Floor Statements

Madam President, it is a privilege to be a part of the national commemoration that will honor the service of our Vietnam veterans and their families.

During this conflict, nearly 350,000 Pennsylvanians served their Nation. Of that number, 3,149 paid the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives for the United States of America.

I deeply appreciate the Commonwealth's participation in The Vietnam War Commemorative Partner Program that thanks our Vietnam veterans for their service. Although no commemoration can fully honor the profound sacrifice of those who served in Vietnam, I strongly believe we should use the war's 50th anniversary as an opportunity to further honor those who saw our Nation through one of its most troubling conflicts and ensure that their legacy is not forgotten.

A grateful nation thanks the veterans of this war, some never to return to the families they left behind. We should all hope to live our lives in a manner that befits their service and sacrifice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so I may call up my amendment No. 3585, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, let me start by complimenting my colleagues, the chairman and the ranking member of this committee, for a genuine, sincere effort at a bipartisan solution to a difficult problem. There are provisions I like in this legislation. There are provisions I do not like. But I do like the fact that at least with respect to this legislation at the moment the Senate is functioning. The committee was functioning and had a vigorous debate and discussion and came up with a reasonable approach. I thank Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Hatch for their cooperative effort to do this.

But I want to address this particular amendment, amendment No. 3585. I thank my cosponsor on this amendment, Senator McConnell. What this amendment does, in short, is it allows communities that are recovering from a natural disaster to rebuild damaged infrastructure without having to acquire--or maybe I should say reacquire--Federal environmental permits.

Now, there is no question we all agree it is vitally important we protect our environment. I should point out there is nothing in my amendment that would change Federal environmental permitting requirements for any new construction--nothing at all. We should also recognize that States have their own very substantial standards in place to protect their environments, including during the construction of transportation infrastructure projects. There is nothing in my amendment that would weaken in any way or change in any way any State environmental laws or regulations.

The fact is our Federal environmental permitting process for infrastructure is broken. It is too cumbersome. It takes too long. It is too costly. It is a huge problem. I think the most damming statistic I can think of--that I am aware of anyway--is from the Federal Highway Administration itself, which in fiscal year 2011 estimated that on average transportation projects required 79 months to complete the National Environmental Policy Act review process, the NEPA review process--79 months. That is 6\1/2\ years to get permission from the Federal Government to build a road or a bridge or to rebuild an existing road or bridge that has been damaged--6\1/2\ years. That is often longer--sometimes a lot longer--than it takes to actually do the construction, and that is a problem. It is a problem because it just drives the costs up dramatically and unnecessarily.

Two weeks ago, constituents of mine in Northampton County, PA, reported to my office that just one environmental survey for a small bridge repair--we are not talking about some massive, new ``Golden Gate Bridge'' here; we are talking about a little bridge that is just going to be repaired--just one of the environmental surveys was $21,000 alone.

Senator Rob Portman reports that in Ohio Federal environmental permitting alone increases project costs on average by 20 percent.

The reason these delays are so expensive is all of these delays, all of these permitting requirements, require consultants to carry it out, and there are all kinds of engineering and consulting fees that get paid, often on retainer over time; it also means that while

waiting for a road or a bridge to be rebuilt or restored, there are longer commutes, there is a big detour, there is more consumption of gas. That is all a waste of time and money. The bottom line is that projects cost more the longer they take. That is the reality. The fact is, recovering communities do not need to have to incur this extra cost.

I will give you an example, again in Pennsylvania. Since 2010, Federal environmental permitting has delayed nine projects by over a year. The Cherry Creek Bridge in Monroe County, PA--this is an area that is flood prone; it was struck by Tropical Storm Lee and Hurricane Irene in 2011--the reconstruction for the damaged transportation infrastructure should have started pretty much right away, but Fish and Wildlife review delays alone cost us 2 years before construction could even begin. Senator Ben Nelson recognized this problem--a Democrat from Nebraska who served in this body--and offered a bipartisan amendment to the last highway bill, MAP-21.

What his amendment would have done would have been to exempt roads and bridge repair projects from Federal environmental permitting if the roads and bridges were destroyed by a declared emergency, such as Superstorm Sandy, for instance, and provided that the reconstruction would occur entirely within the footprint of the existing structure, the original footprint.

Unfortunately, Senator Nelson never got his vote. He was denied a vote. Instead, he got a watered-down provision put into the final bill that allows the Department of Transportation, under certain circumstances, to exclude certain repair projects from this whole process. But they cannot make that exclusion if the project is deemed to be ``controversial.'' Undefined. I do not know what that means. The exclusions do not apply to the Army Corps of Engineers or the Fish and Wildlife Service, the reviews of which constituents tell me are the most time consuming, cumbersome, and costly to comply with.

The result is that recovering communities today, after they have been hit hard by a natural disaster, after they have incurred damage to their roads, their bridges, their infrastructure, do not know what environmental standards are going to apply to them, except that some certainly will, and others may or may not be exempted.

It still leaves them subject to a lengthy, costly, and unnecessary procedure. Because, once again, let me emphasize, we are talking about roads and bridges that are already there. We are not talking about new infrastructure, new capacity. We are talking about rebuilding what was there already and what was damaged.

This amendment I am offering is almost identical to the Nelson amendment. The difference is, at the request of SPTA, which is the Southeast Pennsylvania Transit Authority, it has been expanded to include not just roads and bridge but also rail and transit facility repair projects. That is it. So it simply says: These existing transportation infrastructure facilities, if they are damaged or destroyed by a declared natural disaster, the rebuilding, the identical rebuilding in that very same footprint should not be subject to going through the whole environmental permitting process all over again. That is all it says.

I am glad to have the endorsement of a number of organizations and groups: Associated General Contractors, National Association of Counties, Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste.

I argue this is just common sense. This is a modest, narrow amendment. As I say, it does not in any way, shape, form, or fashion change any regulations or permitting requirements for any new construction. It says nothing whatsoever about the extensive State requirements. It is silent about all of that. It simply says: With respect to Federal environmental permitting, if you are rebuilding an existing road or bridge because it has been damaged in this way, you do not have to go through this costly, lengthy process that is costing us time, money, jobs, and infrastructure.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah. Let me respond to my colleagues from Maryland and California briefly.

First of all, I am perfectly glad that the committee of jurisdiction addressed this. One of the great things about the Senate is when it is actually functioning, Members who are not on a particular committee still have the opportunity to weigh in on an issue and have that debate on the Senate floor. That is exactly what we are doing today. I am glad we are doing that.

I would also observe that my colleagues seem to have very little faith in the ability and willingness of States to protect their own environment. They should spend some more time in Pennsylvania. We care a lot about our environment in Pennsylvania. We have a Department of Environmental Protection that takes that responsibility very seriously.

Finally, I would point out that the so-called fix in MAP-21 is extremely incomplete. It is incomplete because, first, it occurs at the discretion of the Department of Transportation. They can simply choose not to have an expedited process. If they deem the project to be ``controversial''--undefined. Who knows what that means.

Secondly, the Department of Transportation is not permitted to exclude from this process compliance with the Army Corps of Engineers or the Fish and Wildlife Service reviews, which altogether are extremely time consuming and expensive and costly. Again, we are just talking about repairing existing infrastructure. We are not talking about waiving these requirements for new capacity, for new infrastructure.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I thank the Senator from Utah.

Amendment No. 3584

(Purpose: To empower States with authority for most taxing and spending

for highway programs and mass transit programs)

Madam President, in 2011 the Federal Highway Administration estimated the average transportation project in America takes 79 months to go through the National Environmental Policy Act review process--6\1/2\ years to get permission to build a road or a bridge. Ben Nelson, a Democrat from Nebraska, recognized the problem and suggested an amendment. The amendment simply says if a bridge or a road is damaged or destroyed by a declared natural disaster or emergency and we rebuild the bridge or road in the exact same place, with the same footprint, the same dimensions--everything is the same-- then we don't have to go through the entire environmental permitting process again. This would save a lot of time and money and allow us to maintain our roads and bridges.

I know my friends on the other side think this problem was solved. It was not solved. The Department of Transportation can exclude certain projects, but can choose not to, and does not have the discretion to provide an exclusion for the Army Corps of Engineers or the Fish and Wildlife Service--the very reviews that take the most time and cost the most money. So I urge my colleagues to vote yes.

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

Mr. President, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from Utah because I got here late and I am intruding on his time, but he has been kind enough to patiently wait for me to make a few points. So I will try to be brief, but I think it is really important that we address this issue, which is a very serious problem happening in America.

We see increasing numbers of what we call corporate inversions-- American corporations establishing their headquarters overseas-- typically through the mechanism of purchasing a company overseas and establishing that as the headquarters.

First of all, I just hate to see any American company choosing to not be an American company. It is very offensive to me at a deep level, most especially if it were to be a Pennsylvania company--but any company. Secondly, whatever little shred of faith any Americans have in our tax system is further undermined by seeing this. And, most importantly over time, this dynamic that is happening, if unaddressed, I think poses a very serious risk that we are going to lose jobs, we are going to lose corporate headquarters and all of the very substantial and good-paying jobs that are always associated with an American corporate headquarters, from senior executives, to secretarial folks, to the janitorial staff, and everyone in between. There are a lot of jobs that go along with where people decide to establish their corporate headquarters, and I want it to be in America. That is my goal. That is my motivation.

So it is useful to start with posing the question: Why is this happening, that American companies that have subsidiaries overseas are deciding they had better be headquartered somewhere other than America?

I will tell you why it is happening. There is no mystery here. It is happening because we have a Tax Code that is driving them to do this. We have chosen to inflict on our workers and our businesses the highest marginalized tax rate in the industrial world, so we are systematically less competitive than any of our trading partners, the nations against which we compete.

In addition to having such a high marginal rate, we have chosen, quite foolishly, in my view, to adopt a system of taxation with respect to overseas subsidiaries that no one else in the world--virtually no one else in the world--adopts.

Let me drill down a little bit into this. Specifically, the difference between a high marginal rate and a low rate is pretty obvious. We have the highest. Other countries have much lower rates. Increasingly, they are reducing their rates. We used to be in the middle of the pack. Twenty years ago the American business tax rate was about the same as most of our trading partners and competitors. Today it is much higher. We stand pretty much alone with a very high rate. That is obvious. That is pretty straightforward.

The other piece, though, is how we deal with the tax--with the income of subsidiaries. That is very different. Here is what happens. Basically imagine that an American company has a subsidiary in Ireland. That subsidiary makes some profits. The profits are taxed by the Irish Government. They happen to use a 12\1/2\-percent tax rate, because they want to attract business. It is working, by the way, for them.

But be that as it may, the first layer of tax an American subsidiary operating in Ireland pays is the tax to the Irish Government, 12\1/2\ percent. Then here is what we do in America: We say, now if you want to bring that money home to America and invest it in America and build a new factory in Pennsylvania or in Delaware and hire lots of workers, if you want to bring the money home to do that, well, we have a punishment in store for you. We are going to look at our rate, which is among the very highest in the world at 35 percent. We will give you credit for the 12\1/2\-percent that you paid to the Irish Government. We will soak you for another 23 percent. That is the price we will charge you for investing in America. That is what we do. That is what our current tax system does.

Now what if this Irish company, this subsidiary operating in Ireland, what if instead it was owned by a company that is headquartered in Sweden or Switzerland or any other number of

European countries? Do you know what they do? What they do is say: Well, after you have paid your tax to the Irish Government, if you then want to bring it home to one of those countries, there is almost no additional charge. There is a very nominal toll, if you will, on bringing that money back to those countries.

What is the effect of this? The effect of this is that we put our multinational companies at a huge competitive disadvantage. It is an unsustainable competitive disadvantage. The other effect is that we end up trapping money overseas that would be invested in America but is not.

So what is the rational response of the corporate management and the board of directors of a business which has this Irish subsidiary that has made this money, it has paid its tax to the Irish Government? Unfortunately, the response typically is: Well, I cannot defend to my shareholders why I should bring that money home and get whacked another 23 percent. So instead, I would rather not do this, but I am forced to look at investing somewhere else in the world where I will not have to pay this tax. This is what I am being told--this is what is happening. The way to avoid all of this is to be headquartered somewhere other than America.

This is terrible. This is outrageous. We are doing this to ourselves. It is madness.

I have to say, I am very disappointed with how we are responding in this body. We know this is a problem. This is very real. It is growing. We are not taking it seriously. What we are going to vote on later this week, I think, or whenever the vote comes up, is not a serious attempt to solve this problem. It is a completely political show vote, the Walsh-Stabenow bill. It will do nothing to stop these ongoing inversions. It does nothing about the fundamental underlying cause that is driving these inversions. It does nothing to encourage the repatriation of all of this money.

By the way, it is attached to a vehicle that is unconstitutional. We cannot originate a tax bill in the Senate. The Constitution forbids that. So if you are even pretending to be serious about tax reform, you take up a House-passed vehicle so it is at least constitutionally possible. Our Democratic friends chose not to even bother with that formality, so blatant is the fact that this is not a serious discussion. That is a shame. We ought to be having a serious discussion about this.

There is a more serious alternative bill that some of our friends on the other side are advocates for. That is a bill that basically would make it harder for you to achieve the inversion a company is attempting to achieve. It would require the number of foreign shareholders be quite high at the end of the transaction in order to qualify for it. So it sounds on the surface like: Oh, that might work and make it harder to do this.

But the problem still goes to it does not deal with the underlying fundamental driver of this problem, which is a Tax Code that makes it uncompetitive to be American. So if the Levin bill, which is the one I am referring to, were to be adopted, which I certainly hope it would not be, it continues to make it untenable for shareholders of a business to justify being headquartered in America. We will continue to see increasing numbers of startups and spinoff and growth overseas where the governments choose not to punish their businesses the way we punish ours.

I think the answer is to deal with the underlying cause, not the reaction to that underlying cause. I do not want to see any more of these inversions.

We are going to do that by lowering the marginal corporate tax rates so there is not a huge advantage in being anywhere else other than America, and to adopt a territorial system, a system where once a company pays the tax it owes to the country in which it is located, we do not punish them for bringing that money home and investing it in America. That is the answer. That is the solution. This is no great mystery. The rest of the world has figured this out. They are ahead of us on this.

If we would get serious about this very real problem and we made these reforms, what would the net result be? Up to maybe over $1 trillion of money that is trapped overseas would be invested back in America. Can you imagine what that would do to our economic growth almost immediately--the surge in job creation, the surge in expansion of existing businesses.

You know, we have this tremendous renaissance in manufacturing that we are on the edge of, because we have such low-cost energy. It is an enormous advantage we have. We could release this pent-up demand and take advantage of this enormous opportunity if we had a Tax Code that made it rational.

I am standing here very frustrated, because I am watching us eke out this miserable sort of 1, maybe if we are lucky, 2-percent economic growth. Employment levels are way too low. Workforce participation is nowhere near where it should be. I know we could be booming. We could be growing at 4 percent. We could be creating many hundreds of thousands of new jobs every month. We could be bringing people back in the workforce. We could have the kind of strong economic expansion we have always had in the past after a severe recession.

But we are not getting there right now. It is partly because we have a Tax Code that is hampering us. It is driving up transactions that none of us want to see. So I hope after we get through the political exercise we are going to go through this week, we will get serious about solving the underlying problem: lowering the marginal rate so we do not stand out as the worst place in the world to establish a business, and moving to a territorial-based system so that we stop punishing businesses that want to invest in America. That is my hope. I hope we will get to this soon, because, unfortunately, we are seeing the unfortunate consequences of this bad policy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a bill I have introduced. It is S. 1596. It is the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act.

I wish to thank my cosponsors on this legislation. It is a bipartisan bill. Senator Joe Manchin and I have introduced this together, and I am grateful to Senators McConnell and Inhofe for their cosponsorship.

This bill was inspired by a terrible story. It is the story of Jeremy Bell, and it begins at a school in Delaware County, PA. One of the schoolteachers molested several boys and raped one of them. Prosecutors decided they did not have enough evidence to bring a case, but the school was aware of what happened, so they dismissed the teacher for this outrageous behavior. But then, amazingly, the school also decided that they would help this teacher get another job at another school so they could be rid of him. And they did exactly that, in fact, passing along a letter of recommendation, helping this predator get a job at a school in West Virginia.

The story ends in 1997 when that teacher--by then a school principal--raped and murdered 12-year-old Jeremy Bell in West Virginia. Justice finally caught up with that teacher, and he is now in jail serving a life sentence for the murder, but for Jeremy Bell that justice came too late.

The very sad truth is that Jeremy Bell is not alone. Every day seems to bring a new report of a child robbed of his or her innocence by someone they should have been able to trust, someone their parents told them they should obey. The numbers are absolutely terrifying, and, worse still, the numbers are growing.

On April 10 of this year, I came to this floor and spoke about the need to pass this legislation to protect our kids from predators in the classroom. I explained then that since January 1 of this year, at that point, 130 teachers had been arrested across America for sexual misconduct with children. Well, here we are just over 3 months later and that number has more than doubled. Since January 1 of this year, 275 teachers have been arrested in America for sexual misconduct with children--275. These are teachers. That is more than one per day so far this year.

Let's be honest. These are the ones whom we have caught. These are the ones who have actually been arrested. These are the ones against whom there is enough evidence that they have actually been arrested. How many more are out there who have not been caught or for whom the evidence is not yet sufficiently clear?

The damage these predators are doing is enormous. It is far beyond what any numbers or my words can express. So I want to let some of the victims speak for themselves.

I will tell you a brief story from Shannon. Shannon is from Nevada. She was raped by a teacher. The teacher was later convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to life in prison. Nine years later, this is what Shannon wrote:

When I was a senior in high school, Mr. Peterson approached

me and said I would need to go to night school if I wanted

enough credits to graduate on time. And, of course, he taught

one of those courses--a computer class. I was 17, and he

raped me 4 times over the course of a year. He said he would

fail me if I ever told. He also hit me and made threats

against me and my family. So I didn't. I held it in for a

year and a half.

In the end, 66 people offered to testify against Peterson.

His first victim dated back to the year I was born. Some of

those who spoke up were parents. Their daughters had

complained at the time, but nothing was done. That made me

very angry. It still does. I learned that a handful of

teachers, and two principals, knew about him. And his

teaching license had been revoked in Michigan years

before, and no one knew why.

I'm different [now] because of what happened. I have to

watch people all the time, analyze them. I can't be carefree.

Now I have a seven-year-old son and two daughters, ages three

and one. I will home-school my girls.

So when you see the number 275, remember Shannon, and remember that so far this year there are 275 others like her.

Gary of South Carolina is one of at least 29 boys abused by a teacher named Mr. Fisher over that teacher's 37-year career. Now the teacher is serving 20 years in prison. Two school principals were sued for allegedly covering up the abuse. Here is what Gary wrote about his experience:

I was nine when it started. The abuse was frequent and

long-term--till I went to college. I knew there were others,

too, but until it all came out, I never knew how many.

You feel so guilty, so ashamed. It's frightening now to

look back and see how calculating Fisher was. I did

everything I could to get kicked out of school. I was in the

guidance counselor's office all the time. Finally, in tenth

grade, I got myself kicked out for cheating. By the time I

want to college, I was drinking all the time. I was terrified

to quit because then I'd have to feel. But I couldn't drink

and do school, so I entered rehab. I was 18. It took me a

year and a half, and I've been sober since.

My life is good now, for the first time. You can survive

it, but you have to deal with it. I always felt that what the

school did was far worse than what Fisher did. Fisher was

sick, an evil monster. But [the school] just calculated the

damage to its public relations. We kids were disposable,

which is a whole other category of evil.

So when you see the number 275, remember Gary, and remember that there are 275 others like him that we know of already this year alone.

So what can we do? Well, my bill is a first step at addressing this problem. It is called the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act. It is pretty simple, really. It requires a mandatory background check for existing and prospective employees, and it requires that those checks be periodically repeated. There are five States that do no background checks.

The second thing my bill would do is it would apply to all employees of a school--employees or contractors who have unsupervised access to children, not just teachers. So it would include bus drivers and coaches. There are 12 States that currently do no checks at all on contractors.

The legislation would also require more thorough background checks. It would require that school districts check four major databases, both State and Federal. In my own State of Pennsylvania, for instance, if an employee has been a resident of my State for 2 years or more, then only the State database is checked. We just do not find out what this person might have done in another State at a different time.

The legislation also would prohibit what has--tragically, it has developed its own name; the name is ``passing the trash.'' This is the phenomenon of when a school knowingly recommends one of these predators to another school. As outrageous as that sounds, it actually happens. Some of these school and school districts so want to be rid of this problem, this embarrassment, that they actually facilitate the person moving on to some other place, where, of course, this predator just strikes again against some other children. That would be banned under this legislation.

In addition, there would be a prohibition against hiring these kinds of predators. Schools would not be able to hire a person who has ever been convicted of any violent or sexual crime against a child--if they were convicted of a violent or sexual crime against a child. There are a number of other felonies that would also preclude someone from being hired by a school if they are going to have access to children. Those would include homicide, child abuse or neglect, crimes against children, including pornography, rape, or sexual assault, kidnapping.

In addition, a person who has been convicted within the past 5 years of a felony physical assault or battery or a felony drug-related offense--for 5 years from the time at which those crimes were committed, the person would be precluded from being hired in a position, in a capacity where they would have supervisory responsibility over children.

The enforcement for all of this is the only way the Federal Government can or should enforce policies such as this on school districts and schools; that is, if a State refuses to adopt these provisions, then they would lose the funding they get from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That is one of many--but an important one--of the Federal Government funding streams for K-12 education. No State wants to lose that source of funding, so I think States would respond by adopting this very commonsense series of measures to protect their children.

I should say this is a bill with very broad support--so broad, in fact, that in the House the companion legislation passed unanimously. There was not a single dissenting vote. They voted last year, and it passed unanimously.

We have bipartisan support here in the Senate, as I mentioned. I am joined by Senators Manchin, McConnell, and Inhofe.

It is supported by child advocacy groups. The National Children's Alliance, the Children's Defense Fund, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children all strongly support this legislation. I appreciate their support.

It is also supported by prosecutors--the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. As a matter of fact, there were five district attorneys from southeastern Pennsylvania alone, from different political parties, who wrote an op- ed--a very persuasive op-ed--arguing why this bill is necessary based on what they see every day in their jobs as prosecutors. I wish to thank those district attorneys. Risa Ferman from Montgomery County, Seth Williams from Philadelphia County, Tom Hogan from Chester County, David Heckler from Bucks County, and Jack Whelan from Delaware County all weighed in in favor of this legislation.

Finally, there are teacher groups that support this as well. The American Federation of Teachers supports this legislation. The Pennsylvania School Boards Association does as well.

I do not think I would be going far out on a limb to suggest that probably a huge majority of Americans support this legislation because one thing I know for sure as a parent of three young kids--my kids are 14, 12, and 4. There is one thing that is most important to most parents I know; that is, that our children be safe and secure. When you put your kid on a schoolbus, you expect that child will be in a safe environment all day long--on the ride to school, while they are in school, and on the way back home. Frankly, we owe it to parents as well as to their children to do all we can to ensure that they do, in fact, have a safe environment--as safe as we can make it--for their kids.

Two hundred seventy-five is the number. That is the number that should give us all pause. It marks 275 tragedies that we know of already this year--275 childhoods that are shattered, 275 families torn by grief, betrayal, self-blame. It marks a failure on our part. This kind of child abuse can be prevented. We have the tools to prevent it and to prevent so many children from harm.

Again, last year the House acted unanimously to protect children from these sexual predators. This is something we could have done a long time ago. We certainly should not be letting a new school year begin-- really in a matter of weeks--without doing something about this shameful number and without making sure this number does not continue to grow.

I hope we will be able to bring this bill to the Senate floor. I hope we will have very broad bipartisan support for it here in the Senate, as we already have in the House.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak on the nomination of Cheryl Krause to serve as a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Cheryl Krause was nominated by the President on February 6, 2014.

I want to start with a few thank yous for where we are in this process. First, Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley. I appreciate their expediting the consideration of Cheryl Krause through committee. They moved that process along very quickly.

I thank Leader Reid and Leader McConnell for agreeing to bring Ms. Krause's nomination to the Senate floor so quickly. In fact, later this morning my understanding is we have a cloture vote on consideration of her nomination.

From my point of view, this is part of an ongoing effort I have with Senator Casey, my colleague from Pennsylvania--a bipartisan collaboration to make sure we are filling vacancies as they occur, as quickly as we responsibly can, to make sure we have as close to a full complement of Federal judges as we possibly can.

So thus far, in the 3\1/2\ years I have been in the Senate, Senator Casey and I have worked closely, and we have had 10 people who have gone through the entire process--from the application process, the vetting process, the consideration, the recommendation by Senator Casey and myself jointly to the White House, the nomination, and through the confirmation process--10 people who have successfully gone through that process already. There are four additional candidates, recently nominated by the President at the recommendation of Senator Casey and myself, and I am very hopeful the Senate will confirm all four of them later this year.

We still have remaining vacancies, and we are working on filling those vacancies as well, but we are making progress, and it is in this spirit of bipartisan cooperation in filling vacancies on the Federal court that Senator Casey and I are both enthusiastically supporting the nomination of Ms. Krause to the Third Circuit.

I certainly hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle today will vote to support her confirmation.

Cheryl Krause is an extremely qualified individual. There is no question about that. She has a wealth of legal experience in both public service and in private practice. In fact, her background is so impressive that the ABA gave her a unanimous well-qualified rating.

She has excellent educational credentials. She earned her undergraduate degree from the University of Pennsylvania, where she graduated summa cum laude. She went on to Stanford Law School, where she graduated with highest honors. She clerked for Justice Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

She has been a U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, where she served for 5 years. She has taught at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She is currently a partner at the law firm of Deckert LLP.

So she has a wealth of experience--it is relevant experience--and a terrific background. She has been both on the prosecution side and on the defense side, so she understands both perspectives, both of which need to be understood to have a properly balanced perspective on the court.

In addition to a very strong legal record, Cheryl Krause has demonstrated a commitment to serving her community. She served as counsel to the Philadelphia Board of Ethics. She has represented children with disabilities. She has led Deckert's partnership with Penn Law School in a project that supervises law students representing indigent defendants.

She comes from a family of public service. Her husband has a distinguished career in the United States military.

So, to conclude, I am confident Ms. Krause will serve as an excellent Federal appellate judge. She has the crucial qualities we look for in a candidate for such an important post: intelligence, integrity, experience, a

commitment to public service, and an understanding of and respect for the limited role the judiciary plays in our constitutional system.

The Senate Judiciary Committee apparently shares my confidence in Cheryl Krause. They unanimously reported her out of committee, unanimously supporting her confirmation.

So I am pleased to speak on behalf of this highly qualified nominee, and I urge my colleagues to support her confirmation.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Madam President, I wish to recognize Little League International on its 75th anniversary. Little League International was founded in Williamsport, PA, in 1939 by Carl Stotz as a means for area youth to learn the sport at a time when they were considered too young to play organized baseball. The basic goal of Little League was, and remains, to introduce children to a game that teaches its set of values, including courage, character and loyalty, that will guide them throughout their lives. Congress recognized the valuable role Little League has played in America's communities when it unanimously granted Little League a Federal charter on July 16, 1964. That charter was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson the very next day.

Over the course of its 75 years, Little League Baseball has become the world's largest organized youth sports program, growing from 3 teams in 1939 to nearly 200,000 teams located in all 50 States and more than 80 countries worldwide. Each year, more than 2.4 million children participate in Little League Baseball in various divisions, including baseball, softball, and a challenger division for physically and developmentally challenged children. Some notable Little League alumni include former U.S. President George W. Bush, two Vice Presidents, numerous U.S. Senators and Representatives, two Nobel Prize laureates, and a Medal of Honor recipient. Also, several professional athletes and Hall of Fame baseball players began their journey in Little League. In keeping with the tradition of our national pastime, thousands

of games are played throughout the summer months at various levels of competition. These events bring together children from the international community and foster principles that transcend cultural or regional differences.

Since the very first game was played on June 6, 1939, Little League International has made an invaluable contribution to the lives of millions of children across the globe. I wish Little League International all the best as it continues to grow and fulfill its mission by laying a strong foundation for today's youth.

Madam President, I wish to recognize the Harrisburg Regional Chamber on its 100th anniversary.

The Harrisburg Regional Chamber was established in 1914 by a group of local businessmen whose goal was to promote and grow Harrisburg's manufacturing and distribution industries. Since then, the Harrisburg Regional Chamber has been a catalyst for smart public policy, job creation, and business growth in central Pennsylvania. Starting with 200 initial members, the Harrisburg Regional Chamber has grown to represent 1,300 members who employ nearly 100,000 people in the capital city region.

Over the course of its 100 years, the Harrisburg Regional Chamber has played a key role in the planning and development of numerous construction and infrastructure projects in the region. Without the chamber's assistance, historic structures such as the Penn-Harris Hotel may not have ever been built. The chamber was also instrumental in developing the region's first airport in 1930. Additionally, the chamber backed U.S. military construction projects at Olmstead Army Air Depot in Middletown, the U.S. Army General Depot at New Cumberland Army Depot, and at Carlisle Barracks.

Since 2001, the Harrisburg Regional Chamber has completed 355 projects, which have had an overall economic impact of $416 million and assisted businesses throughout the region create and retain over 12,500 jobs.

The Harrisburg Regional Chamber is dedicated to the success of the community and the members it represents. It continues to strive toward the fulfillment of its core mission by adhering to a set of fundamental values: excellence, leadership, inclusion, innovation, and fun.

Today, I want to recognize the significant contributions that the Harrisburg Regional Chamber makes to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I wish the chamber all the best as it continues its efforts to lead by example with a vision for a better future for all and as it continues to grow and serve central Pennsylvania. Thank you.

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

Mr. President, we are considering the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill. That is what I believe this legislation is called. I think we went on the bill on Monday. Here it is late Thursday afternoon, and it is amazing that we haven't had a debate or a vote on a single amendment in 3 days. Now we are finished for the week so we are not going to have any debate on any amendments or any votes tomorrow either. We are going to go the whole week without having been able to seriously consider the merits or problems with this bill, without being able to offer any ideas to improve or to change the underlying text. It is unbelievable. But this is what has become routine in the Senate.

I have offered four amendments. I fild four amendments I wish to debate, I would like to have a vote on. I have cosponsored four other amendments my colleagues have filed. I think, altogether, Republicans have drafted and filed dozens of amendments; I don't know exactly how many--there are dozens--in part because we haven't considered an Energy bill in this Chamber in 7 years. Things change in 7 years. Lots of things change. After 7 years of not having a debate over energy policy in America--something that is so basic to our economy, so important to every single family, every single business, everyone--it might be a good idea to have a debate and to offer some amendments, to have a discussion and have some votes. But that is not the way the Senate functions. We can't do it. The majority party, the majority leader, will not allow us to have amendments.

This isn't terribly recent. Over the last 10 months, since July of last summer, the majority leader has permitted Republicans to have a grand total of 8 amendment votes--8 votes in 10 months. The Senate is virtually shut down. That is what has happened. It just so happens that during that same period of time, the House Republicans, who are in control of the House, permitted the minority party to have 136 votes. Of course, the irony is it is the House that has historically always operated under a kind of martial law approach where the majority party dictates all terms--always has. But during that 10-month period, they have had 136 votes permitted to the minority party and we have had 8, and none on this Energy bill. None. Not one.

I truly don't understand why the majority party is so afraid of votes. What is so horrifying about casting a vote on an amendment? But, apparently, that is the case.

I will speak briefly about two of the amendments I have filed that I would like to have a vote on. I am not asking for an outcome, by the way. I accept that. I don't have any right to expect any particular outcome, but I don't understand why we can't have a discussion, why we can't have the debate, why we can't have the vote. By the way, Thursday afternoon, by now, we could have processed dozens of amendments. Actually, Republicans, in the end, all we wanted was a handful.

I filed amendment No. 3037. It would prohibit the Department of Energy from issuing new energy efficiency mandates on residential boilers. It is not very complicated. It is not the end of the world one way or the other, but on the margins, I think this matters a little bit to families.

I will tell my colleagues why. We all have residential boilers. These are our hot water heaters. We have them in our basements. We use them to heat water, to heat our house, in some cases, and to heat our water so we can take a hot shower. This is pretty common. We all have them.

The Department of Energy is in their periodic process of reviewing the mandates they impose on the energy efficiency standards for the boilers. The only consideration in this review process is whether they will make the mandates more stringent than they are today, make them adhere to a tougher standard than the standard they are forced to adhere to today.

Well, I think it would be better not to change the standard. That is my opinion. The reason I hold that view is because the problem with a more stringent energy efficiency requirement on these hot water heaters is it makes them more expensive. It doesn't matter much for really wealthy people, but for a middle-income family or a low-income family, it raises the cost of their home. It raises the cost of replacing a hot water heater. There are a lot of folks who can't afford to have an unnecessary additional cost added to them.

By the way, I don't think we need to force consumers to conserve energy. Everybody has an incentive to conserve energy, because energy is not free. So people are perfectly happy to pay a little more for more energy efficiency for a product if they can recoup that added cost in the form of a lower energy bill over time. People get that. They will make that decision. They will do it voluntarily. In fact, the only reason we need to mandate standards is if we want to force consumers to pay bigger premiums than they can recoup. If we only want them to pay for what they can save in the future, they do it voluntarily.

So, to me, this is one of those annoying little government mandates that is not necessary, and it reduces consumers' choices and raises their costs, and I don't think it is a good idea, especially now during difficult economic times when median wages have been declining, not rising. I don't think it is a good idea for the government to impose a new cost such as this. So I have an amendment that would forbid the Department of Energy from ratcheting up the cost of an appliance we all have in our homes.

I get the fact that not everybody agrees with me. That is fine. Some people do want to impose this added cost for their own reasons, and that is fine. What I don't understand is why we can't have the debate. Why can't we have the discussion and then have a vote? Then I either win or I lose, and

we are done. But we don't do that. Apparently, the majority party is not willing to allow Republican amendments.

I have another amendment. This one has bipartisan cosponsorship. I have cosponsors who include Senator Coburn, Senator Flake--actually, it is Senator Coburn who introduced it initially. I am a cosponsor. This amendment would eliminate the corn ethanol mandate from the renewable fuel standard.

What is that about? Well, existing law mandates that we take corn, convert it into ethanol, and then the law requires that the ethanol be mixed with gasoline, and we all have to buy it when we fill up our tanks. The Presiding Officer may be aware that we now burn over 40 percent of all the corn we grow in America. Over 40 percent of it, we end up burning in our cars, by turning it into ethanol and mixing it with our gasoline.

There were good intentions when this mandate was initially created. Some people thought it would be good for the environment. It turns out it is not; it is bad for the environment. It is not just me saying this. The National Academy of Sciences, the Environmental Working Group--everybody acknowledges it increases carbon emissions.

Members on the other side of the aisle thought the issue of carbon in the atmosphere--CO2 releases--was so important they were here around the clock in a dramatic display of political theater to make this case. Well, here is an amendment that would reduce CO2 emissions because the ethanol requirement increases CO2 relative to where we would be if it didn't exist.

That is not the only problem with the ethanol mandate. It raises the price of filling our tanks. This is expensive stuff. Having to mix it with ordinary gasoline raises the cost of driving. Everybody has to drive. So not only is it bad for the environment, but it is more expensive for every single family who operates a vehicle.

That is not all it does. Because we are diverting 40 percent of all the corn we grow to our gas tanks, it is not available in our cereals or in the food we feed to livestock, and so food prices are higher than they need to be; they are higher than they would otherwise be because of this mandate.

That is not all. Everybody acknowledges that ethanol has a corrosive effect on engines, so it is doing damage to our engines, which shortens the life of the engines; again, not that big a deal if a person is extremely wealthy and can kind of burn through cars. But for the vast majority of people I represent, cars are a very expensive cost they incur, and having a policy that systematically damages that very valuable asset doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

There is yet another reason. These ethanol mandates can have very dire consequences on some of our oil refineries, and that can cost us jobs, and it threatens refineries in Pennsylvania. As a matter of fact, I got a letter from a Philadelphia AFL-CIO business manager, a fellow named Pat Gillespie, who wrote to me asking me to try to do something about this, because it is threatening the jobs of the people he represents at the refineries where they work. I will quote briefly from a portion of his letter:

The impact of the dramatic spike in cost of the RIN

credits--

That is the system by which the EPA enforces the ethanol mandate--

from four cents to 1 dollar per gallon will cause a

tremendous depression in . . . [our refinery's] bottom line

in 2013. Of course at the Building Trades, we need [the

refineries] to maintain and expand jobs.

He closed by saying: ``We need your help in this matter.''

I am trying to help. I am offering an amendment which would repeal the corn ethanol mandate, together with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Again, I understand not everybody agrees with this. There are some people who like the ethanol mandate. They think it is a good idea to grow corn to end up burning it in our cars.

Why can't we have this debate? Why can't we have a vote? Why can't we resolve these issues on the Senate floor? But we do not. We spend the whole week waiting and wondering whether we might be allowed to have one or two amendments, only to find out, of course, as usual, we get none.

So another week goes by with nothing productive being done on the Senate floor and legislation that could be a vehicle for a meaningful, robust debate about energy policy in America--I have just given two examples. We have dozens of subjects we could be debating. We did not insist on having all of them. But a handful of ideas? It is shocking to me--shocking that we cannot allow the Senate to function, that Senator Reid insists we cannot have an open amendment process.

It is disturbing because, of course, historically this was the body that did exactly that, had the open amendment process, had the open debate. This was the--I am chuckling because it seems so odd now, but historically the Senate was considered the world's greatest deliberative body because we would deliberate. The Senate used to do this. The way it used to operate is the majority party would control the agenda, would decide what was on the floor and that is fair enough--but then, once the majority leader would decide what bill was on the floor, then it would be open for debate, until essentially the body exhausted itself and Members were finished offering amendments, and then we would have a final passage vote. Nothing even remotely similar to that is happening today.

I know a number of my colleagues, including the distinguished Presiding Officer, have served in the House. It is unbelievable to me that now, for an extended period of time, the House is having much more robust debate and far more amendment votes, by both the majority and the minority party, than we are permitted to even consider in the Senate. This is a sorry state of affairs.

It has been 7 years since the last debate on energy policy. An energy efficiency bill has come to the floor, and energy efficiency amendments are not permitted to have a discussion or a vote. That is what the Senate has come to.

I urge my colleagues and urge the majority party, in particular, which controls this body, and urge the majority leader: Allow the Senate to function. Allow us to actually have a debate. Allow us to have some amendments. It is actually not that excruciating to have a vote, and in a matter of a very short period of time, we could mow down lots of amendments and move on to the next important piece of legislation.

Energy is a very important issue for our country, for our economy, for every consumer, and it deserves to have a more serious consideration than it is getting.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I withhold my request.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the heroic acts of students and teachers during the crisis at Franklin Regional High School in Murrysville, PA. The entire community displayed astounding courage in the face of tragedy.

On the morning of April 9, 2014, a knife-wielding student assaulted students and teachers at Franklin Regional High School. During the attack, 24 people were injured, some gravely. However, thanks to the selfless actions of students, faculty, and support staff, the attacker was subdued and additional harm was prevented.

Students shielded friends from danger and administered emergency first aid, an attentive student had the composure to sound the fire alarm to warn people to exit the building, and several brave individuals put their safety on the line to incapacitate the attacker. At a time of crisis, the Franklin Regional family proved their commitment to one another.

I also want to acknowledge the brave actions of law enforcement and emergency personnel whose quick arrival ensured the safety of our students. Their prompt arrival provided lifesaving medical attention to injured students and the community remains indebted to their vigilance.

I believe that the Senate should recognize the Franklin Regional community for their bravery and resiliency. It is imperative that the community knows that our country shares their grief and stands with them as they overcome this tragedy.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Manchin, for his terrific efforts on this legislation. I also want to thank our other cosponsors, Senators McConnell and Inhofe, for their support as well.

The tragic story that inspired this bill has a connection to my State of Pennsylvania and Senator Manchin's State of West Virginia, so it made it kind of a natural for us to work together on this. It is a terrible story indeed, and I want to summarize it because it goes to the heart of why I am here this morning.

The story begins in Delaware County, PA, where one of the schoolteachers was found to have molested several boys and raped one. Prosecutors decided there was not enough evidence to actually press charges, but the school knew what had happened. So they dismissed the teacher for this outrageous behavior. But shockingly, and somewhat disturbingly, the school also helped this teacher get a new job so they could pass him along and let him become someone else's problem. It happened the new job was in West Virginia. The Pennsylvania school even went so far as to send a letter of recommendation for this monster to get that job in West Virginia, which he did get. He became a teacher, then a school principal, and while there he raped and murdered a 12- year-old boy named Jeremy Bell in West Virginia.

Justice finally caught up with that teacher, and he is now in jail, serving a life sentence for that murder. For Jeremy Bell, unfortunately, justice came way too late. But Jeremy Bell's father decided he would not rest until he had done everything he possibly could to minimize the chance that any other child or parent would ever experience a similar tragedy. Roy Bell is Jeremy's dad. He worked with Congress to create protections for children to ensure they would not be victimized at school, and the House of Representatives responded.

In October of last year, the House unanimously passed the Protecting Students Against Sexual and Violent Predators Act. Unfortunately, there too, in a way, it was a few days too late. Jeremy Bell's dad passed away 3 days before the vote. But it passed the House, and it passed, as I said, unanimously in the House. Now we are here in the Senate with a chance to pass the same bill so it can become law.

This is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill I introduced with Senator Manchin. It is a bill that has other cosponsors. I know there are some folks who say: Well, let's wait, we need more time. I say we have had enough waiting. We have waited too long. Let me explain why we shouldn't wait another day.

I will start with two numbers. The first number is 130. Senator Manchin mentioned this number. Since January 1 of this year, 130 teachers have been arrested across America for sexual misconduct with children. That is more than one teacher every day. And these are the ones who have been caught. How many more are happening?

The stories are absolutely heartbreaking: A teacher's aide who undressed and sexually assaulted a mentally disabled boy in his care; a child whose abuse began at age 10 and only ended when at age 17 she found herself pregnant with the teacher's child; the 16-year-old raped by her instructor in a classroom closet; one teacher after another caught with images of child pornography; a special education kindergarten girl forced to go shirtless in class.

These things are unbelievable. But every day we delay, we delay rooting out one of these predators.

The other number I want to share is the number 73. According to the GAO--the Government Accountability Office--the average pedophile molests 73 children over the course of a lifetime. These predators are very devious. They are clever and they are smart. What they do is go where the potential victims are. And where are there potential victims for a pedophile? What better place than a school. So they do in fact go to schools, and from school to school and school district to school district. Every day we delay, we increase the risk a predator is moving on to the next of his 73 victims.

So what can we do? Here is what our bill does. Our bill, the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act, is an important first step. It would require mandatory background checks for existing and prospective employees and then require the checks be periodically repeated, the timing of which would be left to the discretion of the States. There are five States that do not require checks at all.

The bill would also check to make sure all employees or contractors who have unsupervised contact with children would be subject to this background check--not just teachers but coaches, schoolbus drivers, anyone who has unsupervised contact with the kids. There are 12 States that don't require that now.

The bill requires a more thorough background check. For instance, in Pennsylvania, there is a background check requirement. But if you have lived in the State for more than 2 years, it does not require a background check on the Federal criminal database, and yet we know these people move across State lines.

A fourth and important piece is that our bill forbids what has sadly developed its own name--passing the trash. This idea, this practice, unfortunately, of actually recommending the predator to another job in another school or another State so as to get rid of the problem and let him become someone else's

is so disturbing it is hard to imagine anyone would do this, but we know it happens. We know it happens. And a given State doesn't have the power to prevent some school district in another State from doing exactly this, as happened in the case of Jeremy Bell.

There is a list of folks who under our legislation a school would simply not be able to hire: anyone ever convicted of any violent or sexual crime against a child. I think that makes a lot of sense. There are certain felonies that would also preclude a person from ever being hired: homicide, child abuse or neglect, rape or sexual assault, and a few others. In addition, a person who was convicted in the last 5 years of a felony physical assault or battery or a felony drug-related offense would create a 5-year prohibition against hiring such a person.

The enforcement mechanism we have is withholding Federal funds, which would be the inducement for the States to adopt these requirements.

Let me stress that this bill has broad support. I mentioned before this passed the House unanimously. There was not a single objection in the House. It has bipartisan support here in the Senate. Various child advocacy groups are fully in support: the National Children's Alliance, the Children's Defense Fund, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Prosecutors and prosecutor associations--the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys and the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association--both fully endorse this legislation. Teachers groups: the American Federation of Teachers and the Pennsylvania School Boards Association.

I forget how many former teachers in the House--I think 19 or so--all voted for this bill. I am willing to venture the overwhelming majority of the American people would support this effort to keep our kids as safe as we can.

I would also stress there is nothing radical about these proposals. In the Senate we just passed a very similar background check requirement in the child care development block grant legislation, where we insist on almost identical background checks for employees of daycares. That makes perfect sense to me. It is a good step. It is very likely to help protect children in our daycares. But why in the world would we protect the kids in daycare and not provide comparable protection for kids who have gone on to later grades?

This is a bipartisan commonsense bill that has passed the House unanimously. This is our opportunity to pass it in the Senate and send it to the President for his signature. I believe it is a moral imperative we do this to protect these kids. It didn't come soon enough for Jeremy Bell. And sadly, every day we learn there are more victims. But now is the time we can act.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1596 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, needless to say, I am extremely disappointed that we find ourselves here at this impasse with nothing accomplished, and who knows how long it will take to get something accomplished.

I will point out that the Senate, I think just last week, voted for nearly identical background check language in the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act. We voted for this. This is the language vetted by this committee.

If it is vital to keep kids safe at a daycare--which I think it is-- why isn't it just as vital to keep kids or their older siblings safe for the rest of the day? I don't think we need to go through the committee to answer that question. We have waited long enough.

This is the 16th background check bill which has been introduced in the House or the Senate since 2009, and here we have nothing on the Senate floor. The committees had 5 years to act. The committees had 5 months when they could have taken up this bill at any time, marked it up, and moved it through the process, but they didn't do this.

As far as using the committee process, I am generally a fan of going through the committee. But let's not pretend that is how we normally operate around here. There are 27 bills so far in this Congress which have received floor consideration without going through a committee at all--7 under the jurisdiction of this committee. Last Congress there were 42 bills which received floor votes without going through committee.

Let's be candid. In just the last week or so, and looking forward another week or two, we have more legislation under the jurisdiction of this committee. Whether it is paycheck fairness or a minimum wage bill, those are under the jurisdiction of this committee. They are going to be brought to the floor without having gone through the committee.

By the way, those are bills we know are going nowhere. Those are political statement bills. So is it more important to get bills that are political statements to the Senate floor than it is legislation which could actually be signed to protect kids from violent predators? This seems to me to be a very misordering of priorities.

I say to my colleague, for whom I have a great deal of respect and with whom I generally find myself in agreement, on this issue I happen to disagree with the senior Senator from Tennessee. In my view, this is not a mandate on the States.

If a State chooses not to develop the background checks we have put into this bill, then we would withhold the ESEA funding, which is 3.5 percent of total funding. That is not insignificant. But it leaves it up to the State to decide. We think kids ought to be safe in schools. If they disagree about the background checks, OK, then they don't have to take this funding. The Supreme Court, by the way, has agreed that this does not represent coercion. It does not amount to coercion when it is on this scale.

The second point I would make in this regard is part of this legislation absolutely requires Federal legislation. As I mentioned briefly in my comments earlier, this all originated from a case where a school in one State sent a letter of recommendation to a school in another State for one of these monsters to be hired. Frankly, I don't know how the school in the State where this person ended up could have prevented that from happening. But Federal legislation can prevent that, and I think it should.

So I am deeply disappointed we are not able to move to this today. I hope we will be able to soon.

I think my colleague from West Virginia had a point he wished to make, so I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on S. 1596, the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act.

Before I do that, though, I want to say a few words about a terrible event that occurred this morning in Pennsylvania. The students at Franklin Regional High School in Murrysville, PA, suffered a terrible, devastating tragedy this morning. A person--and this person is believed to be a fellow student--took out a knife and attacked his fellow students before the start of the school day. It appears that as many as 20 people were injured, some severely. Our thanks go out to the first responders who did respond as rapidly as they could, and our prayers go out to those who were injured and their families at Franklin Regional High School.

Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act

Mr. President, I want to turn to this bill that I have introduced, the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act, S. 1596. I want to thank my cosponsors, Senator Joe Manchin and Senator Mitch McConnell.

The inspiration for this bill begins with a story of a boy named Jeremy Bell. The story begins in Delaware County, PA. One of the school teachers in the school in Delaware County was found to have molested several boys and raped one of them. Prosecutors decided there was not enough evidence to bring a case. The school knew about what was happening and decided to dismiss the teacher for this appalling behavior. What was so amazing and disturbing is the school also helped this predator land a job at another school in West Virginia, even passing on a letter of recommendation so they could move their problem somewhere else.

The story ended in 1997 when that teacher, by then a school principal, raped and murdered 12-year-old Jeremy Bell in West Virginia. Justice finally caught up with that teacher who is now in jail serving a life sentence for that murder. But for Jeremy Bell justice came way too late. Jeremy Bell's father wouldn't rest until he knew he had done all he could to help to ensure that no child or parent would ever experience a similar tragedy.

Roy Bell, Jeremy's father, worked with Congress to create protections for children to ensure they were not victimized at school. I think for him it was some consolation for his loss. The House of Representatives responded to this terrible, terrible tragedy. On October 22 of last year, the House unanimously passed the Protecting Students Against Sexual and Violent Predators Act. But again, sadly, justice came too late. Jeremy Bell's father passed away just 3 days before the vote.

So we are now in the Senate with a chance to pass the same bill, a bill that has already passed the House unanimously. It is a bipartisan bill. The bill that I introduced is a companion legislation. As I mentioned, we have bipartisan support for this bill, but I hear some people suggesting that maybe we should wait, maybe now is not the right time. Maybe we need more time.

I want to say as strongly as I can that we have had enough waiting. We have wasted enough time. Let me explain why we cannot wait another day. I want to start with 2 numbers, the first is 130. Since January 1 of this year, 130 teachers have been arrested across America for sexual misconduct with children. That is more than 1 teacher arrested for each day of the year so far. And that is, of course, only those who have been caught and arrested. Every moment that we delay we are delaying rooting out some of these problems.

The other number is 73, and 73 is the number that comes from the Government Accountability Office. GAO says that the average pedophile molests 73 children over the course of that pedophile's lifetime. These predators actively seek out the environment where they can find victims. That is what they do. What better place for them than schools. They go from school district to school district, sometimes from State to State, methodically looking for victims. Every moment we delay we let a predator move on to the next of his 73 victims.

The damage that these predators do is just enormous. It is damage far beyond what any number can convey. Over the past few months I have had a chance to visit a number of child advocacy centers around Pennsylvania, meeting with the men and women who work with abused children, whether it is helping them through the criminal justice system or just helping them to start the healing process. These folks do some incredibly important and very, very good work. But again, you cannot visit one of these centers without being profoundly impacted by how devastating the abuse is.

I cannot come up with the words to convey how devastating it is, but I can let some of the children speak for themselves. I am going to quote from two students who were victims. Shannon was raped by a teacher. The teacher was later convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to life in prison. Nine years later here is what Shannon wrote:

When I was a senior in high school, Mr. Peterson approached

me and said I would need to go to night school if I wanted

enough credits to graduate on time. And of course he taught

those courses--a computer class.

I was 17, and he raped me four times over the course of the

year. He said he would fail me if I ever told. He also hit me

and made threats against me and my family. So I didn't tell.

I held it in for a year and a half.

In the end 66 people offered to testify against Peterson.

His first victim dated back to the year I was born. Some of

those who spoke up were parents. Their daughters had

complained at the time but nothing was done. That made me

very angry. It still does. I learned that a handful of

teachers and two principals knew about him. And his teaching

license had been revoked in Michigan years before, but no one

knew why.

I am different because of what happened. I have to watch

people all the time, analyze them. I can't be carefree.

Now I have a 7-year-old son and two daughters, ages 3 and

1. I will home school my girls.

Next is a case of a boy from South Carolina named Gary, one of at least 29 boys abused by a teacher, Mr. Fisher, over the teacher's 37- year career. The teacher is serving 20 years in prison. Two school principals were sued for allegedly covering up the abuse.

What Gary wrote is as follows:

I was 9 when it started. The abuse was frequent and long-

term--until I went to college. I knew there were others, too,

but until it all came out I never knew how many. You feel so

guilty, so ashamed. It's frightening now to look back and see

how calculating Fisher was. I did everything I could to get

kicked out of school. I was in the guidance counselor's

office all the time. Finally, in tenth grade I got myself

kicked out for cheating.

By the time I went to college I was drinking all the time.

I was terrified to quit because then I would have to feel.

But I couldn't drink and do school, so I entered rehab. I was

18. It took me a year and a half, and I've been sober since.

My life is good now for the first time. You can survive it,

but you have to deal with it.

He goes on to say:

I always felt that what the school did was far worse than

what Fisher did. Fisher was sick, an evil monster. But [the

school] just calculated the damage to its public relations.

We kids were disposable, which is a whole other category of

evil.

So the question before us is what are we going to do about this? What can we do? What are we going to do?

My bill, the Protecting Students From Sexual and Violent Predators Act is a sensible first step in protecting these kids. It would require a mandatory background check for existing and perspective employees, and the checks would have to be periodically repeated. There are five States today that don't require any background check at all.

The second thing my bill would do is it would check all employees or contractors who have unsupervised contact with children--not just teachers, coaches, and school bus drivers. Anybody who has contact with kids in my view should undergo this background check. There are 12 States in which there is no such requirement from contractors.

My bill would also require a more thorough background check. It would require a check of four major databases, both State and Federal. In Pennsylvania, for instance, if an employee has been living in the State for 2 years or more, there is no Federal background check at all, only the State check, and I don't think it is adequate. The way these predators move from State to State, I think it requires that we check the Federal database.

Importantly, my bill would also ban what we call ``passing the trash.'' This is the horrendous practice whereby the school discovers they have a predator and they intentionally ease the predator out and sometimes actually facilitate that predator getting a job somewhere else. That should be illegal, and my bill would make it illegal.

The fifth thing that my legislation does is it would stipulate that schools cannot hire a person who has ever been convicted of any violent or sexual crime against a child. I think that is a very reasonable first step.

In addition, it would ban hiring of a number of specific felonies-- not all felonies, but felonies such as homicide, child abuse or neglect, crimes against a child including pornography, spousal abuse, rape, sexual assault, and kidnapping. Any of those felonies are so egregious it would qualify to keep a person excluded from working with children.

In addition, anyone convicted of a felony physical assault or battery or a felony drug-related offense would be prohibited for 5 years, couldn't be hired for 5 years. The enforcement of all of this would be that if a State refused to adopt these very commonsense measures to protect kids, then they would get no Federal funding from the EASA. I think the States would adopt these reforms.

I would point out there is nothing the least bit radical about these proposals. In addition to having passed the House of Representatives unanimously, we in the Senate just passed virtually an identical background check requirement on the Child Care and Development Block Grant legislation we adopted last week or perhaps the week before--very recently. That bill essentially had identical background check provisions for daycare workers, and that is very sensible. That is an important and good step. It makes sense to protect children in daycare, but it makes no sense whatsoever to protect kids in daycare and then leave them defenseless when they move on to an ordinary school.

Finally, I want to emphasize that this bill has broad bipartisan support manifested in the House and here in the Senate. More than that, I think it is a moral imperative. Our children deserve to be protected now. If that is not a responsibility we have, I don't know what is. The protection didn't come soon enough for Jeremy Bell or Shannon or Gary, but we don't have to fail other children by delay.

I ask any of my colleagues who object to this legislation that passed unanimously in the House--legislation that is completely consistent with what we passed a couple of weeks ago--to please come forward with their concerns or issues. I welcome hearing any objections, if there are any, but I want to see a very speedy passage of this legislation.

It is my intention tomorrow to come down here to the Senate floor and ask for unanimous consent from my colleagues to pass this legislation here on the Senate floor. That will expedite this process and that will assure we put this important safeguard in place as soon as we possibly can.

Ex-Im Bank

I have one other issue I want to address briefly before I yield the floor, and that is about the Ex-Im Bank. I believe this afternoon we will be considering a nominee to a very senior post at the Ex-Im bank. My focus is not principally on this particular candidate, but I think we need to ask ourselves some important questions about the way the Ex- Im Bank operates and what it does and how it does it. I hope we will make some very significant changes when we get to the reauthorization debate in the fall.

First of all, I should point out this is an institution--the Ex-Im Bank--that gives rise to a very substantial taxpayer risk, and it is large and growing. In 2007, Ex-Im Bank's total exposure was $57 billion. Today it is almost precisely twice that amount. It is $113 billion, and the Ex-Im Bank wishes to increase that exposure further.

In 2013, the GAO, after doing an audit, found multiple weaknesses in Ex-Im's risk management processes, failures to account for changing environments that could lead to higher losses, lapses that would not be acceptable in fully private institutions.

Another point I wish to make is--I hope we don't kid ourselves about this; I know sometimes people suggest to the contrary--taxpayers are systematically subsidizing the activity of the Ex-Im Bank, and the risk that taxpayers are taking is not adequately compensated. How do we know this? We know this because buyers of products that are subject to Ex-Im Bank financing get the Ex-Im Bank financing because no private lender is willing to make the loan or, if they are, they are not willing to do it under terms as generous as the Ex-Im Bank. That is all the evidence we need to confirm that they are systematically underpricing the risks they are taking, and I find that very objectionable.

There is another concern I have, and that is the nature of the activity, the financial subsidization it provides for certain overseas buyers of some American exports. The nature of this process inevitably creates winners and losers back here in the United States.

The Ex-Im Bank effectively subsidizes--and I will give one example. Indian Airlines gets a subsidy to purchase Boeing jets, and that is very nice, except that Indian Airlines competes directly with some American airlines and American companies. They are direct competitors, but they don't get the advantageous funding. Yet their foreign-based competitor does. How can that possibly be fair? How can that possibly make sense?

My final point is that one of the most predictable things in the world is that when we create a government entity to engage in an economic activity, that entity will be politicized. It is a creature of Congress and the government. It is going to be affected. Sure enough, it didn't take long for that to happen. It already happened in the Ex- Im Bank.

I have seen Members of this body come down to this floor and attempt to offer amendments that would require, for instance, certain quotas that the Ex-Im Bank must lend to certain places in the world that are geographically favored by particular Members for whatever reasons.

There are other mandates on Ex-Im Bank's financing, such as that it must accommodate certain economic activities or certain products. This has nothing to do with market forces or general exports. This has everything to do with the politics that individual cares about. This is the kind of politicization and distortion that inevitably occurs.

In my view, we ought to make it a high priority of our trade discussions to insist with our trading partners around the world that we have a mutual and reciprocal phasing out of these counterproductive, taxpayer-subsidized export entries. While we will not have the opportunity to do that with respect to this nominee we are going to consider this afternoon, we will have the opportunity to do it when the reauthorization debate begins in the fall, and I hope my colleagues will engage in that debate.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I want to inform the Chair that two of our colleagues have concerns about this legislation--Senators Coburn and Cruz--and would like to address those concerns with the sponsors. So on their behalf, I object.

Madam President, this is the same legislation, and so for the same reason, on behalf of Senators Coburn and Cruz, I object.

Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak in support of two nominees for Federal judgeships from Pennsylvania. I believe my colleague Senator Casey is going to have a message he will share with us momentarily.

First, I wish to be very clear that I am very enthusiastically in support of both Judge Ed Smith and Mr. Gerald McHugh, the two nominees, both of whom are likely to get a vote this week. If confirmed, they will serve as U.S. district judges for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

I thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley for their work in ushering these candidates through the committee process.

I thank Leader Reid and Leader McConnell for their role in ensuring these nominees would have a chance to have a vote on the Senate floor.

Most of all, I thank my colleague Senator Casey. Senator Casey and I have been working hard to fill a number of vacancies on the Federal bench in Pennsylvania since I got to the Senate. He predates my arrival here, so he has been at this longer than I have, but since I have arrived we have had a terrific working relationship. We have had eight terrific men and women confirmed to the Federal bench across Pennsylvania. Hopefully, these two gentlemen will join them and we will be up to 10.

We have developed a rigorous process by which the many candidates who apply for these vacancies are thoroughly vetted, and I am very pleased that we have been able to make this ongoing process work. Pennsylvanians expect us to work together across party lines--a Democratic Senator and a Republican Senator--to simply find the best candidates. I have to say that I think we are doing exactly that with respect to our judicial nominees, and there could be no better examples than Judge Smith and Gerald McHugh.

Ed Smith was approved by the Judiciary Committee by a voice vote on January 16. He is very well respected. I have known Judge Smith for nearly 20 years. There is no question that he has the requisite skills, the knowledge, the background, and the acumen. He will be a great Federal judge. We know this because of what he has already accomplished in his career. He serves as a captain in the U.S. Navy, in the JAG Corps. He has been a commanding officer at the Navy Reserve Naval Justice School. He served as a military trial judge in the Navy Reserve. He was deployed to Iraq in 2007 and 2008 to serve as a rule of law advisor to the Iraqis, and he received a Bronze Star for his service.

Currently, Ed Smith is a judge on the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas. He has been a partner in the law firm of DeRaymond & Smith, and he is a cum laude graduate from Dickinson Law School.

Importantly, Judge Smith has agreed that if he is confirmed, he will sit in the Easton Courthouse in the First District. That is a courthouse which has not had a district court judge since 2004. The people of Northampton County deserve to have that courthouse filled, and Judge Smith is an outstanding candidate to do it.

I am also delighted to support Gerald McHugh. Gerald McHugh is a highly accomplished attorney, of very keen intellect, with a great commitment to public service. He is currently a partner in the Raynes McCarty firm. His work has mostly been in civil litigation, in medical malpractice, in litigation regarding unsafe products, aviation disasters, and in civil rights. He has been a shareholder in the firm of Litvin, Blumberg, Matusow & Young.

He began his career clerking for District Court Judge Luongo in the Eastern District. He is a cum laude graduate from the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Gerald McHugh is not only a skilled lawyer, but he has been very active in his community. He has been giving back to the greater Philadelphia area for a long time. He is on the boards of many charitable and civic organizations. He is the president of the Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network and has been since 2004. He cofounded the Hospitality House of Philadelphia to help ex-offenders, and he does pro bono work to improve neighborhoods and prevent crime in West Philadelphia.

Both of these candidates have the crucial qualities necessary to make outstanding judges, and they have manifested that throughout their very distinguished careers. They have the intelligence, they have the integrity, they have the commitment to public service, and they have respect for the limited role the judiciary has under our constitutional system. So I am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of these two highly accomplished nominees, and I urge my colleagues to support their confirmation later this week.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise this morning to speak on the nomination of Debo P. Adegbile as the candidate to serve as the Director of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. He would be the assistant attorney general in the Justice Department if he were to be confirmed.

It was 3:55 a.m. on December 9, 1981, when 25-year-old Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner was brutally murdered in the line of duty.

A few weeks ago, Officer Faulkner's widow Maureen Faulkner pleaded with the Senate Judiciary Committee to listen to her story. It is a heartbreaking story. It is a story about how 32 years ago a coldblooded killer murdered her husband and how political opportunists then seized the chance to deny her justice and propagate a very pernicious set of lies.

It is also a story about how President Obama's current nominee to head the Civil Rights Department, this fellow, Debo Adegbile, joined in this gross abuse of our legal system. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee--our Democratic colleagues--did not allow Maureen Faulkner to testify when the committee was considering this nominee. I think Maureen Faulkner deserves to be heard. I think she has a right to be heard. We have heard a lot of voices and a lot of arguments in this discussion. I think Maureen Faulkner's voice deserves to be heard.

Since she was not permitted to testify before the committee, I wish to read to my colleagues in the Senate the letter she sent to all of us, and I will begin now. Maureen Faulkner writes:

Dear Senators, while I would have preferred to do so

personally, I'm writing this letter appealing to your sense

of right and wrong, good and evil, as you consider the

nomination of Debo Adegbile to be the next head of the Civil

Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

Thirty-three years ago my husband, Philadelphia Police

Officer Daniel Faulkner, was violently murdered by a self-

professed ``revolutionary'' named Mumia Abu-Jamal.

I was 24 years old.

While most of my friends spent their summer at the Jersey

Shore, I sat in a hot steamy courtroom and watched in horror

and disbelief as the man who murdered my husband tried to

turn the courtroom into a political stage where he could spew

his hatred and contempt for this country and our judicial

system.

At the moment my husband's blood stained shirt was

displayed by the evidence handler, Mumia Abu-Jamal turned in

his chair and smirked at me; demonstrating his contempt for

law enforcement.

Thankfully, a racially mixed jury that was selected by Abu-

Jamal while representing himself, found him guilty.

The following day they sentenced him to death for the

brutal act he committed.

That's when my second nightmare began.

For three decades, my family and I endured appeal after

appeal, each rooted in lies, distortions, and allegations of

civil rights violations.

And year after year, judge after judge, the conviction and

sentence were unanimously upheld.

Then, thirty years after the fact, my family, society and I

were denied justice when three Federal District Court judges

who have found error in every capital case that has come

before them, overturned the death sentence.

Today, as my husband lies thirty-three years in the grave,

his killer has become a wealthy celebrity.

He pens books and social commentaries critical of our

country.

He regularly uses his nearly unlimited access to the prison

telephone to do radio programs, has cable TV in his cell and

is permitted to hold his wife, children and grandchildren in

his arms when they visit.

Old wounds have once again been ripped open and additional

insult is brought upon our law enforcement community in this

country by President Obama's nomination of Debo Adegbile.

While publicly demonstrating that he doesn't even know my

husband's name, Mr. Adegbile feigns sympathy and caring for

my family and me.

In reality, Mr. Adegbile was a willing and enthusiastic

accomplice in Mumia Abu-Jamal's bid to cheat us of the

justice we had waited so many years for.

Mr. Adegbile freely chose to throw the weight of his

organization behind Mumia Abu-Jamal, and he has publicly

stated that he would get Mumia Abu-Jamal off death row.

Mr. Adegbile holds Mumia Abu-Jamal, a remorseless

unrepentant cop killer, in high esteem.

We know this because attorneys working under Mr. Adegbile

stood before public rallies held in support of my husband's

killer and openly professed that it was ``an extreme honor''

to represent the man who put a hollow based bullet into my

husband's brain as he lay on the ground, wounded, unarmed and

defenseless.

And while Mr. Adegbile and those who support his nomination

will undoubtedly argue that he did not personally make such

statements, he did nothing to counter or stop them.

In the end, like so many attorneys before him, Mr.

Adegbile's allegations of civil rights abuse rang hollow.

Mumia Abu-Jamal's death sentence was overturned not because

of civil rights abuse as alleged by Mr. Adegbile, but because

three judges with a personal dislike for capital punishment

conveniently determined that the wording in a standard form

given to a jury might have confused them.

While Debo Adegbile may be a well-qualified and competent

litigator, through his words, his decisions and his actions

he has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that he is not the

best person to fill this important position.

Certainly there are others with similar qualifications that

would be better choices.

I would argue that Mr. Adegbile's decision to defend a cop

killer should preclude him from holding any public position.

Your decision means a lot to me personally.

The thought that Mr. Adegbile will be rewarded, in part,

for the work he did for my husband's killer is revolting.

Throughout my long ordeal I have frequently been labeled a

racist by many who support my husband's killer simply because

he is black and I white.

I have also been asked to throw my name, my voice and my

support behind political candidates from both parties.

In each case I have declined.

I have always believed that my husband's death and my quest

for justice transcends politics and race.

From my heart, I'm asking you to do the same thing.

Set aside any partisan feelings you have and do the right

thing today when you vote on Mr. Adegbile's confirmation.

Please spare my family and me from further pain.

Sincerely,

Maureen Faulkner.

To conclude, as the Justice Department's Web site explains, the Civil Rights Division ``fulfills a critical mission in upholding the civil and constitutional rights of all individuals.'' This requires the head of the Civil Rights Division to have an absolute commitment to truth and justice.

There are many highly qualified Americans who can carry out this critical mission--and it is a critical mission. Mr. Adegbile's record and what he actually has done create serious doubt that he is one of them.

For these reasons I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture on the nomination of Mr. Adegbile to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

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