Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the law enforcement in Pennsylvania and throughout the country.

We just finished the holiday season, and in my family--as with many of us, I am sure--we had a wonderful Christmas in our homes, had a wonderful meal, and got to watch the kids open their presents.

There are a lot of Pennsylvanians and Americans who didn't have the chance to do what we got to enjoy, and they were the law enforcement men and women who were out on the streets, in the cold, protecting us as they do day in and day out because their work goes on 24/7, 365 days a year.

Just this past Saturday a number of us gathered on Independence Mall in Philadelphia. Several hundred people braved a very cold and windy day to let the law enforcement officials of Pennsylvania and beyond know just how much we appreciate the sacrifice they make for us day in and day out. We had a terrific turnout. It was a very enthusiastic crowd who rallied in support of our police officers.

But being a police officer is not just often inconvenient; sometimes it is very dangerous. Last year 115 police officers died in the line of duty. So far we are 13 days into a new year and 10 officers have already been shot and wounded.

Often these police officers have been targeted and shot just because of the uniform they wear. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania is not immune to this problem. Last year on September 12, late at night, two Pennsylvania State troopers were coming in for their shift at work, and Eric Frein was lying in wait, hiding in the woods, with a high-powered rifle. He shot and killed Corporal Bryon Dickson, and he shot Trooper Alex Douglass, who was grievously wounded. The killer, Eric Frein, didn't know either Corporal Dickson or Trooper Douglass; he shot the two police officers simply because they were police officers. He thought that somehow by killing a cop he would help spark a revolution. Such is the madness police officers have to face on a regular basis. On any given day they don't know that they won't run into that kind of insanity.

It is important for us to remember that these victims--in this case, Corporal Dickson--aren't just numbers and badges. Corporal Dickson was a dad, the father of two young boys. He used to enjoy making toys for his sons. He was a devoted husband who had recently celebrated his 10th wedding anniversary. He was a proud Marine Corps veteran.

I am proud, as Pennsylvanians generally are, of the response of law enforcement to the savage and despicable shooting of these two State troopers. Officers from all across Pennsylvania and surrounding States and even around the country joined in a very intensive, tireless, 7- week-long manhunt. In the end they found Eric Frein, and they brought him into custody wearing the handcuffs of Corporal Dickson. He will meet justice.

But, of course, the story doesn't end there. There was another terrible tragedy just last month in Brooklyn. Just 5 days before Christmas, Officer Rafael Ramos and Officer Wenjian Liu were both murdered in the line of duty. In the middle of the afternoon, in broad daylight, a gunman approached their marked police vehicle while they sat in the vehicle and shot each police officer point-blank range in the head, killing them both instantly. The motivation of the gunman was very clear: He just wanted to kill any police officer he could. That day, the gunman posted messages such as ``They Take 1 of Ours . . . Let's Take 2 of Theirs.'' Another message he posted used the hashtag advocating ``Shoot the Police.''

Officers Ramos and Liu were not just nameless people in uniforms either.

Officer Ramos was described by his family and friends ``as a Puerto Rican kid who grew up on these streets'' in Queens and never stopped trying to help the people in his community. Officer Ramos had spent the last 10 years of his life studying to become a chaplain. He was murdered just an hour before his graduation ceremony. Office Ramos joined the police force at the age of 37. He explained that he saw the streets as his ministry and that by protecting and serving his community, he was serving God as well. Office Ramos left behind his wife and two sons, 19-year-old Jaden and 13-year-old Justin.

Officer Liu was the other victim that day. In many ways, Officer Liu was the epitome of the American dream. He was a young boy who at age 12 came from China to America with his family. He was a teenage boy who left playground basketball games occasionally so he could do the shopping for his family's groceries. He was a young man who was so inspired by the heroism he saw on September 11 that he decided he would become a police officer. He was the police officer who called home every night to let his dad know he had finished a day of work safely-- every night, that is, except December 20, when the phone call never came. Officer Liu is survived by his wife, whom he married just 3 months before.

The response of law enforcement to the savage murders of Officer Ramos and Officer Liu should make every American proud. Over 25,000 police officers traveled from across America and from parts of Canada to attend the funeral services last month.

We can never really fully repay the debt of the men and women who sacrifice their very lives protecting us, but there are small things we can do to help the families they leave behind. I want to call on Congress to take one small step toward that goal. We should pass the Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship Act, and we should do so soon.

The Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship Act simply provides that any child whose parent dies in the line of duty as a member of the armed services or as a public safety officer would be entitled to the maximum permissible scholarship under the Pell Grant Program for their attendance in college.

Five years ago the House of Representatives unanimously passed this legislation. My fellow Pennsylvanian Senator Bob Casey plans to reintroduce this legislation. I would be cosponsoring this legislation, and I call on Congress to pick up where it left off back in 2010 and enact the Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship Act.

I also want to take a moment to address the recent spate of protests we have seen. People have gone out on to the streets and across the country, often harshly criticizing the officers. I want to be clear, if people want to protest, they have the right to protest; and I would never challenge their right to say what is on their minds or to convey whatever message they would like

to convey. But I would hope they would keep a few basic facts in mind as they consider, or in fact carry out, the protests.

No. 1, any human institution is going to be imperfect. That is the nature of humanity. It consists of human beings. So it therefore will be imperfect. But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of police officers are honest, hard working, decent Americans, and they are motivated by the desire to serve and protect the community in which they live, and they don't have a racist bone in their bodies.

So my message to law enforcement is I understand how demoralizing it must have been recently to see some of these protests, to hear some of the outrageous and slanderous statements that have been made. But these protestors don't speak for most Americans. The fact is, a big majority of Pennsylvanians and, I suspect, a big majority of Americans know that every day 780,000 men and women across America who put on their blue uniforms and put on their badges are answering to the call of the people in need when they need them the most, and they put themselves in great danger to serve all of us. When other people choose to run away from danger, they are the ones who have to run toward it.

So just as the law enforcement community has stood by the families of all the victims, and that of Officer Dickson, Officer Ramos, and Officer Liu, I want you to know that America stands with you.

Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 13, 2015, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each and that that time count postcloture.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, first, I congratulate my colleagues Senator Hoeven and Senator Manchin, the cosponsors of this legislation. I also commend the energy committee chair, Senator Murkowski. This is important legislation. It is long overdue that we take this up, but it is encouraging that we finally are doing that. So I commend them for that.

Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Thank you, Mr. President.

A couple of things about the Keystone Pipeline, and then I wish to talk about an amendment I am going to be offering.

First, I think one of the encouraging things about approving this pipeline is the benefits for the environment. The fact is we will be moving oil on a pipeline which is a cleaner, safer way to do it than any available alternative. That is good news.

It is good news that it is going to create jobs across our country. The State Department has estimated 42,000 jobs in the development of this pipeline. That is terrific news for everyone who is going to get a chance to benefit from that work.

Clearly it is going to reduce our dependence on non-North American oil, which can only be good from a geopolitical point of view as well as an economic point of view. Of course, the fact is this legislation has bipartisan support and has for a long time. It received 31 Democratic votes in the House, 14 Democratic votes in the Senate, as well as every Republican Senator the last time it was brought up. It is strongly supported by the labor community because they recognize the benefits of the jobs it will create, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I also would like to take a moment to thank Leader McConnell for doing exactly what he said he would do and what many of us said we needed to do in this Chamber, which is to reopen this body--reopen it and have debate and put legislation on the floor and open it for amendment. Let's have a discussion. Let's change policy in this country in ways that will be constructive. We are beginning this process now as we said we would, and I think that is terrific and I intend to take advantage of the opportunity.

I have several amendments I am going to file and I intend to bring up with respect to this legislation. One is going to be an amendment that will encourage a transition of our Federal Government's vehicle fleet from the current practice of burning gasoline mostly, and I encourage the adoption of natural gas as an alternative fuel because natural gas is cleaner, it is domestic, it is actually cheaper. Without any government subsidy or taxpayer help, natural gas is a cheaper source of fuel.

We have a staggering quantity. The United States is the world's No. 1 producer of natural gas. We have 2.2 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is too big a number for me to wrap my brain around, but let's put it this way: That is the gas we know of, and it is enough to last the next 85 years, based on any plausible projection of our use. It is a staggering amount.

I have another amendment that also has bipartisan support. I thank Senator Feinstein, Senators Flake and Manchin for supporting the effort to repeal the corn ethanol mandate in our fuel. This is a very bad policy that we have had for far too long. It is time to end this mandate that we grow corn and use it to burn in our gas tanks. It is a practice that is bad for the environment. It raises the cost of filling our tanks. It raises the cost of food because so much of our corn production goes into this, and it is not good for our engines. There is no good reason to continue this, and I look forward to having the debate that will enable us to repeal the corn ethanol mandate.

But the amendment I wish to talk about is another bipartisan amendment. I thank Senator Casey for being the Democratic cosponsor for this amendment, and I thank Senator Hatch for joining me. This is an amendment that will preserve an important, environmentally beneficial source of alternative energy that we have especially in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and it is under threat by two new rules that have been proposed by the EPA.

Let me give a little bit of background as to why we have gotten to this place. In Pennsylvania and West Virginia we have been mining coal for well over a century, and for many of the decades, especially in the early years of our coal development, we took the high-energy density coal and our coal miners sold it to the steel industry where it was used in the manufacturing process of making steel, and the low-energy coal was left in piles--huge piles--actually mountains. It is often referred to as waste coal.

The first photograph illustrates one of these waste coal piles. It is in Nanty Glo in Cambria County, PA. It is one of many piles or, as I say, mountains throughout Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection estimates that there are 2 billion tons of waste coal such as this covering 180,000 acres in Pennsylvania alone. Think about that. It is a massive scale because of over a century of legacy of coal mining. Some of these piles are literally in people's backyards.

Here we can see the people who live literally within a stone's throw--if you have a reasonably good arm--within a stone's throw you can reach this pile. That is also Nanty Glo in Cambria County. There are people who live within a couple of hundred feet.

What is the problem with these mountains? The problem with these mountains of coal is it rains on them, and when it rains the runoff is horrendous. It looks like this. It looks like this in every one of these mountains of waste coal everywhere that one exists, every time it rains. In 2003 in an op-ed entitled ``The Benefits of Waste Coal,'' former Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell's Department of Environmental Protection secretary, whose name is Kathleen McGinty, wrote: ``For years these piles sat abandoned, generating iron, manganese and aluminum pollution that discharged as runoff into Pennsylvania's waterways.''

That is exactly what happens when these piles just sit here.

In 2011 the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection report states:

Coal refuse piles that are not removed (i.e. burned for

fuel) generally create severe acid mine drainage, with pH in

the 2.5 range . . .

A pH that high, by the way, is somewhere between the intensity of stomach acid and hydrochloric acid. That kind of acidic chemical running into our waters is enormously damaging.

Slide No. 4 is another depiction of exactly what happens when rainwater runs through these piles and finds its way into the streams, rivers, ponds, and lakes of Pennsylvania. It pollutes hundreds of miles of rivers and streams.

In 2007 former Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell said:

These piles are domestic energy sources that have

significant value when put into production in CFB

cogeneration plants. When left on the ground, waste coal

presents a grave environmental threat. Runoff from these

piles contributes to the ``abandoned mine drainage'' that is

the second leading water pollution problem in the

Commonwealth, literally killing all life in some 2,000 stream

miles in Pennsylvania.

But that is not all. Photo No. 5 shows something else that happens with these piles. They catch fire. They spontaneously combust. It could be from lightning, carelessness, and sometimes it is unknown, but they catch fire. This particular photo is from Fell Township in Lackawanna County, PA.

The pile caught fire in December of 2013. It burned for over a year. It is very hard to put these fires out. It burned out of control with, obviously, no ability to do anything about the pollutants that are being released by the combustion because it is completely uncontrolled.

We think the fire went out in January, but authorities are still not certain that it may not be smoldering somewhere below the surface. By the way, this mountain is 600 feet from residential housing. What is the effect of this kind of combustion on the residents in that area?

How much of this will burn? Maybe some people think this is just a freak incident. Not really, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection estimates that 6.6 million tons of waste coal burns each year--unintended, uncontrolled, but it is burning--and in the process it emits 9 million tons of carbon dioxide and many tons of other uncontrolled air pollution.

What about cleaning all of this up? The costs would be absolutely staggering. Again, former Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Secretary McGinty estimated that it costs between $20,000 and $40,000 to reclaim just one acre of waste coal. We have hundreds of thousands of acres of waste coal.

The Pennsylvania General Assembly has estimated it would cost approximately $15 billion to remediate Pennsylvania's abandoned mine set. That is the bad news.

The good news is the market has figured out a solution to address this matter. The free market has developed a way to systematically eliminate these mountains of waste coal, and for decades we have had powerplants designed specifically for the purpose of burning this coal and doing so in a controlled and regulated fashion. They have removed 210 million tons of waste coal and used it to produce electricity.

They have remediated over 8,000 acres. They have generated 1.769 gigawatts of electricity, which is enough to power 1.3 million homes, and in the process the generation of electricity from this waste coal has directly resulted in creating 1,200 jobs.

In the past, the EPA has always acknowledged the benefits of systematically eliminating these mountains of waste coal and doing so by generating electricity. In fact, I will quote a report from the EPA in 2011 that says this: ``Because of the unique environmental benefits that coal refuse-fired EGUs provide, these units warrant special consideration.''

The problem I am here to address is that there are two new rules passed by the EPA that would bring an end to the systemic elimination of these mountains because these rules are prohibitive. It is not possible for the waste coal powerplants to comply with these rules, so they would all be shut down and we would be left with these piles indefinitely, which would mar our landscape and pollute our water and air.

The two specific rules that would do this--the cross-State air pollution rule is very likely to have the effect of imposing absolutely unattainable goals on waste coal powerplants, and the utility MACT rule establishes new and very stringent emission controls and a whole new generation of very stringent regulations that this industry cannot meet.

If these rules go into effect--and they are scheduled to go into effect later this year--then waste coal and electric generation ends, and these plants close. As a result, we lose the electric power they have been generating, the 1,200 jobs they sustain, and the low-cost energy that is reliable and domestic. We will end up with a more serious air pollution problem when the spontaneous combustion continues, and we will have an ongoing problem with water and air pollution as the nearby streams and water table will be polluted.

That is why Senator Casey, Senator Hatch, and I have joined together to offer an amendment to this legislation that will exempt the waste coal powerplants from the most onerous and prohibitive aspects of these new rules.

With respect to utility MACT, we would retain all of the regulatory limits on mercury, chromium, nickel, and other heavy metals, but it would exempt the waste coal plants from the cross-State air pollution rules, and it would allow these plants to continue remediating these waste coal sites.

I wish to stress that it is important to point out that all of the existing regulations that have long been in effect will remain in effect. What we are talking about are the two new rules that would be guaranteed to shut down the industry. Those two rules would not go into effect with respect to the waste coal electric generation.

The fact is if our amendment is adopted and becomes law, we will be helping our environment by continuing to systematically eliminate these blights. I want more success stories like the one in this photograph.

This photo was taken in Nesquehoning in Carbon County, PA. The first photo shows what the ground looked like when the waste coal was piled up. The second photo shows what happens after it has been consumed and the land has been restored. This happened precisely because there is a nearby waste coal powerplant that was able to take this coal, generate electricity for us to use, and restore the land to a much safer, much more environmentally friendly, and much more attractive environment.

We need to keep these plants operating. It is about improving our environment, it is about keeping people working, it is about the low- cost, reliable electricity that we have from it, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cornyn, I object.

Mr. President, I am objecting on behalf of a colleague who is unavoidably detained. So the Senator from New Hampshire will have to take this up with our colleague.

Mr. President, on behalf of my colleague who is unavoidably detained, I object.

Mr. President, today, I honor fallen Philadelphia firefighter, Joyce Craig Lewis. Ms. Craig Lewis tragically perished on Tuesday, December 9, 2014, while courageously battling a house fire in the West Oak Lane section of Philadelphia.

Ms. Craig Lewis was a proud 11-year veteran of the Philadelphia Fire Department and a certified EMT. A native of Philadelphia, Ms. Craig Lewis was one of 58 women among the nearly 1,800 firefighters in the city. Joyce served in several of the most active firehouses in Philadelphia.

Philadelphia Fire Commissioner Derrick Sawyer praised Ms. Craig Lewis for having a strong work ethic as evidenced by her desire to be stationed in challenging environments. Mayor Michael Nutter aptly stated that her passing is a tremendous loss for Philadelphians.

Joyce Craig Lewis is the first female firefighter in Philadelphia to die in the line of duty. She is survived by her 16-year-old son and 16- month-old daughter.

On behalf of the U.S. Senate, I wish to express my condolences to her family, friends, brothers and sisters in fire departments across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. May she rest in peace.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise this morning to offer my support for a gentleman for whom cloture was just invoked. We are going to have the confirmation vote this afternoon. I am talking about Mr. Joseph Leeson from Pennsylvania. He has been nominated to serve as a U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

I wish to start by thanking Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley for facilitating and moving his candidacy through the process, through the committee, and Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, our respective leaders, for bringing the nomination to the Senate floor. I appreciate that cooperation.

I should also point out that I am very grateful for the cooperation of my colleague Senator Casey. Senator Casey and I have spent a lot of time and energy making sure we fill the vacancies that occur on the Federal bench in Pennsylvania with absolutely the most qualified, terrific Pennsylvanians, and we have been blessed that so many wonderful Pennsylvanians have offered to serve in this role, to make this sacrifice for public service. In the 4 years I have been in the Senate, Senator Casey and I have confirmed 13 district judges. We placed a judge in the Reading courthouse in Berks County, which had been vacant for 3 years; placed a judge in the Easton courthouse, which had been vacant for 10 years; and when Mr. Leeson is hopefully confirmed this afternoon, that will bring our total to 14.

I look forward to Joseph Leeson's speedy confirmation, and here is why. He is going to be a great Federal judge. Joe Leeson is a graduate from Catholic University, where he got his law degree. I have known Joseph Leeson certainly by his reputation for a very long time. He is a very well-respected attorney in Allentown, PA, and my family and I live just outside Allentown and have for a long time.

Joe Leeson is a partner in Leeson & Leeson. He has very extensive trial experience. He has counseled people in accidents and injury cases. He has represented legislators and mayors. His practice includes litigation, municipal law, nonprofit, and religious law. Across the board he has a very diverse portfolio.

He has also had a long and distinguished commitment to public service. Joe Leeson has served as the Bethlehem city solicitor, as a member of the Bethlehem city council, and on the administrative board of the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference.

If confirmed, he will sit in the Allentown courthouse, and we need a Federal judge in the Allentown courthouse. We have an outstanding judge there now, but we need another because the size of the Lehigh Valley region requires that. It will be terrific to have a second Federal judge in the Allentown courthouse for what I think will be the first time.

Mr. President, I will conclude by saying there is no question in my mind that Mr. Leeson has the experience, the acumen, the temperament, and the integrity to be an outstanding Federal judge. He will be a great addition to the bench, and I urge all my colleagues to support his confirmation.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I rise to offer my support as well to the two nominees to serve as judges for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Jerry Pappert and Mark Kearney, whom we are scheduled to confirm in a short time.

Let me start by thanking Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley for facilitating this process and handling this at the committee level, and

I want to thank Leader Reid and Leader McConnell for bringing these nominees to the Senate floor. I also want to take a moment to thank my colleague from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, for all the work he and I have been able to do together. The collaboration we have had has been very constructive and it has been a pleasure to work with Senator Casey. In the 4 years I have been in the Senate, we have confirmed 11 district court judges. We have been able to place a judge in the Reading courthouse in Berks County which had been vacant for 3 years. We were able to place a judge in Easton courthouse in Northampton County which had been vacant for 10 years. With the confirmations that I am certainly hopeful about tonight, Mr. Pappert and Mr. Kearney, that number will rise to 13 members of the Federal bench from Pennsylvania in just the past 4 years.

We have one additional district court nominee, Joseph Leeson, awaiting a vote from the full Senate, and I am looking at a speedy confirmation of his candidacy as well.

Before I speak on the two nominees before us this evening, I want to briefly note how pleased I was that on November 20 the Senate confirmed Wendy Beetlestone to serve on the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. She was confirmed unanimously by voice vote and I think that was a testament to her strong qualifications. I am delighted that Senator Casey and I were able to see that to completion.

Let me say a couple of words about Jerry Pappert.

Senator Casey spoke about Mr. Pappert. Jerry Pappert is eminently qualified for this post. He is a graduate of Notre Dame Law School and has an extensive and diverse legal background. He is currently a partner at Cozen O'Connor, which is a practice that has an emphasis on commercial litigation.

Prior to that he was the general counsel at Cephalon, where he oversaw all of the company's litigation, financial transactions, and intellectual property issues.

Not only has he handled a very wide range of issues in the private sector, but Mr. Pappert has also demonstrated his dedication to public service. As Senator Casey pointed out, he was a very successful attorney general for Pennsylvania for 6 years. He has successfully argued cases before the U.S. and Pennsylvania Supreme Courts. He won a landmark case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Booth v. Churner, which set forth the administrative exhaustion requirement for a prisoner seeking to sue in Federal court.

Mr. Pappert has also enjoyed bipartisan support in the Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee successfully voted him out of committee on a voice vote back in September.

Mark Kearney is the other gentleman we will be voting on in a short time. He is a graduate of Villanova University School of Law and a very successful attorney. As Senator Casey pointed out, he is a managing shareholder at Elliott Greenleaf & Siedzikowski, where he has been for 24 years and practices commercial litigation.

Mr. Kearney is highly respected by his colleagues. He received the AV peer review rating in the Martindale-Hubbell system--the highest rating. He has also taken time to give back to his community. He put a lot of time and energy into an issue that is very important to me; that is, protecting children from dangerous predators. Mr. Kearney has worked with the Montgomery County Child Advocacy Project, representing abused children, and I commend him for that service.

Mr. Kearney has also enjoyed bipartisan support in the Senate. He was voice voted out by the Senate Judiciary Committee, reflecting unanimous support for his candidacy.

It is clear, and I believe strongly, that both Mr. Pappert and Mr. Kearney have the experience, acumen, and commitment to public service that will make them excellent additions to the Federal bench. I am pleased to speak on their behalf, and I am grateful to Senator Casey for the cooperative effort that has gotten us to this point.

I urge my colleagues to support the confirmation of these two outstanding individuals.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to say briefly that I thank Senator Casey for the terrific cooperative working relationship he and I have. When Wendy Beetlestone is confirmed, that will make the 11th Federal judge who has been confirmed as a result of the work we have done together.

Wendy is an outstanding candidate, and I think she will make a great Federal judge. I urge my colleagues to support her nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize former Penn State linebacker Shane Conlan for being named to the College Football Hall of Fame Class of 2014.

On the night of January 2, 1987, more than 52 million Americans were introduced to Shane Patrick Conlan, then the 22-year-old cocaptain of the Pennsylvania State University Nittany Lions. This was the brightest of spotlights--the bowl game between No. 2 Penn State and No. 1 Miami still remains the most viewed college football game of all time and Conlan's performance was worthy of the stage. Despite an injured knee and a twisted ankle, Conlan intercepted his Heisman Trophy-winning opponent two times, returning one for 40 yards to set up Penn State's game-winning touchdown. This National Championship victory against a highly favored opponent and the accompanying defensive most valuable player award would be crowning achievements in a storied college career.

Mr. Conlan's origins are much more modest than that memorable night in the desert of Arizona. This son of a State policeman and a grocery store clerk grew up in a western New York town that was too small for even a stoplight. The relative obscurity of Frewsburg almost hid the young Conlan's athletic prowess. Even though he was named Western New York Player of the Year in 1981, Mr. Conlan only had one scholarship offer waiting for him when he graduated high school: Penn State.

In State College Mr. Conlan would evolve from a 6'3", 185 pound, mild-mannered freshman to become one of the most significant contributors to Penn State's cherished legacy as ``Linebacker U.'' A 4- year letterman, 3-year starter, and first-team All-American, Mr. Conlan helped lead a football team that would go 23-to-1 over his final 2 years. In a lasting display of the reverence for Mr. Conlan in Happy Valley, several star linebackers at his alma mater have since donned his No. 31 as a tribute to his success and leadership, while he wore the blue and white. This October 25 his university and fans honored Mr. Conlan once again with a mid game salute by a sold-out crowd of 107,895 at Beaver Stadium.

After graduation from Penn State with a degree in administration of justice, success would follow Mr. Conlan

to the National Football League. There he would be named Defensive Rookie of the Year and earn three trips to the Pro Bowl during a 9-year career. Today, Mr. Conlan resides in the Pittsburgh area with his wife Caroline and their four children: Patrick, Christopher, Mary Katherine, and Daniel.

I am privileged to have the opportunity and the venue to offer congratulations to this adopted son of my State and thank him for his significant contributions to college football, the Penn State University community, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I wish him all the best as he is inducted as a member of the College Football Hall of Fame this December. Thank you.

A good 20 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague Senator Manchin from West Virginia for his work on this, for being the lead Democratic sponsor on this very important piece of legislation. I also thank Senators McConnell and Inhofe for cosponsoring the legislation. I would like to thank every single Member of the House of Representatives because every one of them voted in favor of this legislation.

I have a number of reasons I want to cite and develop in a series of arguments, Mr. President, but I understand the senior Senator from Iowa has some time constraints, so I will be cooperative in that respect and I will make a unanimous consent request at this time. I think Senator Harkin will likely respond to that, and then I will make my arguments in favor of this legislation.

So at this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vitiate cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 1086, the child care and development block grant bill; that following the disposition of the Moss and May nominations, the Senate proceed to a vote on the motion to concur in the House amendment; and that following the disposition of S. 1086, the HELP Committee be discharged from consideration of H.R. 2083 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of H.R. 2083.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his comments.

He cited I believe two principal arguments or concerns of his. One is the fact that this legislation has not yet been considered by his committee, and the second is that there are States taking action in various ways that ought to be contemplated. I am going to address both of those, but I would like to begin at what is, for me, the beginning.

Let me start by stating that I am a strong supporter of the Child Care and Development Block Grant bill. I voted for this bill in March, and I look forward to voting for it again. But one of the very reasons I support the bill is this bill that we are going to vote on, the Child Care and Development Block Grant bill, addresses the issue that I am trying to address in my bill, and that is protecting our children from sexual and violent predators.

I am the father of three young kids. I can't imagine anything more important than the safety and security of my kids, and I think most Americans would agree with me on that. While the Child Care and Development Block Grant bill takes an important step in that direction--it requires criminal background checks on daycare workers. And because it does, it is going to provide a level of protection for the 1.6 million children in federally-subsidized daycare--protection from the sexual and violent predators who might otherwise obtain jobs as childcare workers or employees of these daycare centers.

My question is this. Why are we stopping there? Why are we interested only in protecting the kids in federally-subsidized daycare? The 1.6 million there deserve protection, but what about the 49.6 million children who are a little bit older? They are in our Nation's elementary, middle, and high schools. Don't they deserve the same protection from sexual or violent predators as the really young kids do? I think we need to act now to protect all of our kids. That is what I am trying to do here, and it is a very urgent matter.

Senator Manchin talked of the absolutely horrendous case of Jeremy Bell. That is how I became aware of this situation. As Senator Manchin pointed out, it began in my State, Pennsylvania, and the terrible story ended in Senator Manchin's State.

When the perpetrator began molesting and abusing children, he was a teacher. He had molested several boys and raped one before the school figured out what was going on. Unfortunately, the prosecutors never felt they had enough evidence to actually bring a case. The school dismissed the perpetrator. But then, amazingly, this school in Pennsylvania helped this

monster get a job at a school in West Virginia. As Senator Manchin pointed out, he worked in West Virginia in exactly the same capacity, which gave him an opportunity to abuse more kids, and this tragic story didn't end until he raped and murdered a 12-year-old boy.

Well, justice has finally caught up with that teacher. He is going to spend the rest of his life in jail--which is, frankly, too good for him. But that is way too late for Jeremy Bell, his 12-year-old victim. Of course, now we know Jeremy Bell is not alone.

As Senator Manchin pointed out already, this year over 410 teachers and other school employees have been arrested across America for sexual assault or misconduct with children--410. That is more than 1 per day. And let's be clear. These are the people about whom we know enough and have enough credible evidence to actually have an arrest. How many more are out there but the prosecutors aren't confident yet that they can make a case?

In contrast to the 410 that have happened so far this year, back in April when Senator Manchin and I first came to the floor and asked the Senate to pass our bipartisan bill, at the time the number of teachers arrested was only 130. In the time we have waited, we have gone from 130 teachers and other school employees arrested for sexual misconduct with children to now over 410. How much bigger does this number have to get before the Senate decides this is something we should address?

Every one of these 410 stories represents a horrendous tragedy. One is a child whose abuse began at age 10 and only ended when, at age 17, she found herself pregnant with a teacher's child. Another is a teacher's aide who raped a mentally disabled boy in his care. Another is a kindergarten teacher who kept a child during recess and forced her to perform sexual acts on him. One teacher after another caught with images of child pornography on their computer--child pornography involving children as young as 1 years old. It is unbelievable stuff.

It is important, especially in my home State of Pennsylvania. Twenty- five of these arrested have been Pennsylvania teachers. A recent study found that Pennsylvania is second in the Nation for teachers who have been investigated for sexual misconduct with the children who are supposed to be in their care.

So I think we need to be acting now. We need to stop these tragedies. Our bipartisan bill, Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act, takes an important step toward that goal. It works to ensure that school employees we hire are not sexual or violent predators. In fact, the background check provisions in our bill are nearly identical to the background check provisions in the Child Care and Development Block Grant bill, the one that we are going to vote on.

Specifically, the protecting students act requires background checks for all existing and prospective school employees who have unsupervised access to children. The background checks must be thorough, covering four databases, including national databases. That would be the FBI fingerprint check, the National Crime Information Center database, the National Sex Offender Registry established by the Adam Walsh Act, the State criminal registries, and the State child abuse and neglect registries.

Now, let me give a recent example from the State of Alaska which illustrates just how important this requirement is. On August 29, Alaska State troopers arrested a middle-school teacher in Kiana, AK. The teacher had fled Missouri 4 years earlier to escape arrest.

Numerous witnesses accused the teacher over a decade of sexual and physical abuse of his own adopted children. This is hard to talk about because it is so disturbing, but I think we have to face it. The fact is he raped and starved his children. The children literally burrowed a hole in the wall, stole food from the freezer, and heated it on a furnace in their home just to survive. This monster was able to obtain a teaching certificate in Alaska and teach in the State for 4 years.

When asked how this could have happened, the Alaska Department of Education explained that Alaska only checks the State's criminal registry when running a background check on teachers. So his name never came up. Now, had Alaska searched the FBI criminal database, as my bill requires, the school would have learned that this monster was a fugitive in another State.

The protecting students act forbids schools from hiring a teacher who has committed certain crimes, including any violent or sexual crime against the child--whether a misdemeanor or a felony. This is necessary because all too often a predator will plead down to a misdemeanor when in fact he or she may be guilty of something more serious.

The legislation also bans the horrible practice of a school knowingly helping a child molester obtain a new teaching job somewhere else so that he becomes a problem somewhere else. This practice sounds outrageous, it sounds incredible, but it happens. In fact, it happens so frequently it has its own name. It is called passing the trash.

Finally, if the State fails to comply with these requirements, it loses a portion of its funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

I mentioned earlier that this is a bipartisan bill. It is, to say the least, bipartisan. Support is so broad, in the House it passed unanimously over a year ago, in October of 2013. It was introduced by Democrat George Miller of California, cosponsored by two Republicans and seven Democrats, including Frederica Wilson of Florida, who herself served as an elementary school teacher and principal for 20 years, Charlie Rangel of New York, and Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas. Here in the Senate, it has the bipartisan support of Senator Manchin, Senator McConnell, Senator Inhofe, and myself.

Child advocates across America have endorsed the bill. The National Children's Alliance, which oversees national child advocacy matters, the Children's Defense Fund, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape have all endorsed this bill. Law enforcement and prosecutors all support this bill. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association supports it, as do the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys and the National District Attorneys Association.

Teachers support this legislation--the American Federation of Teachers, the Pennsylvania School Board Association.

So more than 1 year after the House passed this bill unanimously, why have we refused to act in the Senate? Well, some have argued that the Federal Government doesn't need to act because we can leave it to the States. Some States have worked to address this problem to the extent that they can. The Senator from Iowa mentioned that my home State of Pennsylvania has recently enacted legislation that deals with it. This is true--much to the credit of State Senator Tony Williams, a Democrat, and State Representative Dave Maloney, a Republican.

The bill makes much-needed reform to strengthen background checks and ban passing the trash within Pennsylvania. But as my friend, Pennsylvania State Senator Tony Williams, explained, under the U.S. Constitution States cannot address the problem of child predators being passed across State lines. The jurisdiction of Pennsylvania ends at the Pennsylvania borders. There is nothing Pennsylvania can do to make it illegal for someone in another State to send into Pennsylvania a predator of this sort. Of course, the example of Jeremy Bell is just exactly one such case.

Another example is this. Recently in Las Vegas, NV, a kindergarten teacher was arrested for kidnapping a 16-year-old girl and infecting her with a sexually-transmitted disease. The same teacher had molested 6 children, all fourth and fifth graders, several years before while working as a teacher in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles school district knew about these allegations. How do we know they knew? In 2009 the school district had recommended settling a lawsuit alleging the teacher had molested children.

The Nevada school district specifically asked if there had been any criminal concerns regarding the teacher. The Los Angeles school district not only hid the truth, but they provided three references for the teacher.

Had my bill banning passing the trash been the law, maybe that 16- year-old child might have been spared.

There is another fundamental reason I think the Federal Government has to act; that is, it needs to be accountable to the American taxpayer. When the Federal Government gives billions of dollars to States to help pay for the salaries of people who work with children, the Federal Government has a duty to make sure it is not paying the salary of child molesters. It is a basic accountability that every taxpayer, I would think, should demand.

Again, in this regard, our protect all students bill is nearly identical to the child care and development block grant bill that we are going to be voting on. Both the child care and development block grant bill and our protect all students bill act to create what is a voluntary mechanism for States to enhance their security. Both bills provide that if the State accepts Federal funds, the State government must pass the laws or regulations providing for the criminal background checks of persons who will work with children. Both bills provide that a State's compliance is essentially voluntary. A State that declines to improve its background checks forgoes Federal funds. Under the child care and development block grant bill, the State loses 5 percent of the funds under that bill. Under our protecting students bill, the State loses funds under the Elementary Secondary Education Act. Thus, both bills have the same worthy goal, the same principle of accountability for Federal funds. They even have the same basic enforcement mechanism.

Both bills were passed unanimously by the House of Representatives, the child care and development block grant bill 2 months ago on September 15, the protecting students bill over a year ago on October 22, 2013. If one bill has legal problems for being passed, so does the other, but in fact neither bill should be blocked. They both take the same approach and they both provide an urgently needed measure of security for our kids.

Others have argued and we heard the senior Senator from Iowa make the argument that the Senate should wait and let the committee of jurisdiction, the HELP Committee, consider the bill first. Well, it has been over 1 year now that the HELP Committee has chosen not to take any action on this bill. Senator Manchin and I have been working for months trying to pass this urgently needed legislation, but we have never been able to make progress with the committee.

On April 10 of this year Senator Manchin and I asked unanimous consent to pass our bill. The committee chairman objected. Next, the committee assured Senator Manchin and me that they would work with our staff and the committee would vote on the bill in July. The committee scheduled a vote on our bill in July, posted an announcement on its Web site that it was going to have a markup on this bill, and then at the last minute the committee removed our bill from the agenda, had no consideration of it, denied us a vote and we never got an answer as to why. Again, Senator Manchin and I were assured that the committee would vote on this bipartisan bill. We were told the committee would work with our staffs during the 5-week recess in August and provide a vote in September. But then the committee ignored our staffs during the August recess and there was no such consideration in September.

Now here we are 7\1/2\ weeks after we went on recess in September and I still have no confidence that the committee is going to take this up and move this legislation. In the meantime, of course, child predators have not been at rest. They have been moving on to new victims. Every day brings another story of a teacher arrested, another family whose child has been shattered and a family who has been torn apart by grief and betrayal.

I think the children of America have waited long enough, and I say no more waiting, no more promises about jurisdiction and process and procedures that don't take place, no more passing child molesters on to new schools and new victims, no more defenseless kids such as Jeremy Bell falling victim to other child predators, no more excuses for avoiding an up-or-down vote that passed the House unanimously.

Let's act now. Let's protect all our kids. Let's act now to protect the 1.6 million kids in the federally subsidized daycares as the child care and development block grant bill does. Let's pass that. I am for that. But let's also protect the 49.6 million kids who are in our elementary and middle and high schools. We can do this. We can do this tomorrow. We can do this tomorrow. We can pass them both tomorrow if we just have a vote, and we would send two bills to the President's desk. I am quite confident he would sign them both. He would sign the child care and development block grant bill and he would protect those 1.6 million kids and I am confident he would sign the Protecting Students From Sexual and Violent Predators Act, and then we would be protecting the 49.6 million slightly older kids.

I urge my colleagues to act now and get on with a vote.

Mr. President, I find myself in the unusual position of disagreeing with the senior Senator from Tennessee. I have so much respect for the Senator. We are in agreement far more than we are in disagreement, but we do disagree about this, and I feel compelled to address several of the issues the Senator from Tennessee raised, and then I will be finished. I know there are other Senators who would like to speak.

First of all, I think it is very clear that my bill no more creates a national school board than the child care and development block grant creates a national school board for childcare centers. It is the exact same set of circumstances, the exact same protections, and it is provided by the Federal Government.

I don't understand why, if it is OK for the Senate and the Federal Government of the United States to ensure greater security for children daycares, it is somehow not acceptable to provide that same level of security to kids who happen to be a little older. That is what we are talking about. I don't understand that.

The other point I would make is that, in fact, both bills--the child care and development block grant bill and my bill, the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act--are voluntary. Neither one has the power or attempts to compel a State to do a thing. It says: This is what we want you to do. If you don't, you are going to lose some funding, but that is it.

So there is absolutely a mechanism that creates an incentive, but we don't have the constitutional power to actually enforce it. Neither bill does. Both bills use the exact same mechanism to encourage compliance with a standard that will ensure greater safety and security for our kids.

Furthermore, I suggest that we absolutely have a responsibility to be concerned with how the money is spent. The taxpayers whom we represent expect us to provide some oversight and insist that there are some standards in the way the moneys are spent. That is a reasonable expectation for the Federal Government.

In addition, there is an element of this problem that can't be solved by any given State, and that is the cross-border nature of the problem. Specifically, the case of Jeremy Bell illustrates this perfectly-- tragically but perfectly--and that is when a teacher leaves one State and goes to another State and commits the atrocities on a new set of victims. There is nothing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania can do to make it illegal for another State to have a school that sends a letter of recommendation. The powers of Pennsylvania end at the border of Pennsylvania, and that is the case with all 50 States. So it seems to me that this, like other circumstances, simply requires a Federal solution.

Finally, I will say that my constituents are in many ways very skeptical of the Federal Government. There is no doubt about that, as Senator Alexander observed with his constituents. But many of them are shocked to learn we don't have background-check requirements such as what my bill contemplates and what the child care and development block grant bill does. They are shocked to discover this is not already the law. I think they would feel safer if they knew it was the law.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor a naval vessel and crew that served with distinction during an important chapter of U.S. military history.

The Navy's modernization program of the 1950s included construction of a new class of fleet tankers that combined speed and an enlarged capacity to deliver fuel to the fleet. One of the vessels ordered in this modernization effort was named the USS Ponchatoula, AO-148. The vessel was laid down in Camden, NJ on March 1, 1954. The new fleet tanker displaced 38,000 tons when fully loaded greatly exceeding the capacity of tankers used during World War II. The ship had a complement of 324 officers and men. Although the USS Ponchatoula was a support vessel rather than a combat warship, she was armed with two 5-inch guns and twelve 3-inch antiaircraft guns.

The launching of the USS Ponchatoula into the waters of the Delaware River took place on July 9, 1954, at Camden, and she subsequently sailed across the river to Philadelphia, where the vessel was commissioned on January 12, 1956.

Assigned to the Pacific Fleet, USS Ponchatoula made the long voyage to the west coast. Following her arrival at Long Beach, CA, on March 10, 1956, the oiler conducted her shakedown cruise off the California coast.

In the fall of 1956, USS Ponchatoula was ordered to the western Pacific, her home waters for most of her active career. While en-route to Sasebo, Japan, to join Seventh Fleet as a unit of Service Squadron Three, she assisted a disabled Panamanian merchant ship that had been battered by two typhoons.

USS Ponchatoula accompanied the Seventh Fleet in early 1958 as the Navy sailed into harm's way in the Formosa Strait off the coast of the People's Republic of China, PRC. PRC forces were threatening to occupy several small islands off the coast of China, notably Quemoy and Matsu. President Eisenhower ordered the Navy to the area to symbolize American determination and support Taiwanese forces holding those small islands. President Eisenhower's tough stand and the presence of the Seventh Fleet off shore forced the PRC to back down.

In late April and early May of 1962, USS Ponchatoula replenished ships in the task force that participated in the atmospheric nuclear test Operation Dominic near Christmas Island.

In September 1962, the oiler sailed to Midway Island to supply ships involved in the recovery of CDR Wally Schirra's Project Mercury Space Capsule Sigma 8 and in May 1963 supported the recovery of the then- Major Gordon Cooper's Mercury Space Capsule Faith 7. USS Ponchatoula also supported recovery operations for Gemini 4, 6, and 7 in 1965 and Apollo 7 in 1968.

When hostilities began to escalate in Vietnam during the summer and fall of 1964, USS Ponchatoula was deployed to the South China Sea to support fleet operations off the coast of Vietnam. She refueled numerous warships in those waters during the 1964 and 1965 bombing campaign against targets in North Vietnam.

In the summer of 1969 and into 1970 the USS Ponchatoula returned to Pearl Harbor and served the fleet in Hawaiian waters.

During the 1970s USS Ponchatoula's area of operations expanded into the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf, reflecting growing U.S. Navy activity in that part of the globe. In September 1980 the ship was transferred to the Military Sealift Command, becoming USNS Ponchatoula, T-AO-148 and beginning operation with a mainly civilian crew. Based at Subic Bay for most of the next decade, she continued her underway replenishment work, helping maintain the Navy's mobility and striking power in an often troubled region. USNS Ponchatoula was inactivated in February 1992 and laid up at Suisun Bay, CA. Though stricken from the Naval Vessel Register at the end of August 1992, she remained in Navy custody until transferred to the Maritime Administration for disposal in May 1999.

During the 43 years between her commissioning in 1956 and her transfer to the reserve fleet in 1999, the USS Ponchatoula rendered meritorious service to her country, helping to stop aggression in the Taiwan Strait, assisting the space program and supporting U.S. forces in Vietnam. She and the thousands of Navy sailors who served aboard her over the decades deserve the accolades of a grateful nation.

Mr. President, I comment today on an issue of tremendous concern to a number of Pennsylvania families who in recent years adopted children from Nepal.

In August of 2010, the State Department suspended the authorization for American families to adopt children from that nation with the exception of those families, some from Pennsylvania, who were already in the process of adopting Nepali orphans. The State Department and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services told these ``pipeline'' families that their cases would be processed to completion, but that they should anticipate significant delays and possibly negative outcomes, since their cases were suspected of being heavily tainted by fraud, corruption, and illegal or unethical practices. In response to U.S. government requests for additional evidence substantiating the legality and morality of these adoptions, these families had to undertake extensive investigations on their own to provide such evidence.

Since these families were already completely bonded with their adoptive children, each of them eagerly undertook its investigation, at great financial and emotional expense. Meanwhile, most of the children were forced to languish for an additional 6 months in orphanages. While due diligence is appropriate for all adoptions, I am deeply troubled that in this case not a single instance of fraud or corruption was ever found. In fact, the State Department and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ultimately allowed all these American pipeline families bring their children home to the United States. Despite this ultimately successful outcome, the State Department continues to suspend adoption of desperate Nepali children by American families. I ask that the Department reevaluate its policy with the recent experience of the pipeline families as a major consideration.

With an eye towards the future of the children who were adopted by the pipeline families, I am concerned that the public record on these adoptions from Nepal is still replete with references to fraud and trafficking. We need to set the record straight and to make it clear that each of the Nepali pipeline adoption cases in progress at the time of the suspension was ultimately approved and was devoid of any findings of malfeasance. Every child deserves a family and no child deserves to be needlessly haunted by clouds of doubt about his or her origin. These American families deserve to have a positive public record created showing that their adoptions were completely legal and ethical. I wish to personally begin that record today.