basketball game with her father, only to have her bad detained by the police for no apparent reason other than the color of his skin. treyvon's tragic death led us to a discussion in the senate on the broader issues of racial profiling. the senate judiciary committee held a hearing on ending racial profiling in america in april 2012, which was chaired by senator durbin. at the hearing, i was struck by the testimony of ronald l. dav davis, the chief of police of the city of palo pa palo alto, california. i want i want t to quote in pars

testimony. he said -- and i quote -- "there exists no standardized definition of racial profiling except when describing a person. consequently, many state and local police define racial profiling as using race as the sole basis for a stop or police action. this definition is misleading in that it suggests race as a factor for anything other than a description is justified, which it's not. simply put, race is a descriptor, not a predictor. to use race along with other salient descriptors when describing someone who's just committed a crime, is appropriate." and then chief davis continued. "however, when we deem a person to be suspicious or attach criminality to a person because of the color of his or her skin, the neighborhood they are walking in or the clothing that they are wearing, we are attempting to predict criminality. the problem with such

predictions is that they are seldom right in our results and are always wrong in our approa approach." after the hearing, i was joined at a press conference by baltimore's reverend dr. jamel bryant, a leading youth activist and an advise either to treyvon martin favorite. reverend bryant echoed the call to end racial profiling by law enforcement in america. and let me quote from him -- and i quote -- "this piece of legislation being offered by my senator, senator cardin, is the last missing piece from the civil rights bill of 1965 that says there ought to be equality regardless of one's gender or one's race. racial profiling is, in fact, an extension of racism in america that has been unaddressed and this brings closure to the divide in this country." i have called for putting an end to racial profiling, a practice that singles out an individual

based on race, ethnicity, national origin or religion. my legislation would protect minority communities by prohibiting the use of racial profiling by law enforcement officials. first, the bill prohibits the use of racial profiling by all enforcement agents, whether federal, state or local. racial profiling is defined in a standard, consistent definition as the practice of a law enforcement agent relying on race, ethnicity, religion or national origin as a factor in their investigation and activities. the legislation creates an exception for use of these factors where there are trus trustworthy information relevant to the locality and time frame which links a person of a particular race, ethnicity or national origin to an identified incident or scheme. law enforcement agencies would be prohibited from using racial profiling in criminal or routine law enforcement investigations, immigration enforcement or national security cases. second, the bill would mandate training of racial profiling

issues and require data collection by local and state law enforcement agencies. third, this bill would condition the receipt of federal funds by state and local law enforcement on two grounds. first, under this bill, state and local law enforcement would have to maintain adequate policies and procedures designed to eliminate racial profiling. and, second, they must eliminate any existing practices that permit or encourage racial profiling. fourth, the bill would authorize the justice department to provide grants to state and local governments to develop and implement best policing practices that would discourage racial profiling, such as an early warning system. finally, the bill would require the attorney general to provide periodic trotters assess the nature of -- reports to assess the nature of any ongoing racial profiling discriminatory practice. the bill would also provide remedies for individuals who were harmed by racial profiling. the legislation i've introduced is supported by a broad coalition of civil-rights

groups. these groups include the leadership conference on civil and human rights, aclu, the naacp, rights working groups, and numerous other national, state and local organizations. racial profiling is bad policy. but given the state of our budget, it also diverts scarce resources from real law enforcement. law enforcement officials nationwide already have tight budgets. the more resources spent investigating individuals because of their race, religion, national origin or ethnicity, the fewer resources directed at suspects who are actually demonstrating illegal behavior. using racial profiling makes it congress likely that -- makes it less likely that certain affected communities will voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement in community policing efforts, making it harder for our law enforcement communities to combat crime and fight terrorism. minorities living and working in these communities in which racial profiling is used may also feel discouraged from traveling freely, which corrodes

the public trust in government. this ultimately demonizes entire communities and perpetuates negative stereotypes based on an individual's race, ethnicity or religion. racial profiling has no place in modern law enforcement. the vast majority of our law enforcement officials who put their lives on the line every day handling their jobs with professionalism, diligence and fidelity to the rule of law, they understand that racial profiling has no wor place no pr work. however, congress and the justice department should still take steps to prohibit racial profiling and finally root out its use. i agree with attorney general holder's remarks to the american-arab antidiscrimination committee, where he stated -- and i quote -- "in this nation, security and liberty are, at their best, partners, not enemies, in ensuring safety and opportunity for all. in this nation, the document that sets forth the supreme law of the land, the constitution, is meant to empower not exclude. racial profiling is wrong.

it can leave a lasting scar on communities and individuals and it is, quite simply, bad policing, whatever city, whatever state." the 14th amendment to the united states constitution guarantees the equal protection of law to all americans. racial profiling is abhorrent to that principle and should be ended once and for all. as the late senator ted kennedy often said, civil rights is the great unfinished business of america. let's continue the fight here to make sure that we truly have equal justice under the law for all americans. i urge my colleagues to support the legislation that i've introduced that will end racial profiling once and for all. madam president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fibber: madam president, i -- mrs. fischer: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: madam president, i rise today to express my strong frustration, and the frustration of nebraskans, with the senate's currentsenatecurrent debate. like many of my colleagues, i spent the last five weeks traveling my state and meeting with constituents. i held over a dozen listening

sessions in communities all across nebraska. not a single nebraskan told me to go back to washington and vote to limit free speech. not a single nebraskan told me to come here and play politics or take show votes. the message that i received from almost every nebraskan was the same -- get something done. turn the economy around. deal with overregulation. help control the costs of health care. help businesses create jobs. prevailing concern with the economy and weak job growth, that exists all across our country. according to several leading economists, 225,000 jobs were supposed to be created last month. instead, the number of jobs created was just 142,000.

the real unemployment rate, those who are unemployed or underemployed, that remains unacceptably high. that's at nearly 12%. that's 19 million americans who are out of work or who want to work more hours. it's a disgrace that the united states senate is not debating policies that will help them. instead, we're debating a bill to limit free speech. it's no wonder that the american people have such a poor opinion of congress. seriously, what are we doing here? here in washington, those in power are more concerned with winning elections so they can stay in power than with actually governing and making tough

decisions that will protect our country and that will help our families. that's what we're doing here today, another showboat, another sound bite that's engineered by campaign strategists, and those guys, they don't have any interest in sound policy. so i'd like to address the two proposals before the senate this week, a resolution to amend the bill of rights and campaign legislation that's targeting women voters. the resolution offered by the senator from new mexico is, i believe, a clear attack on the first amendment and a series of recent supreme court rulings. the measure grants unlimited authority to congress and state legislatures to criminalize speech on any platform, and that

includes the internet. this proposal guts the first amendment and the principles of free speech that have endured since the bill of rights. since that was ratified in 1791. it further empowers incumbent politicians to make decisions with less accountability. it muffles the voices of private citizens. it's perverse that the united states senate is actually devoting time to debating a constitutional amendment that would actually diminish democratic participation, that would decrease freedom. what have we become? in a letter to the senate judiciary committee, the aclu wrote that the proposed amendment -- quote -- "would

severely limit the first amendment, lead directly to government censorship of political speech and result in a host of unintended consequences that would undermine the goals the amendment has introduced to advance, namely encouraging vigorous political dissent and providing voice to the voiceless, which we, of course, support. well, the aclu isn't exactly an ally of the republican party, but their letter shows that there is broad concern over this poorly crafted resolution. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for free speech, to stand up for democratic participation and to reject this resolution. madam president, i would also like to address the issue of

equal pay and paycheck fairness legislation. make no mistake, some women in this country continue to struggle with gender-based pay discrimination. equal high for equal work is a principle that i strongly support. with 60% of women working as primary breadwinners, lost wages hurt families and single women alike. republicans fully agree that gender-based pay discrimination in the workplace is unacceptable. in april, i worked with senator collins, senator ayotte and senator murkowski on a reasonable proposal to modernize key portions of the 51-year-old equal pay act. our proposal prevents

retaliation against employees who inquire about, discuss or disclose their salaries. in fact, one of the president's april executive orders also deals with nonretaliation. that suggests that this is an area where we can agree and where we can work together. our proposal also reinforces current law which prohibits pay discrimination based on gender, and it requires employers to notify employees of their rights. finally, it addresses the opportunity gap or the need to provide both men and women with good-paying jobs. it consolidates duplicative job training programs. it provides federal grants to states or the creation -- for the creation of industry-led partnerships. this program is meant to provide women and men underrepresented

in industries that report worker shortages with the skills that they need to compete. i believe that this proposal could pass the senate, madam president. it's reasonable. it's targeted. it's a serious solution. but instead, we have a senate that is laser focused on election year politics, on bills no republican can support and on bills that even some democrats reject. the majority leader does not appear to have any interest in putting bills on the floor that can pass. bills that we can work together on. that idea doesn't fit into that election year playbook.

at the end of the day, madam president, that's raw politics. that's all it is. nebraskans expect more. americans expect more. they expect us to do our jobs, to work together, to offer solutions, to debate, to amend and to vote. there are so many proposals that i would love to vote on. you know, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but we should be voting. we have to start meaningful debate. we have to start taking votes. and they better be real votes. that's the only way that we are going to do our jobs. that is the only way that we

will be held accountable by our constituents. we should be tackling those very important issues that we spoke to our neighbors and friends about when we were at home traveling our states during the august recess. enough of the sound bites. enough of the showboats. enough speaking to cameras. let's listen to the american people. let's get back to the united states senate that we all admired when we were in school and we read about our country's history. as students, we studied those serious and many times those very heated debates that took place on this floor. as senators, we may not always agree on what's the best policy, but we better start doing our

jobs. we need to return to debating real policy that addresses the very, very real needs of the american people. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: madam president, i wasn't scheduled to come in here, but something's going on today i want to share with everyone that i think is pretty exciting. there is a new group that has been formed. it's called the i.d.c., in defense of christian summit. i just came from addressing this group, and it's pretty amazing. there are over a thousand down

there in the visitor's center, the big auditorium, stampeding room only, the largest crowd that has ever been down there. it's been quickly formed because of the persecution that has taken place throughout the world and primarily in the isis area. a lot of people -- unfortunately, i don't have charts that are big enough to really project well, but at least the president there can see them. this is the area where isis is working. it's not just syria, it's not just iraq. we're talking about in jordan and other areas, it's a very large area. they are not confined to any particular area. but one of the problems that's being addressed, we know about what they are doing and we know that they are probably the strongest force and greatest threat against the united states that we have ever faced. i was very proud of the secretary of defense. secretary hagel, when he said and he was very outspoken in

talking about the threat that we're facing, and he characterized it as really a great threat. why is it a great threat? it's a great threat because already they have declared war on america. that's the reason why i stood here yesterday trying to get support in the senate for authority to use military force. that's the aumf thing. we're going to make every effort to get that done. tonight the president is going to speak. hopefully he will come out stronger than he has in the past and say something really meaningful about how he as the president of the united states is going to win this war. i'm not really expecting it, but i'm hoping for it, but there is no doubt -- there will be no doubt once we pass this resolution that he has the authority to do it. now, this group is concerned about that, but they are put together because they are concerned with the christian and the religious persecution that's going on. i have got a lot of background in this. way back before a lot of you guys were born, back in 1979, i

was mayor of a city, tulsa, oklahoma, and i remember a man named boris pensen. he was sent to a siberian gulag prison for nine years. he was there because of the -- the fact he wouldn't relinquish his jewish faith. he was persecuted. we were able to get him out. it was way back a long time ago. i had another experience in 1988. this was damascus. there was christian persecution at that time. we were able to get them to change the geography a little bit so they could openly pray, pray to their lord and savior jesus christ. it was something that was unheard of in syria. now, it wasn't like it is today. today they are killing them. back then they were just putting them in prison. i think it's very important for people to understand that isis is the most well-organized, well-funded terrorist group in history. mor

more than a million have fled their homes in iraq after being given the ultimatum to convert to islam or be put to death. thousands of men and women have been enslaved and beheaded as a result of the ultimatum to christians. i will read it to you because i don't want to be misquoted. they issued the ultimatum to christians living in the region, the region i just showed you, convert to islam or face death by the sword. that's what's going on today. i had as i sold this group a few minutes ago, now and then have you a happy ending. i've been active and a lot of people know this in africa now for 20 years, i've actually made 135 african country visits and i have seen all kinds of things take place in terms of religious intolerance, and persecution, but i remember

very well-being in the new country called south sudan. south sudan is to the south of sudan. sudan up there at khartoum, we're familiar with that and the problems that take place there and we know how intolerant they are up there. it happened that we had -- there was a lady up there named miriam ibraham. i'm going to show you a picture. you've never seen a prettier ladled in your life. in her wedding dress. she is sudan knees and she -- sudanese and she had been a muslim. however, she renounced that and now is a christian. and so they went to this beautiful young lady who had one baby and she was eight months pregnant for her next baby and said we're going to put you on trial. you've got to renounce christianity. she said i can't do it and they said you'll have to do it. so they -- she was found guilty of not renouncing her

christianity, she was sentenced to 100 lashes which would kill her and then they would hang her by her neck for a public display. as an example of what happens. well, several of us were involved in this, we had a lot of the cooperation from some of the surrounding african countries, uganda, came through, the president from rwanda, the president from congo, and our state department and others, and we were able to get them to have an appeal and as of today, she is now out of prison, she's back, she has her two children and her husband living in the united states. now, if it hadn't been for just seeing what meriam ibrahim was facing and knowing that was going on and seeing the beautiful picture of her and just a few of us finding out about it, she would be right now still hanging up for display. this is what's happening. at love people out there are

saying, well, you know, isis is a very serious thing but this isn't our problem. yeah, it is. i can remember three months ago i made a statement that isis is a threat to our homeland and people just didn't believe that that was the case. and there is a poll that came out yesterday that i thought i had with me and i don't but the poll shows that 71% -- this is an abc poll, 71% of the american people believe that isis is a direct threat to the homeland of the united states of america. that's 71% of the people. they also believe the same 71% of the people that our president does not have a strategy to win this war. so tonight we're hoping to hear something that is out of character for him, it's something strong, that's going to allow us to win the war. but let me wind up by welcoming those well over a thousand people who are downstairs as we speak right now in the convention center that are from

the defense of christians summit that's taking place as we speak. we have a lot of people out there. they are doing the lord's work and they will be richly blessed for it. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: i ask that the proceedings of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: i come to speak on a question of enormous importance but i want to take a moment before, i was just with the majority leader and the deputy leader and a number of our colleagues where we held a ceremony in commemoration of the congressional medal of honor issued in remembrance of those who had given their lives on september 11, 13 years ago, and i know i share with the presiding officer, neither one of us were members of the senate at that moment but i think all of us will remember where we were that early tuesday morning and the ceremony that we just came from was i think an appropriate tribute. madam president, during the most recent recess in august, i crisscrossed virginia in a

variety of efforts, but one that was particularly meaningful to me was where i did a statewide student debt tour where literally i talked to hundreds of students and graduates and families where from nine virginia colleges and universities about student debt. and what this crushing amount of student debt is doing to their opportunities to get the same kind of fair shot that the presiding officer and i both had. the schools that i visited ranged from big four-year public universities to small private liberal arts colleges to one of our historically black colleges, as well as a two-year community college. student debt figures right now at $1.2 trillion. $1.2 trillion, exceed credit card debt. student debt has exceeded the aggregate of auto loan debt, credit card debt, home equity debt balances, becoming next to mortgages the second largest

debt of u.s. households. that means that for far too many young people and not so young people they're forced to put off the decisions about starting a family, launching a start-up business, or buying a home because of the burdens of student debt. many young people find themselves working in jobs they didn't want or necessarily train for just to pay off their student debts. at old dominion university i spoke to carina, a bright, ambitious young woman who her sophomore year worked three jobs, at one.four jobs to ensure she met tuition. she mentioned the she was the first of her family members to set foot on a college campus. she said -- quote -- "college is a foreign field to my family" and that she was a pioneer. she is not alone. the challenges she faced were repeated time and again. at virginia state university one of our historically black

colleges i bet meth with tobias who mentioned a lot of his peers had to drop out of schools because they coon afford afford to take out any more loans or debt. he told me i've made the decision to stay in school because the key to my future but i do so knowing that i will have to spend a lot of years paying off the student loans. and at one of our finer public institutions, the college of william and mary, i had a great conversation with jacob, a junior originally from the are some southwest part of our state in lebanon, virginia. she's graduating from college in three years instead of four because of dual enrollment he took while he was in high school at southwest virginia community college. he told me that despite his ambition, it's financially impossible for him to go on immediately to get a gallaudet degree -- graduate degree or buy a home or buy a car or start a business because even with shortening college from four years to three years still the tremendous amounts of student debt.

now, i have to tell you across virginia i have heard over the last year more about this issue than virtually any other issue. from young people, from families, from parents. i remember somebody in virginia beach not too long ago, a young man 31 years old who actually served in elective office, he had graduated from the university of michigan law school, had worked as a lawyer, been laid off and was moving back in with his parents at the age of 31. you could almost see his ambitions crushed because his student debt payments amounted to $2,000 a month. $2,000 a month. where does he get the same kind of fair shot many of us got? i'm the first member of my family to graduate from college. i got out of college and law school, worked for a while, started businesses, failed miserably twice, a third time i managed to do well in a start-up

industry called cell phones, but i came out into that experience with a total of $15,000 worth of debt. i'm not sure i would have taken the first or second or lord knows the third shotshot if i came out with $50,000, $60,000, $80,000 worth of debt many people shall coming out with right now. we have to get on this issue. it's having an effect about our economic recovery with home builders, realtors on a regular bases, they're saying the real estate market is recovering for everybody except in their starter homes. why aren't people buying starter homes? time and again because of crushing amounts of student debt. now, i know during this shortened period, i hope we'll get a chance to have a conversation about a broad-based proposal to refinance student debt at lower rates. i'm not sure we're going to be successful but it's a

conversation and a debate we ought to have. i look forward to supporting that effort. but if we're not able to get that effort across the finish line right now, we can't walk away from this issue. so i've worked on a series of bipartisan targeted reforms that would reduce costs, increase transparency, and allow students to better measure -- manage their amounts of debt. now, any one of these proposals aren't going to completely solve this problem. but this should not go into the bucket of issues that we continue to kick the can on. the issues of student debt, the affordable of college is an issue of enormous economic proportion and frankly one that shouldn't be viewed as a democrat or republican issue. let me talk briefly about a couple of proposals i've got. first, a proposal that i partnered with senator wyden and senator rubio on tha