Al Franken

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the transparency provisions in the USA FREEDOM Act. I am a proud cosponsor of Chairman Leahy's bill, and I am particularly proud to have written its key transparency provisions with my friend Senator Dean Heller of Nevada. As I said yesterday, both of us are indebted to Senator Leahy for his leadership on this issue. For over a year now there has been a steady stream of news stories about the National Security Agency's surveillance programs. Yet right now, by law, Americans still cannot get very basic information about these programs. Americans understand that we need to give due weight to privacy on the one hand and national security on the other. But when they lack an even rough sense of the scope of the government's surveillance programs, they have no way to know if the government is getting that balance right. There needs to be more transparency. The controversy unleashed by Edward Snowden's disclosures has been going on for over a year. Yet Americans still don't know the actual number of people whose information has been collected under these programs. They don't even know how many of these people are Americans, and they have no way of knowing how many of these Americans had their information actually looked at by government officials as opposed to just being held in a database. This lack of transparency is pretty breathtaking. I believe the provisions Senator Heller and I wrote will go a long way toward addressing and fixing this. It will give Americans the information they need to judge the government's surveillance programs for themselves. Three programs are at the center of this debate: the telephone call records program, the collection, through 2011, on Americans' Internet communications records, and the so-called PRISM Program that targets the communications of foreigners abroad. Our provisions would require detailed annual reports for each program. The government will have to tell the public how many people have had their information collected and how many of those people are likely American. For the call records program and the PRISM Program, the government will also have to say how many times it has run a specific search for an American's data. By creating these reporting requirements, the government will have an incentive to also disclose the number of Americans who have actually had their information reviewed by government officials, and we give the government authority to do that too. We don't just require the government to issue more detailed transparency reports. We are also helping American Internet and phone companies tell their customers about the government requests for customer information they are receiving. For years those companies have been under gag orders. As a result, people around the world think the American Internet companies are giving up far more information to the government than they likely are. Those companies are losing billions of dollars because people think they are handing over all of their customers' data to the NSA. Our provisions expand the options that companies have to issue their own transparency reports, and they let companies issue those reports more quickly. Our provisions give the public two ways to check on the government--government transparency reports and company reports as well. Like all major bills, this bill is a compromise, and we didn't get everything we wanted, but our provisions will go a long way toward giving the American people the information they need to evaluate the government's surveillance program. After 9/11, our Nation faced a security crisis. Most Americans had never lived through anything like that. We are now experiencing a crisis of trust where a big part of the American public now thinks our intelligence agencies are out to spy on them, not on foreign countries. The administration has committed to end the bulk collection of Americans' data, and Congress has written a bill to ban the bulk collection of Americans' data. But unless we pass these transparency provisions, Americans have no way to know if the government is making good on those promises. Our transparency provisions will force the government to prove annually and publicly that bulk collection is over. This is an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability which will allow the American people to decide for themselves whether the government is striking the right balance between privacy and security. We should take up this bill as soon as possible so that Americans are not in the dark a single day longer. We should take it up so that American companies stop losing business because of misperceptions about their role in domestic surveillance. We should take this bill up so that Americans can get the information they need to hold their government to account. Tribute to Alvaro Bedoya Before I yield the floor, I wish to take a moment to recognize and thank Alvaro Bedoya, my chief counsel, who is to my left. This is Alvaro's last week on my staff. Alvaro has been a member of my team since my very first day in office, and I have relied on and trusted his counsel on so many things in the 5 years since. He has been instrumental in helping me launch and set the agenda for the Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law that I chair, and we would not have reached this point in working to make the NSA more transparent and accountable to the American people if it were not for Alvaro. Alvaro's counsel has also been crucial as we have sought to improve our Nation's broken immigration system, as we fought for marriage equality and LGBT rights, including the right of all children to be free from bullying in schools, and as we work to ban apps that allow domestic abusers to stalk their victims. Alvaro was even at my side during my very first week in office when the Judiciary Committee held confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the Supreme Court. That was my fifth day in the Senate, and I remember pulling some late nights preparing for that. Alvaro's departure is bittersweet for me. I am, of course, sad to see Alvaro leave, but I am very excited for him as well. He will soon become the founding executive director of Georgetown Law School's new Center for Privacy and Technology. I have no doubt the folks at Georgetown soon will learn what I already know--that Alvaro is one of the most talented, intelligent, hardest working, decent, good-guy lawyers I know. Thanks, Alvaro. And I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, the largest association representing Minnesota's rank-and-file police officers, recently met for its annual conference in Alexandria, MN. During that conference, MPPOA recognized several outstanding police officers: Sergeant Eric Kilian of the Hutchinson Police Department was named Police Officer of the Year, and Officer Mark Blumberg of the St. Paul Police Department and Officer Brian Hasselman of the Burnsville Police Department received Honorable Mentions. In addition, the Minnesota Association of Women Police, a wonderful organization that trains women police officers and promotes professionalism in law enforcement, recently honored Detective Alesia Metry of the Maplewood Police Department as Officer of the Year at its annual conference in Duluth. I join MPPOA and MAWP in recognizing these brave public servants, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank both organizations and their members for the work they do every single day to keep our communities safe.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the transparency provisions in the USA FREEDOM Act. I am a proud cosponsor of Chairman Leahy's bill, and I am particularly proud to have written the key transparency provisions with my friend Senator Dean Heller of Nevada. Senator Lee is right. This is not a Republican bill or a Democratic bill. This isn't a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. I thank Senator Lee for his leadership. Of course, we are all indebted to Senator Leahy for his leadership on this issue. Because of time constraints, I am not going to be able to give the speech I wanted to, so I will try to ask for time for tomorrow. I know today's floor is very busy. I wish to say it is very important that there is enough transparency in our NSA surveillance that Americans can judge for themselves if we are striking the right balance between national security and our civil liberties.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my counsel detailee, Helen Gilbert, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the transparency provisions in the USA FREEDOM Act. I am a proud cosponsor of Chairman Leahy's bill, and I am particularly proud to have written the key transparency provisions with my friend Senator Dean Heller of Nevada. Senator Lee is right. This is not a Republican bill or a Democratic bill. This isn't a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. I thank Senator Lee for his leadership. Of course, we are all indebted to Senator Leahy for his leadership on this issue. Because of time constraints, I am not going to be able to give the speech I wanted to, so I will try to ask for time for tomorrow. I know today's floor is very busy. I wish to say it is very important that there is enough transparency in our NSA surveillance that Americans can judge for themselves if we are striking the right balance between national security and our civil liberties.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in proud support of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, and to urge my colleagues to support it. This is an extremely important piece of legislation, and one I was happy to work on in the HELP Committee. It is also long overdue. We haven't reauthorized the Workforce Investment Act since 1998, and it is clear that the law isn't working for the 2014 economy. We know it isn't working because we have a large and growing skills gap. Now, what is the skills gap? Recent studies have shown that between one-third and one-half of manufacturers in my State have at least one job they can't fill because they can't find a worker with the right skills. That is the skills gap in Minnesota. Of course, it isn't just Minnesota, it is a nationwide phenomenon, and any colleague I talk to on the floor says that is the case in his or her State. A 2011 survey by Deloitte found that there were 600,000 manufacturing jobs nationwide that were unfilled because of a skills shortage. I just met with Bob Kill, the president and CEO of Enterprise Minnesota, a terrific organization that studies manufacturers in my State of Minnesota, and as he likes to say, ``we've been admiring this problem for a long time.'' And it is not just manufacturers. There is a skills gap in information technology, in health care, and in other sectors that have jobs sitting there waiting for skilled workers to fill them. There are more than 3 million jobs in this country that could be filled today if there were workers who had the right skills. With too many Americans unemployed, we have to find a way to fill those jobs. The thing is, we know how to solve this, and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act will help us do that. I have been to the floor of the Senate a number of times to talk about the strategy. I have talked about it with the Presiding Officer. I am excited about this, as the Presiding Officer very well knows. These are partnerships between businesses and community and technical colleges that are training workers and getting them into high-skilled, high-demand jobs right away. A number of these partnerships are up and running in Minnesota and have employers fighting over graduates--and sometimes the fight starts even before the students have graduated. That is good for the student. Bob Kill told me about the top student in one of these programs at Alexandria Technical and Community College--by the way, a community college which has been doing this for a while and doing a great job. This student had 14 job offers before he graduated. All 14 employers said they would pay him to get his engineering degree. I bet if we asked most recent graduates from 4-year or even graduate degree programs, they would be jealous of that kind of eagerness from employers. So that is a program that is working, and with good reason; employers were involved in the program from day one, so they helped to shape the curriculum to their needs. This is obviously more effective than a training program with no connection to the needs of employers or, as Labor Secretary Tom Perez calls it, ``train and pray.'' Our education system needs more of this focus on skills for jobs that exist. Careers are different than they were a generation ago. Very few people stay working in one job for one company for their entire life anymore. As technology progresses faster and faster, workers are going to need to constantly update their skills. We need a workforce development system that is agile enough to keep up with these changing demands. That is essential not just so workers will be able to get the different skills they will need over the course of their working lives, it is also going to be one of the keys to the United States remaining globally competitive. If our workers can't adapt to the new industries that are constantly forming, we will lose those jobs to our global competitors. We are seeing manufacturing coming back to our country for all sorts of reasons, and we need to have the skilled workers to take advantage of that and be globally competitive. There is no better way to anticipate and react to these changes than to connect businesses directly with our schools to get workers exactly the skills they need. This is also about local competitiveness, it is about jobs, it is also about college affordability. I already talked about the student with 14 job offers, all of which included a free engineering degree. We can't get more affordable than free. Many have heard me talk about this issue before, a manufacturer from Minnesota named Erick Ajax. When Erick hires employees from these business-technical college partnerships, the way he looks at it is they are on a career ladder that would otherwise not be available to them. He told me about one such hire. He hired him right after a credentialing program, like a short CNC credentialed program. The guy did a great job, and so he said: Well, I am going to send you back to community college to get your associate's degree while you are working, and I will pay for it. So the guy got his associate's degree, came back, and he was magnificent. So then he said: You know what. I am going to send you to the University of Minnesota to get your bachelor's degree, while you are working. I believe he is about to get his bachelor's degree, but he is now the head of quality control for this advanced manufacturing company--and he will have a couple of degrees, with zero debt. I think about that story a lot when I think about college affordability. I could talk about these partnerships for hours, as the Presiding Officer knows--he has heard me--because they work. I have been enthusiastic about this. That is why I worked with Patty Murray, the great Senator from Washington; Johnny Isakson, the great Senator from Georgia; Tom Harkin, the great Senator from Iowa; and Lamar Alexander, the great Senator from Tennessee, to make sure this bill would encourage the formation of these partnerships. I thank each and every one of them for their leadership on this bill. They worked together on a bipartisan basis and led a cooperative process in the HELP Committee. I think the result is a bill of which everyone can be proud. I will keep working to pass my Community College to Career Fund Act, because I think these partnerships deserve even more focus as well as a dedicated funding source. But I am proud that I fought to make sure the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act contains provisions similar to my bill, and it does a lot to encourage the formation of more of these partnerships--and bigger partnerships--create more jobs, more workers with jobs, and degrees on a path in the right direction. I think this is a huge step in the right direction, and I thank my colleagues. We are creating a smarter, nimbler workforce that will be able to respond to the unique needs of each local area, coordinating all the programs so they will all be working together toward the same goals and the same outcome metrics. This will reduce administrative costs and make the system focus on what counts--getting people good jobs. Once again, I thank Senators Murray, Harkin, Isakson, and Alexander for their hard work on this bill. I encourage my colleagues to support it so we can get our workforce system working for today's economy and the economy of tomorrow.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you very much. We can do both the Sanders-McCain bill, the veterans bill, and we can do this, and there is a need for this. I was proud to join Senator Warren of Massachusetts in presenting the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. I come from a State where we have the distinction of being fourth in the Nation in terms of level of debt that our students have when they graduate from college, over $30,000. Then we see people who come to graduate school with a lot more. I do college roundtables all the time. Kids are working 20, 30, 40 hours a week while going to school. I have kids telling me they are giving blood while they are in school. We need to address this. This is only a part of what we need to do when talking about the costs of college, but why is it possible to refinance a home loan in this country, people are able to refinance their car loans, they are able to refinance a business loan, but they cannot refinance their student debt? That makes no sense. This has become a macroeconomic issue. Economists agree that because of the level of student debt--and if someone is paying 10 percent interest on it, it makes a huge difference--they are not able to save enough to put a downpayment on a house or they are not able to buy a car, they are not able to move out of their parents' house. This would help 550,000 Minnesotans--550,000 Minnesotans. That is 1 out of every 10 Minnesotans. What pays for it is saying that people who make over $1 million a year would pay in income taxes what people making $60,000 a year pay. This is about fairness. We all know that in the last number of decades, and especially in the last number of years, virtually all new income has flowed to those at the top. The top 40 hedge fund managers make as much as 300,000 teachers. Why shouldn't they pay 30 percent on their income? Why not benefit the millions of Americans who have student debt and let them refinance their debt as we can with home loans, car loans, business loans? It just seems that this is a matter of fairness, and it is smart economics because economists agree that the $1.2 trillion in student debt has hurt this economy. It seems to make common sense. This is not political. It is not political if the other side votes for it. If the other side votes for it, then we can help millions and millions of Americans refinance debt just like other Americans can refinance their credit card debt or home debt. This makes too much sense, and it should not be political. It should be bipartisan. We should get to this, and then move on to the Sanders-McCain bill, which I cosponsored. I want to get on that. I want to be able to get on a lot of legislation. In this Congress we have sometimes seen--and in the last several Congresses--the minority do what it can to slow down the process and gum up the works here. I would love to get to the veterans bill immediately after passing this. I thank the Presiding Officer and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, today I am proud to enter into the Record the poems of the winners of the 3rd Annual Minnesota Military Children's Poetry Contest. The theme of this year's competition was ``Celebrating the Veteran in My Life.'' Each of the poems submitted by a Minnesota child paid tribute to the men and women who have honorably served and have had a profound impact on the lives of children and families in Minnesota and across our great Nation. Seventy students from kindergarten, middle and high school submitted entries for this year's contest. There were three age categories for the competition--Kindergarten through 6th grade, 7th through 9th grade, and 10th through 12th grade--and nine poems were chosen as the winning entries. I want to thank all the students from across Minnesota who helped us honor our veterans for their commitment and service. I also want to recognize and thank the judges of this year's contest: the Adjutant General of the Minnesota National Guard, MG Richard Nash; Minnesota commissioner of veterans affairs Larry Shellito; Minnesota commissioner of education Brenda Cassellius; and Minnesota poet laureate Joyce Sutphen. I ask that nine winning poems from the 3rd Annual Minnesota Military Children's Poetry Contest be printed in the Record. ``Delvin Menze'' (By Riley Menze) 1st Place Grades K-6 A little boy turned two, The day Pearl Harbor went boom! You could call him my grandpa, You could call him my friend, You could say his job wasn't that great, I'd say it was more awesome than cake. Without him, the crew might've starved, But they lived through the night, Have you guessed it yet? Yep, he was an Army cook. He might slice potatoes all day, Or make soup to warm cold souls, But he is the greatest, The greatest beyond great. Today he's a farmer, A dairy farmer to be exact, Lives with his wife in the countryside, Of a little town called Ottertail. He taught me to milk cows, Or feed romping heifers, To drive tractors, four-wheelers, Plus snowmobiles too. You could call him my grandpa, You could call him my friend, Either way, he's better than a king, And worth more money than the world.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I yield back all time on the nomination.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. I thank Senator Klobuchar for her moving tribute to Jim Oberstar. We both had the honor of speaking today at his funeral. We were both honored by his wife Jean and by his family. Jim served the Eighth District for 36 years as their Representative. He served it for 11 years before that as a staffer on the Hill, as Senator Klobuchar said. As she said, he died last weekend in his sleep. I think Senator Klobuchar told me that the family said he wasn't 99 percent, he was 100 percent. So this came as a shock to all of us who knew Jim, and it obviously deeply saddened us all. I announced for the Senate in February of 2007, and a few days later I had my first public event where I took questions from folks. This was at a coffee shop in St. James, MN, in the southwest corner of our State, in the First District. The first question I got was from a woman asking if I believed there should be term limits. From the way she asked it, I knew she thought there should be term limits, and I thought: Great. My very first question and I don't agree with the person who is asking it. So I said: No, I don't believe in term limits, and let me tell you why--Jim Oberstar. Jim has been Congressman for the Eighth District for 33 years now, and he is chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and he knows more about transportation than anybody else in the country. Everybody in the coffee shop, including the woman, kind of went, yes--they nodded--yes, that makes sense. Jim was a walking advertisement against term limits. He was the consummate public servant, and it was all because he was a man who sought knowledge. He had a fierce curiosity about the world and an intense need to understand how it worked. All that enabled him to accomplish so much. If Jim were here today, if he had one more chance to speak to all of us, first he would say how much he loved his family and his friends and the people who worked for him. Then he would tell us the history of American infrastructure, starting with the Erie Canal and how it opened Midwestern agriculture to Europe because, he would explain, it was 97 percent more efficient to ship those goods over water, down the Hudson and over to Europe, than before. He would tell us how the Erie Canal made New York Harbor, New York City, made it what it is today. Then he would take us through the transcontinental railroad, rural electrification, the Interstate Highway System, and all the way to rural broadband. Then he would go back to the Roman aqueducts, which were built by slave labor, and make an impassioned speech about the history of the labor movement. Jim sometimes had a tendency to go too long, but it was because he believed that everyone was as curious about the world as he was, and he was almost always wrong about that. I once had the opportunity to speak before Jim at the naming ceremony for the James Oberstar Riverfront Complex, the headquarters for the Voyageurs National Park in northern Minnesota. Since I was speaking before him, I took the opportunity to predict what Jim would talk about. I said that he would tell us the legislative history of Voyageurs National Park; he would tell us about all the different streams of funding for the park; he would tell us the history of the French voyageurs, the first White men in Minnesota; and that during part of the speech, Jim would speak in startlingly fluent French. Everyone laughed, including Jim, but that didn't stop Jim from telling us the legislative history of the park, all the different funding streams, and all about the voyageurs--and that part in French--and delighting in every word of it. The first time I ever saw him chair, I went over to the House to see him chair a committee on high-speed rail. He had witnesses from China, Japan, France, and some other European country. When it was time for him to do his questioning, I learned that Jim had piloted every one of those high-speed rail systems. Of course, when he questioned the French witness he did it in French, and it was a tour de force--which I believe is French. Jim understood the importance of infrastructure to our economy, to economic development, and, as Amy was saying, for recreation. His legacy will be in the ports, locks, dams, highways, bridges, and water systems throughout our country, but it will also be in the bike paths in Minnesota and around the country. Jim was an avid bike rider. He used to say he wanted to turn our transportation system--the fuel--from hydrocarbons to carbohydrates. Jim will leave a legacy, and, as I said, it all came from Jim's thirst for knowledge. The pages are here, and I would urge them to thirst for knowledge, not just information. Some people in this town-- and in other places too--just look for enough information to achieve some short-term goal. Jim sought knowledge, an understanding of how things work. Because of that, he was able to get things done and was respected by all of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Amy and I were both there the day that colleagues in the House paid tribute to him, and it was both sides of the aisle equally. We had a retirement tribute for Jim in Duluth in 2011, and Don Ness, the mayor of Duluth--about whom Amy spoke briefly and who was at the service today--told a story at that tribute that says everything about Jim as a guy. Don was 23 years old, and he had just been hired to be Jim's campaign manager. Don's first thing to do with him was the Fourth of July parades. The Fourth of July parades on the Iron Range are a big deal, and there are a lot of them. There were six of them in 24 hours. This was his big chance to impress his new boss, and he screwed up every bit of it. The first thing he did was he was so obsessed with making arrangements that he forgot to make his own hotel reservation on the Range. Don lived in Duluth. So he drove around the Range to get a room until 1:30 in the morning. He found one in Virginia, MN. He overslept and had to drive to Chisholm, and he was late. So he picked up Jim, and to make up the time, he drove fast and, of course, he got pulled over and got a ticket, which made them really late for this parade, and they got put at the end, behind the horses, on a very hot, sweltering day. All during the day, Donnie made one screw-up after another. He offended a local DFL activist. He lost Jim for about a half hour. Jim knew where he was, but he didn't know where Jim was. He left this black car parked directly in the sun during the parade, and it became--well, you know what that means. Thankfully, after the fifth parade, there was going to be a 3-hour break and they were going to drive to somebody's house where they would be able to eat and get in the air-conditioning and relax. Donnie decided to put the signs in the trunk, and as he was doing it, as he was closing it, he saw the keys in the car, locked in the car, and it took them 90 minutes to find someone who could open the car, so they lost their break. Donnie was a 23-year-old kid, and he was certain he was going to be fired. He felt he deserved to be fired. Jim had been calm with him all day, been nice to him all day, but he figured Jim was stuck with him until the end of the day and at the end of the day he would be fired. He drives Jim home to Chisholm. It is 9 at night now. They get out of the car, and he starts to apologize and says: I blew it today. I know this was my chance, and I have blown it, and I will never be in public service. This guy is now--what term is he in now, Amy? His third? Yes, his third term as mayor of Duluth. What did he get, 87 percent, or something like that? But Jim stopped him and wouldn't let him finish. He stopped him and he said: I am really proud of you. You had a tough day. We had a tough day. You had a lot of adversity. You had a lot of things to overcome and you never lost your head, which was really not true; Donnie was panicking the entire time, which is probably why Donnie made those mistakes. But then he gave Don a big hug--that big Jim bear hug that so many people talked about today. Then Don carried a bag for Jim, and Jim one, too, up to the front porch, and Jim said, before Don went back to the car: I am proud of you. Don't worry about today. I am proud of you. Don went back to the car, got in, with his head swimming, and he couldn't believe the kindness, the warmth. As he started to back out, he looked back and Jim was still on the porch, and he gave him this big wave and said: Happy Independence Day. Minnesota lost a giant, the United States lost a giant this week, but we also lost a good guy. He was a great guy--a great man and a good guy. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I wish to speak today as in morning business.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to talk about the growing problem of student debt and the college affordability crisis that is gripping our Nation. I also rise to talk about one of the things we need to do to address this crisis; that is, to pass the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, which I was proud to join Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts in introducing yesterday. We have to take action on student debt because it is a huge problem in this country. The total amount of student loan debt held by Americans is more than $1.2 trillion today--surpassing the total amount of credit card debt in our Nation. More and more Americans are becoming saddled with large amounts of student debt and that limits their ability to buy homes, save for retirement, and make other purchases that will help keep our economy growing. My State--Minnesota--has the unfortunate distinction of being the State with the fourth highest average debt for students graduating from a 4-year college, at over $30,000 per student. Over the last several years, I have held college affordability roundtables in Minnesota to hear from students and families about the challenges they face in paying for college and to talk about ways to make the situation better. Let me tell you about one of the stories I heard. Last month, at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, I met Joelle Stangler, a sophomore who is the incoming student class president. With a 4.12 GPA, Joelle graduated from Rogers High School in Minnesota as their valedictorian. She was also senior class president and the captain of her volleyball team. Joelle does not lack motivation when it comes to school. Both of Joelle's parents were teachers, and, in fact, she comes from a long line of educators going back six generations. But a couple years ago, Joelle's mom Cassie Stangler made the difficult decision to quit her job as a fifth grade teacher to go to work in the private sector, where she could get more money, so she could help send her four kids to college. Among the fifth grade classes in her school district, Mrs. Stangler's students showed some of the highest rates of improvement on test scores. We lost a great teacher because of how expensive post-secondary education is. Not only that, even with her mom's sacrifice, Joelle, who is only in her second year of college, already has $12,000 in student loans. She estimates that her total debt will be around $30,000 by the time she graduates. Again, that is even with her mom leaving the job she loves, the job as a society we would want her to be in and that she is so great at. At the roundtables I have around the State of Minnesota, I always hear about students working multiple jobs, sometimes even putting in 40 hours a week while going to school full time. Working and school is good. It is not bad necessarily. Some work can help students manage their time, become more productive, and of course help pay for college, but evidence shows that when a student starts to work more than 15 hours a week, it becomes harder for the student to maintain good grades in school and to graduate from school on time. Students are working more because college is becoming less and less affordable and they are still taking out more and more student loans and graduating with more and more debt, despite having worked while they were in school. I do not think that is right. I do not think it is productive for our country. One student at the last roundtable I did told me: I can work 40 hours a week and have less debt or I can work 20 hours a week and be more involved in school. That is not the kind of choice students should have to face in America. I have talked to students who work full time while going to school and actually sell their blood every once in a while to help pay maybe their rent or their housing. Recently, some encouraging things have happened in Minnesota. Thanks to the work of Gov. Mark Dayton and the State legislature, our State's public colleges and universities received an increase in funding from the State. Last year, after more than a decade of spending cuts to higher education and tuition increases in Minnesota, the State increased higher education funding for this academic year and next academic year by 10 percent, including a 15-percent increase in need- based State grants. This much needed funding has allowed the public universities and colleges in Minnesota to hold their tuition steady, instead of passing on higher costs to Minnesota's students. This has been a significant victory for Minnesota students and families, but students are still facing daunting costs in paying for college and they are still graduating with far too much debt. In the Senate I have been working on a number of solutions to the college affordability problem. I have two bipartisan bills with Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa that would help students and families understand college costs and compare the costs of different colleges as they go through the process of selecting a school. Our Net Price Calculator Improvement Act makes these online tools more user friendly in order to give students and their families a better estimate of college costs before they decide where to apply to college. Senator Grassley and I have another bill that will require schools to use a universal financial aid letter. Right now these letters are incredibly confusing. They do often clearly indicate what is a grant and what is a loan. A lot of people do not think--they say ``award letters'' on them sometimes and they include loans. A lot of people do not consider a loan an award. They use different terminology. If you get a Stafford subsidized loan in one letter, it might say ``Stafford subsidized loan,'' this amount. Another, it might have a code number, an X5382. When we put out this bill, I got all kinds of calls from college counselors and from high school counselors, saying thank you. Our bill would make sure students and their families and their counselors get clear and uniform information so they can make apples-to-apples comparisons between what the different schools are offering. Another part of the college affordability problem which is often overlooked is the price of textbooks. Students in Minnesota are spending an average of $1,400 per year on textbooks, $200 more than the national average. One Minnesotan I have heard from, Kari Cooper at Bemidji State, has to choose between paying for her textbooks and paying her rent. She ends up putting her textbook costs on her credit card. I introduced a bill with Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois called the Affordable College Textbook Act that would address this problem. Our bill would expand the use of free, online, open-source college textbooks, which are a great alternative to the traditional expensive kind. This is a great way to reduce the overall cost of going to college. College students such as Kari, Joelle, and countless others are working incredibly hard when they are still taking on significant amounts of debt. Part of the reason this debt will stay with them for a good portion of their lives is that they are paying such high interest rates. Many college graduates are locked into loans with interest rates as high as 10 percent, which makes it all the more difficult to pay off your student loan. The last thing our students need is to be saddled with high interest rates on student loans that continue to burden them long after graduation. There is a clear commonsense solution. That solution is contained in the bill I am proud to have joined Senator Warren in introducing, the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. Students and graduates should be able to take advantage of lower interest rates and refinance their loans. When interest rates are low, homeowners, businesses, and even local governments regularly refinance their debt. Yet despite being the biggest student lender by far, the Federal Government offers no refinancing options to student borrowers. Once a person graduates, if they have a high interest rate on their student loans, they are stuck with that high interest rate forever. That is not right for our students and families and it is damaging to the long-term well-being of our country because it holds people back from making decisions that help drive economic growth: the decision to buy a home, to start a family, start a new business, to purchase big- ticket items such as a car. Our new bill would allow students and graduates who have existing private and public student loan debt from their undergraduate education to refinance these loans at less than 4 percent. Last summer we came together in Congress to prevent the interest rate on new student loans from doubling. Thanks to that effort, undergraduate students taking out new loans now have a rate of 3.86 percent. The bill we introduced yesterday would enable students and graduates who are saddled with higher interest rates on their undergraduate loans to refinance at the same 3.86 percent rate. There are nearly 40 million Americans with outstanding student loans. Many of them face interest rates higher than 3.86 percent, some of them much higher. This legislation will give them a chance to cut down their debt and keep more of their hard-earned paychecks. It will help thousands of students in Minnesota who, similar to Joelle and Kari, are doing everything they can to get their college degree. So many Minnesotans in schools across the State show tremendous perseverance and grit in getting a college education and in cobbling together the resources to pay for it. They should not end up with crushing debt and be unable to take advantage of lower interest rates to reduce that debt, when so many other kinds of debt--almost every other kind of debt you are able to refinance. We have a lot to do and a long way to go to reduce student debt for our students and make college more affordable. Doing that will help more Americans find jobs to support their families, help more employers find qualified workers for their businesses, and help our economy prosper. Passing this bill will be one important step we can and we should take. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. I thank my colleague for his words on the minimum wage. There were very important points raised in terms of that letter from those economists and the American Academy of Pediatrics. It adds wonderfully to the debate. I rise to support, similar to my colleague from Pennsylvania, an increase in the Federal minimum wage. I am a proud cosponsor of the Minimum Wage Fairness Act, which would give 16.5 million Americans a much deserved raise. I am incredibly proud of the important step Minnesota took to raise the minimum wage earlier this week. Just a few weeks ago or earlier this month the Governor and the Minnesota State legislature took this big step for workers and families. Because of this, hundreds of thousands of hard-working Minnesotans will themselves receive a raise. This is a big deal. Before this increase, the Minnesota State minimum wage was actually lower than the Federal minimum wage. I would like to talk a little bit about why Minnesota has taken this important step. Minnesotans believe that if someone works full time, 52 weeks a year, they should be able to put food on the table and a roof over their family's head. They believe that if someone works in America, they should have a chance to work their way up into the middle class. As I have traveled around Minnesota, I have heard from people all over the State who have been working long hours and yet still struggle to support their families, to work their way to the middle class and provide a brighter future for their children. As a State, we recognized that there were too many people working very hard at one, two, and sometimes three jobs and were still struggling to get by. Parents have been wondering how they are going to be able to pay for their kids' college or even how to make the next car payment. Instead, they have been working 60-hour weeks and missing out on spending precious time with their children. That is why I am proud that Minnesota has now joined 21 other States with minimum wages higher than the Federal minimum. In Washington, I am going to keep doing my part to help Minnesota workers. Recent research confirms that what we see in Minnesota is happening across America. In a survey last year of workers earning less than $10 an hour, two-thirds of these workers said they are not meeting or are just meeting their basic living expenses. Two-thirds of these workers report needing public assistance. Two in five said they can't afford additional education and training. With wages too low, these workers are trapped. They are trapped in poverty. The economy is getting better, but raising the minimum wage is about doing everything we can to make sure it gets better for everyone. Last year our Nation's largest businesses saw record profits. The market finished last year up over 26 percent, its best return since the 1990s. Raising the minimum wage is about making sure Minnesotans and workers across the country get to be a part of this improving economy. That is why Minnesota has taken this important step. We know a strong minimum wage and a strong middle class go hand in hand. That is why I support raising the Federal minimum wage to a level that allows people to work their way to a better life. For decades the Federal minimum wage has lost its value. If the Federal minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since its peak value in the 1960s, today it would be worth over $10.50 an hour. Today the Federal minimum wage is just $7.25 an hour. When families have had to pay more for food, rent, utilities, childcare, and education, the minimum wage not only hasn't kept up, it has gone down. It is not only minimum wage workers who haven't seen an increase in wages. Since the 1970s we have seen worker productivity grow by 135 percent while the average wages for middle-class workers have not changed. Americans are working harder than ever but average wages are stuck and the minimum wage actually has been declining. Let me tell you about what raising the minimum wage would mean to one Minnesotan. Her name is Misrak. She is the mother of two and works at the airport as a cleaner, where she makes a low wage. Because she couldn't make ends meet, she had to take a second job assisting passengers in wheelchairs who need help. She has been doing this for 4 years, and during that time she has received only one raise worth just 80 cents an hour. She doesn't get vacation days or sick days or time off with her children. She wants to help her children finish college, and they want to finish college so they can be sure that if they work hard, that will be a path out of poverty and into the middle class. For Misrak, even though she works over 60 hours per week, she and her family are just barely scraping by. Bringing the minimum wage back to a level that can support a family is the first step in restoring the promise that if someone works hard, they can build a better life for themselves and their family. Sometimes people ask why raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour as we did in Minnesota or $10.10 as we want to do. They say why not leave minimum wage workers alone to figure out things for themselves. I don't believe raising the minimum wage is going to solve all the problems working families face. They need more than a minimum wage. They need good jobs, good schools, and good roads to provide a better future for themselves and for their children, but I support raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour because it is a wage that says Americans value work. It is a minimum guarantee that anyone who shows up 40 hours a week and ready to work should be able to provide food and shelter for themselves and their children and should not live in poverty. Other people say we don't need to raise the minimum wage because it is not working families who earn the minimum wage. Instead they say it is mainly teenagers in their first job who earn the minimum wage. In fact, the vast majority of workers who would get a raise under this bill are working adults, including approximately 350,000 adults in Minnesota. One-quarter are parents, including over 85,000 parents in our State. Parents who would see a raise from the bill we are considering are the parents of 14 million children, an estimated 150,000 of them in Minnesota. These are kids. The American Academy of Pediatrics says do this. We know that kids who have deprivation have trauma. There are different kinds of deprivation, and we know it makes it harder for them to learn. It changes their brain chemistry to be under that much stress, so let's do it for these kids. The majority--56 percent--of Minnesotans who would be affected by an increase are women. Nationwide, one in five working mothers would see a raise under this bill, and 6.8 million workers and their families would be lifted out of poverty. Raising the minimum wage is good for working families and it is good for the economy. It boosts economic activity and helps local businesses. A study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found that increasing the Federal minimum wage to $10 an hour could boost GDP by up to 0.3 percentage points. In a recent analysis of State employment data, Goldman Sachs noted that based on their analysis of States that increased their minimum wage at the start of 2014, the employment impact, if any, from a higher Federal minimum wage would be small relative to the normal volatility in the market. A higher minimum wage-- Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes or 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. FRANKEN. In that case, 2 minutes. A higher minimum wage also helps our economy because increasing the minimum wage boosts the purchasing power of consumers and creates more customers for local businesses. People earning minimum wage spend the money they are earning. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the increased economic activity from an increase to $10.10 could create 85,000 new jobs and boost GDP by $22.2 billion over the 3 years of implementation. Increasing the minimum wage helps businesses in another way too. Workers who are better paid are also more productive and less likely to quit. That means businesses save on recruiting and training costs. It also means they have better, more loyal, and harder working employees. Businesses in Minnesota understand this. I spoke with Danny Schwartzman, the owner of Common Roots Cafe and Catering in Minneapolis. Danny pays his employees a minimum of $11 per hour, plus benefits, such as paid time off and health insurance. Danny has written: Over time, other businesses will see what I have seen--that paying people more yields more for the bottom line. It's easier to recruit and retain people. Happier employees are more likely to provide better customer service. Lower turnover means dramatically lower training costs and better employee performance. Danny understands that his business will do better if his workers are doing better. It is time that Congress follow Minnesota's example. The minimum wage is about making sure that work pays. It is about the American dream. If you work hard and take responsibility, you can put a roof over your head, provide a decent life for your children, and help them get ready for the future. It has been too long since the Federal minimum wage kept that promise to America's workers and their children, and that is why we need to raise it today. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, recently the Senate failed to permanently repeal the current system of automatic payment cuts for physicians who treat Medicare patients and to replace it with a more sensible system for reimbursing physicians. Instead, the Senate voted--yet again--to pass a short-term patch to this broken system, which postponed these payment cuts for one more year. After talking with Medicare providers in my State, I decided to oppose this legislation since it provides only a bandaid for a wholly broken system. I believe that an enduring solution is possible and absolutely necessary, and I will continue to fight for a more sustainable replacement that rewards physicians for the high-quality care they deliver. Minnesota is No. 1 in the Nation when it comes to the quality of the health care that we provide. If our system of reimbursement could reward providers for their efficiency and quality--rather than the quantity of the services they administer--we could improve the value of the care that our seniors receive while rewarding providers who keep patients healthy. We can do that by overhauling the Medicare physician payment formula and implementing a system that rewards health care value over volume, and there has never been a better moment to do that than now. Over the past 10 years, Congress has spent $150 billion on short-term fixes; the Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier this year that the cost of permanently repealing the formula and replacing it with a more sustainable program now would be even lower than that total so far. For the first time since the passage of our current formula, there was bipartisan, bicameral legislation to fully repeal the Medicare physician payment formula and replace it with a payment system that would better reward physicians for providing high- value care. We have a unique opportunity to permanently solve this problem. Temporary patches--like the one just passed--only perpetuate the instability created by the annual threat of payment reductions. This instability is bad for patients and bad for providers. Take, for example, the young physician from Rogers, MN who recently called my office to discuss how proposed payment cuts would affect his practice and his future. As a father and a new surgeon, this doctor described the challenges of paying off high levels of debt and starting a new practice in a time of financial uncertainty. Temporary fixes will not help this young doctor to establish a practice and provide the best possible care to his patients. Stopgap measures fail to address the underlying problem with the way Medicare pays for physician services, and I am tired of postponing good policies that help support high- quality providers in Minnesota. It is clear that now is time to permanently repeal and replace the Medicare physician payment formula. That is why I did not support the legislation to temporarily patch our provider payment system and why I am committed to working towards a permanent solution that would put in place a payment system to reward high-value care. My goal is to make sure that Medicare beneficiaries, now and in the future, have access to high-quality, affordable health care services. To achieve this, Medicare must be on sound financial footing and be prepared to meet the needs of an aging baby boomer generation. Replacing Medicare's broken system of provider payments with a system to promote high-value care is a critical step in this direction. I remain committed to helping to take this step.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask to speak in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, this morning the Supreme Court announced its decision in the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the latest in a series of rulings that have done away with any meaningful limits on money in politics. Since the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Citizens United in 2010, we have witnessed the systematic unraveling of our Nation's campaign finance laws. I am sure this is a cause for celebration for some--the superwealthy and well-funded corporate interests--because, after all, these rulings give them more influence, more access, and more power, as if they need it. Then there is everybody else--the everyday folks in Minnesota and around the country who don't have the luxury of pouring millions of dollars into political campaigns. There is the senior on a fixed income who gives $25 to a candidate she likes--maybe someone fighting to contain the cost of prescription drugs. That $25 donation is real money for that senior, but it is nothing compared to the $25 million the pharmaceutical industry can now spend to elect the other candidate. There is the middle-class mom who has just enough money to buy her kids' school clothes, but surely doesn't have enough money left over to buy an election too. There is the small business owner in the suburbs who is so concerned about making payroll that she cannot even begin to think about making a huge campaign contribution. Our democracy can't function the way it is supposed to when these voices are drowned out by a flood of corporate money, so for those who believe the measure of democracy's strength is in votes cast, not dollars spent, well, for us there is nothing to celebrate today. Citizens United was, in my view, one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. By a 5-4 margin, the Court ruled that corporations have a constitutional right to spend as much money as they want to influence elections. If Big Oil wants to spend millions of dollars to attack the guy who is advocating for more renewable fuels, the Supreme Court says: Sure. Go ahead. If huge corporations want to run endless radio ads against a candidate who promises to raise the minimum wage, the Supreme Court says: Fine. Go ahead. If the Wall Street banks want to pour money into a campaign to undo consumer protection laws, the Supreme Court says that is their constitutional right so there is not much you can do about it. That is the way the Court sees it, but it is not the way I see it and it is not the way most Minnesotans see it either. I think we should be able to say: Enough is enough. There is too much corporate money in politics and some reasonable limits on campaign spending are not just appropriate, they are necessary. Really, that is what Citizens United is all about--the case that got us into this mess. It sort of came down to the question: Can we, the people, place any real limit on the amount of money corporations can spend on elections? The answer should have been, yes, of course we can, but five Supreme Court Justices said: No, we can't. Their logic was literally unprecedented. To reach the result it did, the Supreme Court had to overturn the case Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The decision had been on the books for 20 years. Overturning Austin wasn't some minor technical change to the law; it was a radical shift, an exercise in pro-corporate judicial activism. Just compare what the Court said about campaign expenditures in Austin to what it said 20 years later in Citizens United. In Austin, the Court refused to strike down a Michigan law that limited corporate spending on elections. The Court explained that the lawsuit served a ``compelling interest''--namely, preventing corporations from gaining an unfair advantage in the political system. The Austin Court said that ``corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections.'' Those were the Supreme Court's words in 1990, that ``corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections.'' The Court explained that campaign finance laws prevent ``the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form.'' In other words, there is good reason--no, a compelling reason--to be worried about unlimited corporate money in politics. Had today's Supreme Court followed the precedent, Citizens United would have been an easy case. I mean, I would have written the opinion in a couple of minutes. It would have gone something like this: Laws limiting corporate campaign expenditures are constitutional. See Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The end. Of course, that is not the opinion the Court wrote in Citizens United. The Court's opinion was a lot longer and a lot worse. Here is the one phrase that sums up the Citizens United decision: ``We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.'' The majority of the Court told us that there is no reason at all to be worried about unlimited corporate money in politics anymore, that it does not give rise even to the appearance of corruption. And, the logic goes, since there is no reason to be concerned about it, there is no constitutional basis to regulate it. That is what the Court tells us, but we know better. The Court's analysis not only is disconnected from precedent, it is disconnected from reality. The Minnesota League of Women Voters recently issued a report in which it concluded that ``the influence of money in politics represents a dangerous threat to the health of our democracy in Minnesota and nationally.'' That is the Minnesota League of Women Voters. That sounds right to me because here is the thing: In our democracy, everyone is supposed to have an equal say regardless of his or her wealth. The guy in the assembly line gets as many votes as the CEO--one. You don't get extra votes just because you have extra money or greater say because of greater wealth. It doesn't work that way--or shouldn't. Citizens United turned the whole thing on its head and basically said that those among us with the most money get the most influence, and not only that, there is no limit to the amount of money the wealthy can spend or the amount of influence they can buy. I think that is inherently corrupting. Unfortunately, Citizens United was just the beginning of the story, and in the years since we have seen courts across the country strike down campaign finance laws, ushering in what are known as super PACs-- wealthy groups that can raise and spend unlimited money to influence elections. Today, in McCutcheon, the Court took Citizens United a step further, striking down a law that limited the amount of money people could give directly to candidates and political parties. In doing so, the Court overturned a key holding from Buckley v. Valeo, a case from 1976. Until today, the law said that direct contributions to candidates, parties, and certain PACs could not exceed about $125,000 in the aggregate per election cycle. The law was intended to stem the tide of money in politics and maintain the integrity of our public institutions. But as of this morning, that law has been taken off the books at the Supreme Court's direction. As Justice Breyer explained in his dissenting opinion in McCutcheon today, ``Taken together with Citizens United, today's decision eviscerates our Nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.'' He is right. Changing law has real consequences. What happens when we get rid of the speed limit? People with fast cars drive faster--as fast as they want to drive. What happens when we get rid of campaign finance limits? Well, special interests with a lot of money spend more of it on politics--as much as they want to spend. That is not a theory; it is empirical fact. According to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, spending by outside groups more than tripled from 2008 to 2012, with overall outside spending topping $1 billion--billion with a ``b''--for the first time in history. Where is the new money coming from? Well, in most cases we don't know. More on that a little later. What we do know is pretty much what one would expect. According to one study, 60 percent of super PACS' funding in the 2012 election cycle came from just 132 donors, each donating at least $1 million. So we have a relatively small group of superwealthy people accounting for most of the money. Remember when the Citizens United court decision assured us that all of this new money in politics is OK, that we shouldn't be worried about it, that it ``will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy''? Wow, were they wrong. People are losing faith in our democracy, and can we blame them? The system is broken, and we need to fix it. There are a number of good proposals out there, and I wish to use this opportunity to mention three of them: disclosure, public financing, and a constitutional amendment. First, we need greater disclosure. The problem in the post-Citizens United world isn't just that there is now unlimited money in politics, it is also that we have no idea where that money is coming from. Billionaires and big corporations want to influence elections by giving unlimited money to super PACs, but they don't want anyone to know they are the ones pulling the strings, so they do something that looks a lot like money laundering--except that it is perfectly legal. Let's say there are a bunch of corporations and billionaires out there who want to preserve indefensible tax loopholes that really only help their bottom lines. Their allies form a super PAC with a mission to do just that--preserve their big tax breaks. Now, a super PAC needs a name. ``Americans for Indefensible Tax Loopholes'' probably doesn't achieve their end, so the super PAC decides to go with something such as ``Americans for a Better Tax Code.'' After all, who could be against that? Remember, the corporations or the billionaires who are behind this whole thing don't want their fingerprints on this, so they pass their money through shell corporations before it ends up in the super PAC. That way the actual donors don't show up on the Federal disclosure forms. So now the TV is flooded with attack ads and something like ``paid for by Americans for a Better Tax Code,'' but nobody has any idea who is actually behind the advertisement and there is no good way to find out. But hang on. It gets worse. In addition to all of the secret money being spent by these super PACs, there are a bunch of nonprofit organizations that are using a glitch in the Tax Code to keep all of their campaign activities secret. These groups, liberal or conservative, don't have to disclose a single penny. Combine them with the super PACs, and we have a lot of money and very little information. Voters aren't just being flooded, they are being blindfolded too. We have a bill called the DISCLOSE Act that would go a long way toward fixing this problem. It would put in place a clear set of rules requiring disclosure whenever anyone spends more than $10,000 to influence an election, even when that money is being funneled through back channels. The idea is pretty simple: If someone is going to spend that kind of money to influence elections, people should know about it so they can make informed decisions and effectively evaluate what a candidate has to say. This is all about transparency and accountability. All of us should be able to get behind that. Indeed, most of us already have. The last version of the DISCLOSE Act had support from a majority of Senators, and I am proud to have been one of the bill's cosponsors. Several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spoken enthusiastically about greater disclosure. They have said things such as ``sunshine is the greatest disinfectant.'' Even the Supreme Court has endorsed disclosure laws in both Citizens United and in today's decision. Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of Americans support greater transparency in campaign financing. This is a basic step we should be able to take pretty easily--or one would think so. It turns out that one would be wrong. In July 2012 we brought the DISCLOSE Act to the Senate floor and Republicans blocked it. The bill died before it could get an up-or-down vote. But we are not going to give up on it. I will continue to work with my colleagues to make the campaign finance system more transparent. Here is another thing we can do: Fundamentally change the way candidates finance their campaigns. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois recently reintroduced the Fair Elections Now Act, which basically says that candidates who refuse to accept contributions of more than $150 will be eligible for public financing of their campaigns. This would level the playing field. Instead of campaigns that are funded by a handful of wealthy donors, we will have citizen-funded grassroots campaigns where candidates focus their attention on people who donate $5, $10, $50, up to $150. We will restore power to that senior who makes the $25 donation. I have cosponsored the Fair Elections Now Act in the past, and I am proud to cosponsor it again in this Congress. This isn't going to solve all of the problems created by Citizens United and McCutcheon, but it is a step in the right direction. Finally, there is something else we can do, and honestly it is the one thing we most need to do if we are going to repair all the damage the Supreme Court has done; that is, amend the Constitution to reverse the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions. Let me be clear. Amending the Constitution is not something I take lightly. I think it should be done only in extraordinary circumstances. But the Supreme Court's decisions present us with one of those situations because they erode the very foundation of our democracy. I know what my colleagues are thinking: Constitutional amendments are really hard to come by. They require agreement by two-thirds of both Chambers of Congress, and they have to be ratified by at least three- quarters of the States. It is no wonder that constitutional amendments have been so rare in our history. Just because a constitutional amendment takes a long time to accomplish doesn't mean it is not worth trying. It took a long time-- much longer than it should have--to enshrine women's suffrage into the Constitution, but it got done because it would have been an affront to our democracy had it been otherwise. These things take time and patience and persistence and perseverance, but they happen. In fact, there is already momentum building. I am proud to cosponsor a constitutional amendment that has been proposed here in the Senate that would restore legal authority to the people to regulate campaign finance. The States are moving in the right direction too. According to Public Citizen, 16 States have already called for a constitutional amendment. I believe it is time for us to answer the call. Mr. President, thank you. I yield the floor for the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you. Amendment No. 2822 I rise in strong support of the child care development and block grant, or CCDBG, and to urge my colleagues to support the amendment Senator Murkowski and I put forward. Our amendment would help strengthen CCDBG by making sure we are addressing some of our Nation's communities that will benefit most from it, the people who are members of tribes or tribal organizations all over this Nation. American Indians experience exceptionally high unemployment levels compared with the rest of the Nation. Furthermore, American Indian children and youth experience some of the poorest educational outcomes in America. These are exactly the sort of challenges CCDBG is designed to address. Our amendment would lift the current ceiling on tribal childcare funding so CCDBG can go to where the funds are needed most. This would enable more funds to flow to tribes and tribal organizations but without reducing the amount that goes to States. The amendment specifies that the amount of CCDBG funds reserved for tribes only rises if the overall funding level for CCDBG goes above its current levels. I thank our cosponsors, Senators Murray, Thune, Hirono, Baldwin, and Heitkamp, for their support of this amendment. I thank Senators Harkin and Alexander and Senators Mikulski and Burr for working together to bring this bill to the floor. Thank you very much. I would yield for my colleague from North Carolina.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Boxer and Senator Schatz and Senator Whitehouse for organizing this. I rise tonight to talk about climate change, along with 25 to 30 of my colleagues who will be speaking through the night. The recent extreme weather events we have experienced across the United States are our call to action. We in this body need not just to talk about climate change but to take action to address it. If we fail to act, the extreme weather events we have seen will only grow more extreme in the future. This winter has been exceptionally cold in many areas of the United States, including Minnesota. Some deniers have taken this as a sign that climate change isn't happening. They have pointed to the cold weather as evidence that global warming is not occurring. But they are missing the point. We already know that on average the Earth is warming. This isn't complicated. We have been using thermometers to make measurements around the globe for a long time. We know average temperatures have gone up significantly in recent years. But climate change isn't just about the average temperature. As the average temperature continues to rise, most experts agree we will see ever more frequent extreme weather events, including drought, storms, floods, and other extreme events. It is important to remember that we are not attributing any one event to climate change, but we can say there will be more extreme weather events as the Earth grows warmer. As the Presiding Officer knows, we have seen the polar vortex bring Arctic weather to much of the United States during this winter. According to White House Science Adviser Dr. John Holdren, we can expect to see more of this kind of extreme cold as global warming continues. This is going to have serious consequences--it already has. In my home State of Minnesota, the extreme cold has contributed to very serious propane shortages. Many rural residents are unable to properly heat their homes. Turkey growers are finding it difficult to heat their barns and, therefore, their turkeys. This is not just a problem in Minnesota. Other areas of the country have been affected. We in the Senate have to talk about what is happening and start taking action in the face of climate change threats. The ongoing drought in California and other States is another example. The situation is particularly grave in California where vast regions have been classified as D4, which is the most severe drought category. This has cost farmers their crops and livestock and created severe water shortages for residents and businesses. Farmers have had to stop farming half a million acres of what normally is irrigated land. That is about 6 percent of the entire State of California. According to the California Farm Water Coalition, it is already costing that State $5 billion. These costs get passed on to every American. As a result of this drought, Americans have to pay more and will continue to pay more for groceries this winter. Unfortunately, droughts such as this are becoming commonplace. In 2012, drought caused more than 70 percent of U.S. counties to be declared disaster areas. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimated the economic impact of droughts to be $30 billion. The droughts destroyed or damaged major crops all over this country, making corn and soybeans more expensive and increasing animal feed costs. Again, Americans pay more for meats and other animal-based products because of drought. In the Midwest, the 2012 drought dramatically lowered water levels in the Mississippi River, seriously interfering with our ability to transport our agricultural goods to market to compete with those from other countries. So that barges wouldn't run aground, shippers sent them down the Mississippi only half full with, say, soybeans. This made Minnesota soybeans less competitive with Brazilian soybeans. Climate change is also exacerbating our Nation's wildfires, as we heard Senator Wyden from Oregon describe about his State. When Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell testified in 2012 before the Senate Energy Committee, I asked him about the link between climate change and forest fires. He told us that throughout the country we are seeing longer fire seasons--more than 2 months longer--compared to fire seasons in the 1970s. Wildfires are also larger and more intense. I asked Chief Tidwell whether scientists at the Forest Service thought climate change was causing this increase in the size and intensity of wildfires and extending their season, and without hesitation he said yes. The Forest Service is spending more and more fighting wildfires--now about half of its entire budget. Longer fires and larger, more intense fires are going to eat up more and more of that budget. In addition, these wildfires--especially ones that occur at the wildland-urban interface--are increasingly threatening homes and property. Most importantly, more intense fires are costing lives. The 19 brave firefighters who perished in Arizona last June should be a reminder of the gravity of this issue. Of course, we cannot talk about climate change without talking about sea level rise. As I said, I serve on the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. In 2012, I attended a hearing on sea level rise and heard testimony about how rising sea levels are increasing the size of flood zones and increasing damage from storm surges. One example they used--they said this is a possibility--is that a few inches of sea level rise could result in a storm surge that could flood the New York City subway system. It sounded like something out of science fiction. Yet 6 months later, that is exactly what happened when Hurricane Sandy hit New York City and flooded the subways. My colleagues do not need to be reminded of the cost of Hurricane Sandy. It cost taxpayers a staggering $60 billion. So when people talk about the harmful consequences of climate change and its costs in terms of homes and dollars and lives, they are not talking about some far-off future problem. Climate change is already hurting us. Unfortunately, only one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle--the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski from Alaska--attended that hearing. This has been pretty much the case whenever we have a hearing that even tangentially relates to climate change. A number of my colleagues in Congress don't believe human activity is contributing to climate change. Many others, I suspect, don't talk about climate change because addressing it requires that we make some difficult choices. This is despite the fact that even some of the major fossil fuel companies that previously funded anti-climate change efforts have turned the page on this issue. ExxonMobil used to fund the Heartland Institute, one of the leading organizations spreading climate change denial propaganda. But if we go to ExxonMobil's Web site today, it states: ``Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems.'' That is ExxonMobil. Shell Oil states on its Web site: ``CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change.'' That is Shell Oil. So even the major oil and gas companies have begun to acknowledge that climate change is real. I would respectfully suggest that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle here in Congress also need to engage in a serious conversation on climate change. At a time when Americans are dealing with record droughts and other extreme weather events, the Senate cannot afford to simply ignore climate change. Ultimately, we have to come together to start addressing climate change before its damage and costs to society get out of control. I know this is not going to be easy. Some will point out that climate change is a global problem--sometimes called global climate change--and that we can't solve it alone. They are right. Emissions in the developing world are on the rise. China now surpasses the U.S. in total greenhouse gas emissions. But China is also starting to wake up to its serious pollution problem. In fact, at the opening of the annual meeting of its parliament last week, the Chinese Premier stated that his country is declaring a war on pollution. Overcoming pollution challenges will require China to invest heavily in renewable and other environmentally friendly technologies. It is going to make the global clean energy race even more competitive. If we are going to win this race and create good-paying jobs for Americans, we have to invest in clean energy. We know that government investment in energy can pay off. Take the example of natural gas. We are currently experiencing a natural gas boom in this country. Sometimes my colleagues forget that this boom happened in large part because of years of Federal support to develop hydraulic fracturing technology. The Eastern Gas Shales Project was an initiative the Federal Government began back in 1976, before hydraulic fracturing was a mature industry. The project set up and funded dozens of pilot demonstration projects with universities and private gas companies that tested drilling and fracturing methods. This investment by the Federal Government was instrumental in the development of the commercial extraction of natural gas from shale. In fact, microseismic imaging--a critical tool used in fracking--was originally developed by Sandia National Laboratory, a Federal energy laboratory. The industry was also supported through tax breaks and subsidies. In fact, Mitchell Energy Vice President Dan Stewart said in an interview that Mitchell Energy's first horizontal well was subsidized by the Federal Government. Mr. Mitchell said:

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Samuel Bockenhauer, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 113th Congress.