Pat Toomey

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I rise to address two issues this afternoon. The first is amendment No. 1190. I will be as quick as I can on this because I want to spend more time dealing with the Johnson amendment, which I also will address. Amendment No. 1190 arises because of the very unusual procedural circumstances we find ourselves in. As the Presiding Officer probably knows very well, for technical procedural reasons, the Senate has chosen to conduct a debate about the Corker-Cardin bill, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, on a House legislative vehicle that was sent over to us. But in order to do this, all of the language from the House bill gets stripped out and it goes away. That original House bill, H.R. 1191, was the Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act. I want to talk a little bit about it. But here is my amendment. It is pretty simple. I just want to restore the language from that House-passed vehicle. It is pretty simple. I do not think it is controversial. Let me just sum up what this is about. This is a bill that was offered in the House by Congressman Lou Barletta from Pennsylvania. It is a bill that would protect volunteer firefighters from some unintended consequences of ObamaCare. More specifically, it exempts volunteer firefighters from counting toward the trigger for the employer mandate. I do not think it was ever intended that volunteer firefighters would be counted this way, but nonetheless the danger arises because of an IRS ruling. So the IRS issued a guidance back in 2013 that suggested that volunteer firefighters would have to count any benefits they got as income. It raises the question of whether they would be counted toward the ObamaCare limit. They have gone back and forth. They have issued a ruling that says volunteer firefighters would not be counted toward triggering the number of employees that invokes ObamaCare, but that is just an administrative ruling at this point. It could change at any point in time. If it were to change, and if every volunteer fire department in America that had 50 or more volunteer firefighters had to be deemed to be an employer requiring full ObamaCare coverage, I dare say it would put out of business virtually every volunteer fire department in America because none of these volunteer fire departments have the kind of money it would take to go out and buy health care for those volunteer firefighters, nor was ObamaCare ever intended to cover these folks. This would be a huge problem, particularly in Pennsylvania where we have 2,400 volunteer fire departments, more than any other State in the Union, and we have over 50,000 volunteers in Pennsylvania alone, but there are over 750,000 nationally. So, as I said, the IRS did give us a ruling that, for now, they will not deem volunteer firefighters to be employees for the purpose of triggering ObamaCare mandates. But I would like--and I am not the only one who would like to have this codified in law so this danger goes away so volunteer fire departments can continue to thrive. This passed the House unanimously. There is bipartisan support in the Senate. I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member. My understanding is there is no opposition from either of them to this amendment, which is very straightforward. I would be delighted with a voice vote when the time is appropriate for that. I would be very grateful. I have said my piece about the volunteer firefighters, but I do think it is a great opportunity to get this taken care of. Amendment No. 1150 What I would like to address, though, is the incredibly important debate that we are having now about the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. Now, let me state very clearly, I think the underlying bill that Senators Corker and Cardin have produced is a very important good-faith effort to give Congress some say in something Congress absolutely should have a say in. But I do think there is an underlying problem with the bill. The underlying problem with the bill is that the reality is, at the end of the day, an agreement announced by the President with Iran, should that come to pass, could be opposed by a majority of Senators--it could be opposed by a big majority of Senators and it would still go into effect, despite the provisions in this underlying bill. Specifically, why I say that is, in the first place, in order to prevent the congressionally authorized sanctions from being waived, we would need to pass a resolution of disapproval. That takes 60 votes in the Senate. So any 41 Senators could prevent that from taking place and then the deal goes forward, the sanctions get lifted. If we have a supermajority, more than 60, and we could pass this legislation and send to it the President, he could veto it. Then it would take 67 votes to override the President's veto. So the math is pretty clear. Any 34 Senators in support of the agreement could permit the agreement to go ahead, while 66 Senators could oppose the agreement and yet it would take place. It seems to me that this turns an important part of the Constitution on its head, and that is article II, section 2 that says: The President ``shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.'' So, in my view, this certainly ought to be deemed to be a treaty because it rises to that level of importance. A treaty, generally defined, is an agreement through negotiations signed by nations. I think that is what we are talking about here. Certainly something of this enormous importance as arguably the most dangerous regime in the world on a path that might very well enable them to obtain the most dangerous weapon in the world, it is hard to imagine things that are much more important than that. So I think it certainly ought to rise to the level of a treaty. We routinely treat matters of much lesser import as treaties. This is not just sort of an abstract, theoretical question of Presidential authority. There are very specific, very real consequences. It is my view that we are on a path toward a very bad, very dangerous deal. The only way I can think of that we change the path we are on is if there is a plausible, credible possibility for Congress to stop this, which would then cause these negotiations to change their course, which is what I think has to happen to avoid a very dangerous outcome. Let me be clear. My goal is not to kill any deal, my goal is to get a good deal, one that provides for the security and safety our country needs. I do not think that is the direction we are on right now. Let me explain a few of the reasons why. I guess the simple summary was very aptly put by the Prime Minister of Israel when he spoke to the joint session of Congress and he said: The problem with this deal is that it would not block Iran's path to a bomb, it paves it. That is exactly what I am concerned about, ultimately. Let me explain why I am concerned about that. I see three big categories of reasons; first, the administration has already made too many concessions; second, the Iranian regime is a regime we cannot trust; third, while the administration says don't worry, you don't need to trust them because we can verify and enforce this agreement and, boy, if they step out of line, we will snap those sanctions back in a heartbeat, that is a fantasy. I do not see that working. Let me explain these three categories. With respect to the concessions, first, we ought to be concerned, I think, about the concessions that were made before the negotiations even began--the concessions that we wouldn't even address, the ongoing ballistic missile program that the Iranians continued to pursue and make ever more sophisticated. We wouldn't address their active, ongoing support for terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East and around the world. That wouldn't be on the table. We wouldn't address their open declarations that they want to wipe Israel off of planet Earth. These things were permitted just to be set aside. That is a very major round of concessions before we ever got to the table. My next concern is the way the administration has been moving the goalpost throughout these discussions. The initial goal stated by the President in the fall of 2013 was to ensure that Iran would not have a nuclear bomb. That was the right goal. The only problem is that is not the goal anymore. Now the goal is, according to the administration, that we would have about 12 month's notice if the Iranians decide to develop and deploy nuclear weapons. That is a huge, huge concession, and, I think, a very dangerous one. Finally--and maybe the most disturbing concession--it seems to me that the framework of this deal, as it has been described by the administration, allows Iran to retain a nuclear infrastructure-- actually, an industrial-scale nuclear infrastructure, with the underground facility at Fordow and the plutonium reactor Arak-- thousands of centrifuges for a country that doesn't need a single centrifuge. If their intended purpose really is just to have peaceful nuclear energy, they don't need a single centrifuge. They can buy enriched uranium. They don't need to have the domestic capability of enriching centrifuges. But it has already been conceded that they will have thousands. None of this, by the way, is going to be destroyed. Anything that is deactivated is locked away, but it is still there. Frankly, I am worried about the next round of concessions. If you listened, as I have, to the way the administration has described the framework of this agreement, and then you listened to how the Iranians have described it, there are some huge divergencies there. For instance, with respect to the sanctions, the administration has said that the sanctions would be lifted gradually, only as and when the Iranians comply with the terms of agreement. The Iranians have said: Absolutely not. The sanctions get lifted immediately upon execution of the agreement. And on inspections, this essential part of the enforcement mechanism, the administration has said: We will have the ability to inspect anytime, anywhere. The Iranians have said: No, you won't. You will only do inspections by permission, and military sites are off limits all together. I think this is a very disturbing range of concessions that have already been made, and the deal is not finished yet. The second point I make is that we can't trust this regime. I just think that is abundantly obvious. I think it is very clear that they have not reached the decision as a nation that they want to abandon their quest for a nuclear weapon. I don't think they have. And, if you look at their behavior, they have been killing Americans since 1979, including nearly 1,500 U.S. soldiers in Iraq with the sophisticated IEDs they make. Iran is the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism. They are promoting radical Islam in many places in the Middle East. They recently were plotting to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador by a bomb planted in a DC restaurant. They have repeatedly declared their intention to wipe Israel off the map, and they have a history of cheating on agreements and violating U.N. resolutions. Why do we think this time would be different? Well, as I said, the administration says: Don't worry. You don't have to trust. We will have verification, enforcement, and snapback sanctions. Well, I don't think that is realistic at all. But it is not only my view. Henry Kissinger and George Shultz wrote, I thought, a very important essay about this. They mention, among other things, the difficulty we are probably going to have in even discovering that cheating is going on. I quote from the Kissinger-Shultz article. They say: ``In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect.'' Not only that, it looks like we are, in a way, subbing out the endorsement to the U.N.--populated, I might remind my colleagues, by countries that are often not terribly friendly to the United States. There we will have the challenge of proving violations that we do discover, proving that they are, in fact, violations. Again, Kissinger and Shultz point out that when cheating or a breakout occurs, it is unlikely to be a ``clear-cut event.'' Rather, it is likely to be ``the gradual accumulation of ambiguous evasions.'' So we discover these ambiguous evasions, and what do we do? We have to go to the U.N. and convince them. I suspect the Iranians will deny them. And how long will this process go on while this is adjudicated and while the Iranians remain in violation? And what are our chances that we will eventually convince the people we need to convince at the U.N. that we are right and they are wrong? But even if we are successful in all of this, the administration says: Well, that is when we will just snap the sanctions right back in place. How can that even be a serious notion when the sanctions regime is crumbling right now? I mean, it is already crumbling. The Russians are selling air defense systems now to the Iranians. Why is the President so reluctant to have Congress have a role in this, in any case? If the President can make the case that America will be more secure as a result of this agreement, he should be able to convince the American public and the Senate, get the votes, and then he would have a much more enduring agreement. A treaty is binding indefinitely, and it would have the approval of Congress. It wouldn't have the temporary nature of the executive agreement. I think it is our responsibility that we have to uphold the Constitution. It is our responsibility that we have to maximize the safety of the American people to the extent we can. So I hope my colleagues will support the Johnson amendment, which will simply deem this agreement to be a treaty and require the two-thirds vote for ratification that a treaty requires.

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I would assure the Presiding Officer, for the purpose of passing on to any interested Senators, that I, in fact, would not take forever. In fact, I think I can do this in--it probably will take 15 or 20 minutes.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the contributions to global public health by the Pennsylvania employees of Sanofi. Yesterday, at the White House, they were presented with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent for Humanity award, in recognition of the development of a patented chemical and industrial process for producing semi-synthetic artemisinin, which is used in the creation of combination therapies, ACTs, treating malaria. Malaria is one of the most deadly infectious diseases in the world, with 200 million cases in almost 100 countries. In 2013, an estimated 584,000 people died from malaria. This parasitic infection most significantly burdens countries with the highest rates of poverty. In Africa, where 90 percent of all malaria cases occur, one child dies every minute from the condition. Artemisinin is an important antimalarial drug derived from the sweet wormwood plant in Asia and Africa, but weather and other factors can yield an uncertain supply of natural artemisinin, threatening patients' access. Thus, developing semi-synthetic artemisinin will enable a stable supply of high-quality medication at affordable prices on a no- profit, no-loss model, lead to a stronger supply chain, and place more ACTs in the hands of the most vulnerable patients. Sanofi hopes to produce annually an average of 50 to 60 tons of artemisinin, which will produce 80 to 150 million ACT treatments. This project to produce semi-synthetic artemisinin began in 2007, and involves a partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the University of California Berkeley, the global health charity PATH, Sanofi, and Amirys. I would like to commend in particular Alain Werner, Robert Sebbag, and Philippe Charreau of Sanofi who led the organization's work on this important project. Sanofi's achievement is only one example of a rich history of dedicating its resources to combat the world's most deadly diseases. Their work on malaria dates back to the 1930s. More recently, Sanofi, which has 112,000 employees and retains core strengths in human vaccines, animal health, consumer healthcare, diabetes, and rare diseases, created its Access to Medicines program to improve access to healthcare in the poorest countries. As the Senate continues to work on legislation to speed the development of therapies, I ask my colleagues keep in mind the important incentives and intellectual property protections that encourage scientists, such as those responsible for this breakthrough, to create lifesaving medicines for patients worldwide.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 98, I voted nay. I intended to vote yea. Therefore, since it will not affect the outcome of the vote, I ask unanimous consent that I be recorded as voting yea.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, today I recognize WHP 580 Talk Radio, a radio station in Harrisburg, PA, celebrating its 90th anniversary on April 3, 2015. WHP 580 was established as WHBG in 1925 by the Skane Electrical Service. The station was sold in 1927 and changed its name to WHP on station dial 1280 AM 2 years later. In 1951, WHP was moved to dial number 580 AM, where it has remained ever since. WHP 580 continues the tradition of providing quality programming and news just as it did 90 years ago. WHP 580 provides listeners with insightful talk radio aimed at informing citizens in Pennsylvania about current and national affairs, while keeping them engaged in local issues. The station offers a variety of talk radio programming, local and regional news updates, and daily weather and traffic reports for commuters. By broadcasting pertinent, up-to-date information, WHP 580 continues its legacy as a respected news source in the Central Pennsylvania region. I recognize the significant contributions that WHP 580 Talk Radio has made to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I wish them all the best as they continue their efforts to lead by example with a vision for better broadcasting in central Pennsylvania.

Mr. TOOMEY

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

Mr. TOOMEY. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to speak on S. 178, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, and the Toomey-Manchin amendment No. 291 to that bill. First of all, I wish to thank Senator Cornyn for bringing this bill to the Senate floor. It is a bipartisan bill. It is an extremely important bill. It has been awfully frustrating that we can't even get onto this bill. It is especially hard to understand because of the fact that this is a bipartisan bill which has 10 Democratic cosponsors and another 3 Democrats who voted for it in the Senate Judiciary Committee. This shouldn't even be controversial. It is particularly disturbing because when you think about what we are trying to address with Senator Cornyn's bill, it is awfully important. I mean, what can be more despicable than what we are trying to go after here--trafficking human beings? This is a form of modern- day slavery, is what it is, and some of the most despicable people in the world take the most vulnerable people in our society and they turn them into essentially slaves in the sex industry. I mean, as appalling as that is, it happens, and it happens in every State. What this bill does is it provides more tools for law enforcement to better be able to crack down on this appalling practice and provides harsher penalties, as well it should, and it provides more resources for folks who do the important work of helping victims to heal, which is a very long, very difficult, very painful process. It is unimaginable what some of these folks go through. Children are forced into slavery, brutalized, beaten, and raped. It is dehumanizing--an atrocious situation. We have a bill which is bipartisan and which would actually do something constructive about it, and our Democratic colleagues will not even allow us to begin the debate, much less move on in the process. I understand there is a provision in the bill they don't like. I get that. But we have offered repeatedly that they would be allowed to offer any amendment they like. They can offer an amendment to strike the language to which they object, and that is the way the Senate is supposed to work. You put a bill on the floor. If somebody doesn't like something that is in it, you try to change it. It is pretty basic, pretty fundamental, and that is what we ought to be doing. But we haven't been able to persuade enough of our Democratic colleagues to allow us to proceed to this bill yet. I hope we will soon. One of the reasons I hope so goes beyond the substance of this bill, and that is the amendment Senator Manchin and I will introduce as soon as we are able to do that. This is an amendment which will allow us to amend the underlying trafficking bill with a bill Senator Manchin and I have introduced designed to protect kids from sexual abuse. It is amendment No. 291, and it is based on a bill we have called the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act. The goal is to protect kids from pedophiles in schools. That is what it comes down to. There is overwhelming bipartisan support for our legislation, the bill I introduced with Senator Manchin. It passed the House unanimously. I rose last week to ask unanimous consent to bring up this amendment and make it pending so we could debate and we could vote on it, and one of our friends from the other side of the aisle objected to that as well. So there is no progress on this yet, but I am convinced that this isn't going to stand. I am convinced that enough Democratic Senators are going to come to their senses and they are going to join us in voting on this bill and that we are going to be able to somehow proceed with this and proceed with the various amendments I and others intend to offer. I want to speak a little bit about my amendment because I think we are going to get to it. As I mentioned, it is about protecting kids at school from violent and sexual predators. Let me start with an observation that should go without saying, but I will say it anyway. We all know that the overwhelming majority of school authorities, teachers and nonteachers alike, are very good and decent people and that it would never occur to them to abuse the children in their care. They are motivated in their desire to help kids succeed in the various ways they help guide these kids. I am completely convinced that the overwhelming majority of teachers and school employees don't want a pedophile anywhere near their school. They don't want them in the classroom next to them. They don't want them coaching their kids. They don't want them in any way involved because most teachers have good sense and decency. That is the way they are. But the reality is that schools are, in fact, where the kids are, and pedophiles know this. So we have a problem. The problem is that some of these predators are finding ways into the schools. Stated very clearly, last year alone, 459 school employees--some teachers, some not teachers--459 adult school employees were arrested across America for sexual misconduct with the kids they are supposed to be looking after; 459 that we knew enough about what they were doing and the prosecutors felt they had a strong enough case that they could actually go ahead and make the arrest. How many more are under investigation? How many more where there are suspicions but no evidence with which to pursue a case? Probably a lot more. But we know for sure there are 459 appalling cases, and so far this year, we are on track to have similar numbers. We are 76 days into the school year, and over 90 school employees have already been arrested this year across the country. This is absolutely a real problem. Some of these predators are finding ways to slip through the cracks of the system that is meant to keep them out, and Senator Manchin and I want to do something about it. Here is our suggestion. We have a bill that does two simple things. It says to the State: If you are going to collect the millions of dollars in Federal funding that go to primary and secondary education, then you have to do a proper background check and you have to make sure you are not hiring a pedophile. You have to check the Federal and State databases to make sure you are doing a thorough background check. And the second requirement is you can't engage or permit anybody to engage in this appalling practice that is known as passing the trash. It is shocking that this could even exist, but it does. I will tell you the story that actually inspired this legislation, which is a case in point of passing the trash. The story begins with a teacher teaching in Delaware County, PA. This teacher was a pedophile who was molesting boys who were in his care. The school district figured out what was going on. There was never enough evidence to actually prosecute him, but they knew something was very wrong. The school district decided it would be better if this teacher became someone else's problem, so, as appalling as it is, what they did was they wrote a letter of recommendation to recommend this teacher for another job provided that he leave. Well, he leaves. He goes across the State border into West Virginia, applies for and, in part on the strength of the letter of recommendation he had, he gets hired at a school in West Virginia. He works as a teacher. He resumes what these people do--abusing children. Eventually, he becomes principal, and while principal at the school, he rapes and murders a 12-year-old boy named Jeremy Bell. So the practice of sending a letter of recommendation along with a monster such as this is known as passing the trash. As appalling as that is, it happens enough that it has its own name. As a matter of fact, just Friday, I was in Pittsburgh and I was visiting a wonderful group of people--Pittsburgh Action Against Rape--a great group of professionals who do wonderful work, mostly helping victims cope with the aftermath of their assaults. One of the people I met there and heard from is the president of the board of directors. Her name is Beth Docherty. She told her story. Her story began when she was 15 years old. She was in the band at her school when the band instructor began to rape her. When she came forward and told the authorities what was happening, the school promised the teacher they wouldn't conduct any investigation if he would just quietly resign. Then the school wrote a glowing letter of recommendation for this guy, which he took with him, went to Florida, and found a teaching job there. Fortunately, the prosecutors in the case in Pennsylvania felt confident that they had a strong enough case, and in time they were actually able to get him back from Florida. They prosecuted him and they locked him up, and he is in jail today, where he belongs and might be for the rest of his life. The point of this is, as appalling and shocking as it is to our conscience that anyone would do this, I am here to say it happens. It happens, and we need to do something about it for the sake of Jeremy Bell and for the sake of Beth Docherty and who knows how many other children. Our legislation simply requires that the State have a provision in its law that makes it illegal to knowingly recommend for hire someone who is attacking kids. This, too, strikes me as a bill that should not be controversial. It passed the House unanimously. But there are people who are trying to kill this bill. We have some of our friends on the other side of the aisle, and outside organizations from the left have argued against this. I want to quote from a letter that was sent to all of us explaining why a number of those groups are opposing the legislation. Here is the quote. This is what they say in their letter: ``Individuals who have been convicted of crimes and have completed their sentences should not be unnecessarily subjected to additional punishments because of these convictions.'' Well, wait a minute. Think about the logic of that position. By that logic, an admitted convicted child molester who serves a 10-year prison sentence for his crime should be able to walk out of the jail, walk down the street, apply for and get a job teaching elementary schoolkids. How ridiculous is that? It is completely ridiculous. Our kids should not be involuntary members of a social experiment where we are trying to see which convicted child molesters are going to be recividists. Frankly, most of them are. I am not willing to take the risk that our kids should be left alone with people like that. We have a National Sex Offender Registry for a reason. It is because we recognize those people pose a danger that extends past the time of their incarceration. Parents need to know about that. That is why we have this national registry. Schools need to avoid the danger. To be clear, I am not suggesting a convicted child molester can never work again anywhere, but I am saying they should not work in a school. I think that is completely reasonable. I am shocked, frankly, that these organizations would come out against this commonsense legislation. But the objection, in fairness--some objection comes from our side of the aisle as well. I have a colleague for whom I have all the respect in the world. The senior Senator from Tennessee is a wonderful Senator. I agree with him on far more than I disagree. But I have to say, I strongly disagree with his view of this particular view. He has been here on the Senate floor. He has been very upfront with me about his opposition to our bill. The basis of his opposition to my bill is he believes that passing the legislation Senator Manchin and I are proposing, requiring background checks and forbidding the passing of trash, constitutes the equivalent of a national school board, that it is an unreasonable infringement on schools. Well, I could not disagree more. Now the idea of a national school board is a terrible idea. I have no interest in that. You will never hear me arguing that the Federal Government should impose on States and school districts things such as appropriate class size, or whether you should teach geometry before algebra in middle school, or what grade should students read ``The Grapes of Wrath.'' Any of those kinds of curriculum issues or testing issues should be left to local school boards and States. But that is not what we are trying to do here. What I am saying with my legislation with Senator Manchin is if a State takes billions and billions of Federal tax dollars each year, then you cannot use that money to pay the salary of a convicted child abuser. I think that is totally different. That is nothing like a national school board. Furthermore, we all voted in favor of the substance of these background check requirements when we all passed the child care development block grant bill, which, by the way, passed this Chamber with one dissenting vote. It was 98 to 1. There was one ``no'' vote, which had nothing to do with the background check provisions, by the way. The senior Senator from Tennessee was an original cosponsor of that legislation. By the way, that also passed the House unanimously. It is virtually identical. It holds that children in these daycare centers should have the protection that comes with knowing the employees have gone through this background check system. So do we have a national daycare board? I do not think so. If it is okay to protect the youngest of kids, which it certainly is and should be, why cannot we also extend that protection to kids who are a little bit older? We are insisting on a standard that is appropriate and rigorous for kids who are toddlers. Then when they go to kindergarten, we are not going to have the same standard to protect them? That makes no sense to me at all. Then another point I would make regarding this idea of a national school board is this practice of passing the trash. When a school district sends a letter of recommendation for a known offender, and he takes that letter with him and goes across State lines, what can a single State do about that? The case I described of Jeremy Bell, the little boy who was killed by the teacher in West Virginia who originated in Pennsylvania--what could West Virginia do to forbid Pennsylvanians from sending a letter of recommendation for that teacher? Absolutely nothing is the answer. Because West Virginia's legislative authority does not reach into Pennsylvania. This happens across State lines. In fact, it is a very conscious decision on the part of many of these predators, because they want to put as much distance between their criminal activities as they can. When they move, they move far sometimes. So this demands a Federal response. There is nothing a State can do to solve this problem. That is why we address it in our bill. The other point I would make is, look, this is not the first time we have had the Federal Government establish some employment standards. We have Federal laws that, for instance, ban discrimination in schools. Schools are not permitted, under Federal law--you cannot discriminate in your hiring on the basis of sex or race or age or religion or pregnancy. Does that mean we have a national school board? Does that mean we have a national school board? Does this mean we have to repeal all of these laws? I do not think so. I think it is perfectly reasonable to have employment standards. Finally, I would say do we not have some responsibility of oversight of how Federal tax dollars get spent by the States? I mean, do we send the money and say: Hey, here is a pile of cash, do whatever you like with it? I do not think that is a very reasonable standard. What could be more reasonable than simply saying you cannot use Federal tax dollars we are responsible for if you are going to use it to pay the salaries of convicted child abusers. I think that is pretty straightforward. I will say there may be alternative amendments here. There has been some discussion that some of our colleagues may offer alternatives to the legislation Senator Manchin and I have. I am still willing to work with anyone on our side or the other side of the aisle. If we can constructively work--if the goal is to actually get something passed that is going to be helpful, that is going to be constructive, then I will work with anybody to get there. But there are a few things I will not agree to. I will not agree to a provision that, under the guise of privacy, requires a school to stay silent while a known child molester seeks a new teaching job. That is not reasonable. I will not agree to a bill that does nothing to change the status quo, a bill that does nothing to provide additional protections for our kids. Unfortunately, in my view, the amendment that is offered by the senior Senator from Tennessee fits into this latter category. He has got an amendment that I think provides absolutely no additional protections. It says all States have to have a background check system. But guess what. All States already do. The problem is, many of them are inadequate. As I said before, there is nothing a State can do about passing the trash across State lines. So it does nothing to stop passing the trash. It does nothing to stop schools from hiring a convicted child rapist. It does not say anything about the standards of the background check. The bill is so loose that if a State simply decided to do a Google search, that would meet the criteria of the bill. It is completely unacceptable. It does not change the status quo. It does nothing to protect the kids. You could make the argument that this bill is arguably worse than doing nothing, because it could undermine the effort to do this right, create the illusion of having done something at the national level when, in fact, it has not done so. I will conclude by simply saying I am not prepared to settle for the status quo. I am not satisfied when we have a situation where 459 school employees are arrested in a single year--arrested for sexual misconduct with the kids they are supposed to be taking care of. Obviously we have a problem here. I am not going to settle for a pretend piece of legislation that accomplishes nothing. What comes home to me is my own three kids. I have three young children. When one of my children gets on a schoolbus in the morning, I have every right to expect the school that child is going to--the school my child is going to--is as safe an environment for him or her as it can possibly be. Every other parent in Pennsylvania and every parent in America deserves to have peace of mind. Every child deserves to have that security. So that is why I am not going to give up on this. I am confident at some point our Democratic friends are going to realize it is a huge mistake for them to continue their filibuster of the trafficking bill. When they do, they will agree to let us proceed to it. When that happens, I will be back. Senator Manchin and I will offer our legislation as an amendment. We are going to have a debate about it. We are going to have a vote about it. I certainly hope we win this vote. This, again, is legislation that passed the House unanimously. If it passes the Senate, it is sure to become law. If it does not pass for some reason, then I am going to come back again and again until it does. I hope we will take this up sooner rather than later. I hope we get on this bill still this week. There is still time. I know we will have an open amendment process when we do. I look forward to offering this amendment.

Mr. TOOMEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up my amendment No. 285.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, it is hard to adequately express my frustration that we can't get moving on this bill. First of all, the underlying bill that our friends on the other side are blocking progress on is a very sensible, important, constructive bill. I commend Senator Cornyn for having introduced this. I am proud to be a cosponsor. This is the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. Let's be clear what this is about. We have a huge problem in this country. In all 50 States there are people who actually engage in the buying and selling of human beings, mostly women and young children, in a sex trade. That is what is happening. And this is a bill that would enhance the penalties and thereby discourage this activity. It would take some of the proceeds from the penalties paid by these monsters who would engage in this kind of activity and it would use those proceeds to help victims. I don't understand where the objection comes from for a bill such as this, and now we can't move ahead on my amendment. My amendment is a little bit different but it is in a similar vein. It is designed to help protect children from sexual predators in schools, and we just heard the objection. The folks on the other side of the aisle somehow object to legislation that would enhance a protection for the kids in our schools. Let me explain why this is so important. The inspiration for this bipartisan bill that I have introduced with Senator Manchin and which I just tried to call up as an amendment and I was prevented from doing so--the inspiration for this is an absolutely horrendous story that begins in Delaware County, PA. There was a schoolteacher who for years was molesting boys in his care. He raped one of the boys. The prosecutors discovered what was going on, but they never had enough evidence to actually press charges. The school knew what was going on, so they decided: Why don't we make this monster someone else's problem? And that is exactly what they did. They wrote a letter of recommendation so this animal could go across the State line--which he did--get hired by a school in West Virginia-- which he did--and become a teacher, eventually rise to be principal, and along the way continue molesting we don't know how many kids, but we do know in the end he raped and killed a 12-year-old boy. Because that is what these people do. And there is a practice that happens--as hard as this is to talk about, as unbelievable as this is in practice, it is a reality that some schools would like these people to become someone else's problem, and they actually give them a letter of recommendation so they can go somewhere. And they do indeed become someone else's problem. That is what I am trying to stop here. That is what we are trying to stop. This happened with a teacher who left Pennsylvania and went to West Virginia, and the little boy's name was Jeremy Bell. Senator Manchin from West Virginia and I have teamed up on a bill that would make this practice of knowingly and willfully aiding a known pedophile from getting a job somewhere else--we would make that illegal. We wouldn't think we should have to do that because we wouldn't think anybody with a conscience could do it, but it happens. We know it happens. We have heard these stories time and again. By the way, this is not such an isolated event as we would like to think it is. Last year alone, 459 teachers and other school employees across America were arrested for sexual misconduct with the kids they were supposed to be taking care of and looking after. We all know that for the vast majority of schoolteachers it would never occur to them. It would never cross their mind, they would never do such a thing. But there are a number of pedophiles--monsters who prey on kids. And they know where the kids are. So they try to find their way into these schools so they can prey on the victims. The 459 who were arrested last year were the ones we knew enough about that prosecutors felt they could prosecute, so they made an arrest. How many more are happening but we don't know enough of the specifics, we don't have a strong enough case to actually make an arrest? So far this year, we are not off to a much better start. We are 69 days into the new school year, and already 82 people have been arrested across America. This isn't some isolated one-time problem. This is a genuine problem we need to do something to solve, so Senator Manchin and I have come together with a bill that addresses this. The whole idea, the whole goal, is very simple: Let's make sure schools are not hiring these predators and we are protecting our kids from them. It does that with two mechanisms, two simple provisions that achieve this. One is it requires background checks that will get the job done and screen out those who have a previous conviction; and it will also make it illegal to have this terrible practice of passing the trash--this terrible practice of recommending a teacher who is a known pedophile. Neither of these mechanisms should be controversial. This is almost identical legislation which passed the House unanimously. The House is not exactly known for not having any partisan divides, and yet it passed unanimously. We have Members of this body who were Members of the House in the last Congress and voted for it then, are now cosponsors of this legislation, and amazingly to me we are having this discussion. I am being blocked from offering this amendment. The language in my amendment is almost identical to the language we had in the child care development block grant, which this body voted for and all but one Member voted in favor of that bill, which would provide exactly this kind of criminal background check on employees for daycare. This body has voted to ensure the protection of really young kids, as it should have. I fully supported that. Why would we block providing comparable protection to kids who are just a little bit older? How can it be that we want to make sure pedophiles don't get into our daycare centers but it is OK for them to be in elementary schools, in middle schools, and in high schools? This makes no sense at all. And it is necessary, because while every State has some kind of background check system, there are huge loopholes, there are huge gaps, there are huge inconsistencies that are allowing people to get through. Our legislation would require background checks on any adult hired by a school who would come in unsupervised contact with kids--teachers, contractors, schoolbus drivers, a sports coach--anybody so that we would be protecting our kids from pedophiles who actively seek the opportunity to prey on these kids. One of the things we do to make sure the background check would be thorough is we require that the school districts would check both the State and Federal databases. Let me give a story about why this is so important. In Alaska, parents got a very rude awakening when they discovered this story. It was on August 29 of last year. Alaska State troopers arrested a middle school teacher in Kiana, AK. The teacher had fled Missouri 4 years earlier to escape an arrest warrant. Multiple witnesses accused the teacher of over a decade of sexual and physical abuse of his own adopted kids. He had raped and starved his own children. These kids literally burrowed a hole through the wall so they could take frozen food out of the freezer. They heated it up on a furnace just to survive. It is just one of those unbelievable horror stories--while this monster was able to obtain a teaching certificate in Alaska and teach there--teaching kids for 4 years. When asked how this could possibly happen, the Alaska Department of Education explained that Alaska's background checks only check the State's criminal registry. Now, had our legislation been in force, they would have been required to check the Federal registry, and they would have learned that he was a fugitive with an arrest warrant and a criminal record in another State. That is the kind of ability we have to have to prevent these people from going across States and committing these kinds of crimes. The other provision that I mentioned earlier is a provision that would preclude--make it illegal--for someone knowingly to recommend a pedophile to be hired at another school. Again, you would like to think that something like that wouldn't even be necessary. But it is, and another story reveals this recently. A Las Vegas, NV, kindergarten teacher was arrested for kidnapping a 16-year-old girl and infecting her with a sexually transmitted disease. That same teacher had molested six children, all fourth and fifth graders, several years before when that teacher was working in the Los Angeles school district. The Los Angeles school district knew all about these allegations. In 2009, in fact, the school district recommended settling a lawsuit they were facing because the teacher had molested the children. The Nevada school district to which the pedophile went had specifically asked if there were any criminal concerns regarding the teacher, and the Los Angeles school district not only hid the truth that they knew about this guy's predations, but they actually provided three references so that he could get hired in Las Vegas. So for people who say the States can solve these problems themselves, I would ask: What was that 16-year-old girl supposed to do? What could Nevada have done about the Los Angeles school district's behavior? So I am not going away on this. This is something that we need to do. I have three young kids. When any one of us parents anywhere in America puts our children on the school bus in the morning, we have every right to expect they are going to a place where they will be safe--as safe as they could possibly be. We know that there is more that we could be doing here to make them safer. It is unconscionable that we don't act on it. So I will be back, because we are going to have a vote on this one way or another, and I am very disappointed we couldn't have it this morning. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on S. 474, the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act. This is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill I introduced with Senator Joe Manchin in the last Congress, and we recently reintroduced this bill. We also intend to offer this bill as an amendment to the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act that the Senator from South Dakota was just discussing. This is a bill which provides some crucial protections to our children, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this underlying bill. I am confident it is going to pass, and I certainly hope it will pass with our amendment. The bipartisan amendment I will be introducing, the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act, amends the underlying bill to protect even more children. That is what it does. It provides specific protections against convicted child molesters infiltrating our schools. I will say up front that I fully recognize that the vast majority of school employees would never consider sexually or violently abusing the children in their care. We all understand that, but we also understand that there are pedophiles in this country and they seek out vulnerable children. That is what they do. They know the kids are concentrated in schools with no parents around, and that is what we have to protect these kids against. I have been fighting for this for over a year now--together with Senator Manchin and others--and I will not stop fighting until we get this done. I have three very personal reasons that this fight is one I have taken on and I will continue with, and the personal reasons are my own kids. They are 14, 13, and almost 5 years old. I need to know, just as every parent needs to know, that when we put our child on a schoolbus that child is going somewhere where they are going to be safe, they are going to be protected, and they are not going to be victims, they are not going to fall prey to some of the very people who are supposed to be looking after them. Unfortunately, for too many kids that is not true today, as is the story of one particular child who inspired this legislation. For a child named Jeremy Bell, the story begins in Delaware County, PA. One of the schoolteachers there molested several boys and raped one. Prosecutors decided they didn't have enough evidence to bring a case against this monster. The school knew what was going on, so they decided to dismiss the teacher for sexually abusing his students, but then, appallingly, the school decided to make sure he went off and became someone else's problem. The Pennsylvania school wrote a letter of recommendation for that teacher, who took that letter of recommendation and brought it to the school he applied to work at in West Virginia. He got hired, and over time he became the principal. Well, these kinds of pedophiles do not change their ways, and he didn't change his ways in West Virginia. He continued to prey on kids. Eventually, he raped and then murdered a 12- year-old boy named Jeremy Bell. Justice eventually caught up with the killer, and he is now serving a life sentence for that murder. But for little Jeremy Bell that justice came too late. And, sadly, Jeremy Bell is not alone. Last year we had 459 school employees across America arrested for sexual misconduct with the very children they are supposed to be protecting and teaching and caring for. That is more than one per day. And those are just the ones where there was enough evidence to actually prosecute, to make an arrest and to pursue charges. How many others were getting away with this? Frankly, 2015 is not off to a much better start. So far we are 69 days into the new year and there have already been 82 school employees arrested across the country for sexual misconduct with the schoolchildren in their care. These are not just statistics. These are not just numbers on a page. These are children's lives, every single one of them; such as the little girl whose sexual abuse began at age 10 and only ended when at age 17 she found herself pregnant with the teacher's child; a teacher's aide who raped a young mentally disabled boy in his care; a kindergarten teacher who kept a child during recess and forced her to perform sexual acts on him. It is hard to even talk about these changes, but they are happening-- one school employee after another caught with child pornography. Sometimes these images are of kids who are just 1 year old. This is unbelievable. It is outrageous. But it is happening. We in Congress have to do what we can to stop this, and we can do something. The Toomey-Manchin protecting students bill takes an important step in the direction of stopping these outrageous acts, and it does so by relying on two mechanisms to accomplish this. The first mechanism is to require schools to do appropriate criminal background checks so we are not knowingly hiring pedophiles in our schools; and the second is to ban this terrible practice by which schools knowingly send a letter of recommendation for one of these creeps to go somewhere else. They are recommending them so they become someone else's problem. Neither of these mechanisms should be controversial. The House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill in the last Congress that has both of these mechanisms. I am proud of the fact we have three former House Members who voted for this bill last year who are now cosponsors of our legislation, including the junior Senator from West Virginia, from Colorado, and from Arkansas. I appreciate their support for this commonsense legislation. Furthermore, a few months ago, every Member of the House and Senate except one voted for even more expansive background checks when we all voted in favor of the Child Care Development Block Grant bill. The combined vote in the House and Senate was 523 to 1. This is not controversial stuff. So what would we actually do? What does the legislation accomplish? No. 1, criminal background checks. Every State has some kind of criminal background check now, that is true, but it is pretty obvious that many of them are not adequate. For instance, too often there are whole categories of school employees who are not covered by the criminal background check, and too often States don't check all of the criminal databases that are available to them, and so these pedophiles are slipping through the cracks. The protecting students act requires a school district that wants to take Federal funds to pay its teachers' salaries to perform background checks on all the workers who have unsupervised contact with the children. That would include new hires and existing hires. Another reality is that many States have only recently adopted these background checks. They have hired employees prior to the legislation requiring the criminal background checks, and some of these employees have this kind of criminal background. Take the case of William Vahey, 64 years old. He taught for decades at some of the world's most elite schools. He started in California and then started working his way across the country. Do you know what he used to do? He used to give his young students Oreo cookies laced with sleeping pills, and when the boys fell asleep he molested them and he photographed it. Scores of children were sexually abused. This teacher had been convicted for sexual abuse of children when he was in his twenties, but these school districts weren't doing a thorough background check so they weren't discovering these things. Well, the protecting students act ensures sex offenders such as William Vahey will not fall through the cracks. They will be discovered by a more thorough and rigorous background check system that our bill requires. I should also point out our bill--the protecting students act-- requires the schools to do the criminal background checks not just for teachers but for contractors as well--some schoolbus drivers, coaches, substitute teachers, anyone who comes in unsupervised contact with the kids. There are currently 12 States that have no such requirement at all. They do not check on the backgrounds of their contractors, despite the fact these folks come in regular contact with kids. Case in point: In Montana, parents got a very rude awakening recently. An audit of Montana's schoolbus drivers found they have 123 drivers with criminal histories, including one driver whose conviction landed him on the Sexual and Violent Offender Registry and one with an outstanding arrest warrant. Running these background checks on school workers is only going to be helpful if it is thorough, if it is adequate. So what the Toomey- Manchin bill does is it requires the background check include all four of the major crime databases that are available. There is the FBI fingerprint database, the National Sex Offender Registry, the State criminal registry in each State, and the State Child Abuse and Neglect Registry. This past August parents in Alaska learned that Alaska has an inadequate background check system, and it resulted in a known child rapist teaching in Alaska schools for 4 years. This is unbelievable, but this is what is happening. On August 29, Alaska State troopers arrested a middle school teacher in Kiana, AK. The teacher had fled Missouri 4 years earlier in order to escape an arrest warrant. Multiple witnesses accused the teacher over a decade of sexual and physical abuse of his own adopted children. He had raped and starved these children--his own children. This is unbelievable. The children literally had to burrow a hole in the wall and steal frozen food and warm it up, heat it on a furnace, just to survive. This monster was able to leave the State and obtain a teaching job in Alaska for 4 years. When asked how in the world this could happen, the Department of Education of Alaska explained: Well, the Alaska background checks looked at the State criminal registry but not the Federal registry. So they had no idea he was a wanton, despicable criminal and had such a record in other States. Had our bill been in force, Alaska would have been required to check the Federal registry. They would have discovered this before ever hiring this monster. This is the first part of our bill--this requirement we have these background checks. And again, there is nothing controversial here. The House of Representatives passed more expansive language unanimously in the last Congress. And a few months ago, as I mentioned, we had a combined House and Senate vote of 523 votes in favor and 1 vote in opposition to the Child Care Development Block Grant Act which imposes appropriate and rigorous background checks on those caring for our kids in daycare. That makes perfect sense. We should be screening out pedophiles from working in our daycares, but we also should be providing the same level of protection to kids who are a little bit older, who are in grade school or middle school or high school. There is a second part to our legislation, and it addresses this outrageous practice of what is known as passing the trash. This is that unbelievable act that resulted in the death of Jeremy Bell, when a letter of recommendation allowed a known pedophile to be employed in West Virginia. Our bill simply says if a State wants to receive Federal taxpayer money, it can't knowingly help a child molester get a job somewhere else. How can this even be controversial? But the fact is this is an all too prevalent practice, and it is long past time we do something about this. Two weeks ago, WUSA News 9 reported some shocking news on the public school system of Montgomery County, MD. Since 2011, 21 Montgomery County public school employees or contract workers have been investigated for child sex abuse or exploitation. The news station learned that the Montgomery County public school system ``keeps a confidential database of personnel who demonstrate inappropriate or suspicious behavior towards children.'' This school system has this watch list of suspected abusers who are working in the area's schools, and WUSA 9 learned the school system had a record, a known record, of passing the trash. For example, elementary school teacher Daniel Picca had been abusing children for 17 years. The school system knew about it. What did they do? The teacher's punishment was to move him from one elementary school to another, again and again and again. There was 17 years of passing a known child molester from 1 school to another. How many kids did he victimize? This has to stop. It is long overdue we do something about this, and there is a way we can. We can make it illegal to knowingly recommend a pedophile for employment somewhere else. That is what our bill does. Another example: Recently, in Las Vegas, NV, a kindergarten teacher was arrested for kidnapping a 16-year-old girl and infecting her with a sexually transmitted disease. This same teacher had molested six children--all fourth and fifth graders--several years before, but he did it in the Los Angeles school district. While the Los Angeles school district knew about the allegations in 2009, the school district recommended settling a lawsuit that alleged the teacher had molested these children. The Nevada school district specifically asked: Have there been any criminal concerns regarding this teacher? The Los Angeles school district didn't only hide the truth, they provided three letters of recommendation--three references--for this teacher. Now for those people who say: Well, the States can fix this problem all on their own, I ask you: What could Nevada do to protect itself from what teachers or school districts are doing in Los Angeles? What could West Virginia have done about a Pennsylvania school district that sent a teacher across the State line with a letter of recommendation? There is nothing one State can do to bind another State. This requires a Federal solution. Let me sum this up. The Toomey-Manchin bill offers a very simple proposition. If a school district wants to use Federal tax dollars to hire school employees, it has to make sure they are not hiring pedophiles in the process. I think that is pretty reasonable. Specifically, they need to perform background checks on any worker who comes in unsupervised contact with children, and they need to stop passing the trash. I can't believe this is even controversial. There is nobody who can stand here and say protections against child sex predators are not urgently needed, not in light of the daily revelations we are discovering. Again, this legislation has overwhelming bipartisan support. It passed the House unanimously. How many bills pass the House unanimously these days? This did. And every Member of the House and Senate except one voted for even more extensive background checks to protect our youngest kids in childcare. Can't we provide the same protection to slightly older kids? The legislation has been endorsed by innumerable child advocate and law enforcement groups, including the National Children's Alliance, which accredits and represents the Nation's 777 child advocacy centers. Yet I am afraid we are probably going to have some opposition voiced about this legislation when we offer the amendment. Let me be clear. First, we are not opposing a mandate on the States. We don't have the legal authority to do that. What we are simply saying is if States want to take Federal funds, they need to protect children from violent and sexual predators. If States don't want to take those measures, then they can choose not to take Federal funds. If a State has no interest in having a rigorous system for protecting kids, well, that is their decision, but we don't have to send Federal tax dollars to pay the salaries of pedophiles. Let me conclude. This is a commonsense bill. It is long overdue. It has very broad bipartisan support. It passed the House unanimously. As I said, in this body, all but one Member voted for an even more expansive background check. Several Senators have voiced some specific concerns, and I am working with several of them. I am willing to work with Senators who want to find ways to constructively improve this bill, but I am not going to support a bill that waters down our ability to protect our kids from pedophiles in school. I hope this body will overwhelmingly adopt the legislation that passed the House unanimously, and we can begin to have a more thorough and effective process of protecting our kids. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Today I wish to honor Delaware County's Janet Murnaghan, who will be receiving the Women of Achievement Award from the Delaware County Women's Commission on March 11. Mrs. Murnaghan was chosen as an awardee for representing women of Delaware County in an extraordinary way, specifically by displaying incredible thoughtfulness, persistence and passion in caring for her daughter, Sarah. It was my privilege to nominate Janet for this accolade in celebration of Women's History Month. Janet, her husband, Fran, and I first met 2 years ago at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Their daughter was battling cystic fibrosis and was in dire need of new lungs to save her young life. Though their daughter, Sarah, would have likely ranked near the top of the donor list for a new lung because of her medical need, a Federal policy prevented children under the age of 12 from being considered for mature lungs until all adult candidates in the region were ruled out. Sarah faced long odds at receiving a lifesaving transplant due to the short supply of pediatric donors. This obstacle would not stop Janet and the Murnaghan family. Sarah's mother took the fight to social media, to national TV and eventually directly to then Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Janet argued that children under age 12 should be considered for adult lung transplants using the same criteria as adults as long as doctors demonstrated the operation's viability. The Murnaghan family was eventually forced to pursue legal action to prevent Secretary Sebelius from enforcing the under-12 rule. Even in the most difficult moments, Mrs. Murnaghan remained levelheaded and resilient. Her determination was rewarded as a Federal judge issued a temporary restraining order, allowing young Sarah to receive the lifesaving transplant. While the first set of lungs failed due to their poor quality, the second set was perfect. Sarah is now breathing on her own, bike riding with her siblings, and has already returned to school. Janet and Sarah could not declare victory just yet. Though there was success in Sarah's specific case, the rule preventing children from receiving adult lungs was still in place. Last summer, thanks to Janet Murnaghan and other advocates, the transplant network permanently revised the under-12 policy. Without Janet taking a leadership role on behalf of her daughter and children across the Nation, this policy might not have been changed. She has certainly set herself apart as a woman of achievement. On behalf of the Senate, I wish to extend my compliments to my friend, Janet Murnaghan, as she receives this much-deserved, prestigious award.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I am very pleased to see the Senate will pass the bipartisan Justice for Amy and Vicky Act. As an original co-sponsor of this bill, it's great to see that the Senate is helping ensure that victims of child pornography are able to receive full restitution for the terrible harms that they have suffered. Last year, the Supreme Court issued a decision that sharply limited the remedies available to victims of child pornography. The case involved Pennsylvania resident ``Amy.'' ``Amy'' was just eight and nine years old when her uncle raped her. Amy received help from a therapist and her family, and began to heal. Then, at age 17, Amy learned that her uncle recorded the events and traded them over the Internet. Amy is believed to be the most widely traded image of child pornography: Her attorney estimates that over 70,000 people have viewed these images. I cannot begin to imagine the devastation Amy feels, so I turn to her own words. Amy writes: Every day of my life I live in constant fear that someone will see my pictures and recognize me and that I will be humiliated all over again. It hurts me to know someone is looking at them--at me--when I was just a little girl being abused for the camera. I did not choose to be there, but now I am there forever in pictures that people are using to do sick things. I want it all erased. I want it all stopped. But I am powerless to stop it just like I was powerless to stop my uncle. . . . My life and my feelings are worse now because the crime has never really stopped and will never really stop. . . . It's like I am being abused over and over and over again. Amy has struggled to hold down a steady job, facing repeated breakdowns. Amy estimates she has suffered $3.4 M in lost income and counseling costs over the years. Amy sought restitution from those who viewed and traded her image. The Federal restitution statute allows a victim of child pornography to collect restitution from those convicted of producing, trafficking, or viewing images of the victim's abuse. But Amy faced a problem common in child pornography cases: Tens of thousands of people have trafficked in her image. When she attempted to collect restitution, could she collect the full amount from any one person? Or would she have to wait for tens of thousands of people to be criminally convicted, collecting a small amount from each person, in order to be made whole? Last April, in the case of Paroline v. United States, the Supreme Court decided that Federal statute required the latter. The Supreme Court recognized that this was unworkable, and it called on Congress to provide a legislative remedy. Last year, I responded to the Supreme Court's call by introducing the Justice for Amy Act, which would ensure that victims of child pornography are able to receive full restitution, without having to appear in thousands of court cases. It sought to amend the Federal restitution statute to provide that all defendants who produce, traffic, or possess child pornography of a victim are jointly and severally liable for all of that victim's damages, and may sue one another for contribution. This goal is to take the burden off of the child victim, and places it on the child pornographers. Once one defendant is found guilty, he is held liable for the full damages and the burden is on him to sue all other wrongdoers to help pay the restitution award. I am pleased to see that this commonsense approach has been adopted by and incorporated into the Justice for Amy and Vicky Act. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this important legislation that the Senate will pass today. This bill provides one important first step in ensuring that victims of child sexual abuse receive the help they need. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to provide additional protections for America's children.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the Penn State University Nittany Lions Women's Volleyball program for winning the 2014 National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA Championship. Led by four returning starters and legendary coach Russ Rose, the Penn State University Nittany Lions concluded the 2014 season by defeating the Brigham Young University Cougars in straight sets to win the NCAA Championship. The Nittany Lions finished with a record of 36 wins and only 3 losses. With the 2014 championship, the Nittany Lions have claimed six of the last eight NCAA Championships and seven overall in women's volleyball, setting the record for the most women's volleyball championships by a single program in history. The 2014 Nittany Lions Women's Volleyball team brought together a group of student-athletes who excelled both on the court and in the classroom. For their efforts on the court, four Nittany Lions were selected to the AVCA Division I All-America team, with Senior Micha Hancock earning both First-Team All-American honors and becoming the fourth Nittany Lion in program history to earn AVCA DI National Player of the Year honors. Special congratulations go to Junior Megan Courtney who was selected as the 2014 NCAA Tournament Most Outstanding Player and to Freshman Ali Frantti, who earned AVCA DI National Freshman of the Year honors. Not to be outdone in the classroom, six Nittany Lions earned spots on the Fall Academic All-Big Ten list for their academic performances this season. Today I want to recognize the significant contributions that the Penn State University Women's Volleyball team has made to collegiate athletics and to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with Coach Russ Rose at the helm. I wish them all the best as they continue to lead by example for student-athletes everywhere and set the stage for the program's continued success into the future.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I want to thank Senators Casey and Hatch for joining me in this amendment. For almost 200 years, we have been mining coal in Pennsylvania. Some of it came out of the ground, and it turns out it was not suitable for the steel industry for which it was intended. The unsuitable coal has been piled up for decades. It forms mountains. Pennsylvania alone has 2 billion tons and 180,000 acres of contaminated land. These mountains of coal poison our water. They poison our air when they spontaneously combust and burn--sometimes for over a year--releasing pollutants with no controls whatsoever. So we have an industry that is solving this problem, systematically turning this coal into electric power. Senators Casey, Hatch, and I have an amendment that will simply allow this cleanup to continue, to exempt these 19 powerplants from the particularly onerous regulations in utility MACT and from the cross-air pollution regulations. A vote in favor of this amendment is a vote to continue to clean up this environmental disaster that we have on our hands. I would be very grateful for Member support.

Mr. TOOMEY

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

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the law enforcement in Pennsylvania and throughout the country. We just finished the holiday season, and in my family--as with many of us, I am sure--we had a wonderful Christmas in our homes, had a wonderful meal, and got to watch the kids open their presents. There are a lot of Pennsylvanians and Americans who didn't have the chance to do what we got to enjoy, and they were the law enforcement men and women who were out on the streets, in the cold, protecting us as they do day in and day out because their work goes on 24/7, 365 days a year. Just this past Saturday a number of us gathered on Independence Mall in Philadelphia. Several hundred people braved a very cold and windy day to let the law enforcement officials of Pennsylvania and beyond know just how much we appreciate the sacrifice they make for us day in and day out. We had a terrific turnout. It was a very enthusiastic crowd who rallied in support of our police officers. But being a police officer is not just often inconvenient; sometimes it is very dangerous. Last year 115 police officers died in the line of duty. So far we are 13 days into a new year and 10 officers have already been shot and wounded. Often these police officers have been targeted and shot just because of the uniform they wear. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania is not immune to this problem. Last year on September 12, late at night, two Pennsylvania State troopers were coming in for their shift at work, and Eric Frein was lying in wait, hiding in the woods, with a high-powered rifle. He shot and killed Corporal Bryon Dickson, and he shot Trooper Alex Douglass, who was grievously wounded. The killer, Eric Frein, didn't know either Corporal Dickson or Trooper Douglass; he shot the two police officers simply because they were police officers. He thought that somehow by killing a cop he would help spark a revolution. Such is the madness police officers have to face on a regular basis. On any given day they don't know that they won't run into that kind of insanity. It is important for us to remember that these victims--in this case, Corporal Dickson--aren't just numbers and badges. Corporal Dickson was a dad, the father of two young boys. He used to enjoy making toys for his sons. He was a devoted husband who had recently celebrated his 10th wedding anniversary. He was a proud Marine Corps veteran. I am proud, as Pennsylvanians generally are, of the response of law enforcement to the savage and despicable shooting of these two State troopers. Officers from all across Pennsylvania and surrounding States and even around the country joined in a very intensive, tireless, 7- week-long manhunt. In the end they found Eric Frein, and they brought him into custody wearing the handcuffs of Corporal Dickson. He will meet justice. But, of course, the story doesn't end there. There was another terrible tragedy just last month in Brooklyn. Just 5 days before Christmas, Officer Rafael Ramos and Officer Wenjian Liu were both murdered in the line of duty. In the middle of the afternoon, in broad daylight, a gunman approached their marked police vehicle while they sat in the vehicle and shot each police officer point-blank range in the head, killing them both instantly. The motivation of the gunman was very clear: He just wanted to kill any police officer he could. That day, the gunman posted messages such as ``They Take 1 of Ours . . . Let's Take 2 of Theirs.'' Another message he posted used the hashtag advocating ``Shoot the Police.'' Officers Ramos and Liu were not just nameless people in uniforms either. Officer Ramos was described by his family and friends ``as a Puerto Rican kid who grew up on these streets'' in Queens and never stopped trying to help the people in his community. Officer Ramos had spent the last 10 years of his life studying to become a chaplain. He was murdered just an hour before his graduation ceremony. Office Ramos joined the police force at the age of 37. He explained that he saw the streets as his ministry and that by protecting and serving his community, he was serving God as well. Office Ramos left behind his wife and two sons, 19-year-old Jaden and 13-year-old Justin. Officer Liu was the other victim that day. In many ways, Officer Liu was the epitome of the American dream. He was a young boy who at age 12 came from China to America with his family. He was a teenage boy who left playground basketball games occasionally so he could do the shopping for his family's groceries. He was a young man who was so inspired by the heroism he saw on September 11 that he decided he would become a police officer. He was the police officer who called home every night to let his dad know he had finished a day of work safely-- every night, that is, except December 20, when the phone call never came. Officer Liu is survived by his wife, whom he married just 3 months before. The response of law enforcement to the savage murders of Officer Ramos and Officer Liu should make every American proud. Over 25,000 police officers traveled from across America and from parts of Canada to attend the funeral services last month. We can never really fully repay the debt of the men and women who sacrifice their very lives protecting us, but there are small things we can do to help the families they leave behind. I want to call on Congress to take one small step toward that goal. We should pass the Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship Act, and we should do so soon. The Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship Act simply provides that any child whose parent dies in the line of duty as a member of the armed services or as a public safety officer would be entitled to the maximum permissible scholarship under the Pell Grant Program for their attendance in college. Five years ago the House of Representatives unanimously passed this legislation. My fellow Pennsylvanian Senator Bob Casey plans to reintroduce this legislation. I would be cosponsoring this legislation, and I call on Congress to pick up where it left off back in 2010 and enact the Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship Act. I also want to take a moment to address the recent spate of protests we have seen. People have gone out on to the streets and across the country, often harshly criticizing the officers. I want to be clear, if people want to protest, they have the right to protest; and I would never challenge their right to say what is on their minds or to convey whatever message they would like to convey. But I would hope they would keep a few basic facts in mind as they consider, or in fact carry out, the protests. No. 1, any human institution is going to be imperfect. That is the nature of humanity. It consists of human beings. So it therefore will be imperfect. But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of police officers are honest, hard working, decent Americans, and they are motivated by the desire to serve and protect the community in which they live, and they don't have a racist bone in their bodies. So my message to law enforcement is I understand how demoralizing it must have been recently to see some of these protests, to hear some of the outrageous and slanderous statements that have been made. But these protestors don't speak for most Americans. The fact is, a big majority of Pennsylvanians and, I suspect, a big majority of Americans know that every day 780,000 men and women across America who put on their blue uniforms and put on their badges are answering to the call of the people in need when they need them the most, and they put themselves in great danger to serve all of us. When other people choose to run away from danger, they are the ones who have to run toward it. So just as the law enforcement community has stood by the families of all the victims, and that of Officer Dickson, Officer Ramos, and Officer Liu, I want you to know that America stands with you. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Thank you, Mr. President. A couple of things about the Keystone Pipeline, and then I wish to talk about an amendment I am going to be offering. First, I think one of the encouraging things about approving this pipeline is the benefits for the environment. The fact is we will be moving oil on a pipeline which is a cleaner, safer way to do it than any available alternative. That is good news. It is good news that it is going to create jobs across our country. The State Department has estimated 42,000 jobs in the development of this pipeline. That is terrific news for everyone who is going to get a chance to benefit from that work. Clearly it is going to reduce our dependence on non-North American oil, which can only be good from a geopolitical point of view as well as an economic point of view. Of course, the fact is this legislation has bipartisan support and has for a long time. It received 31 Democratic votes in the House, 14 Democratic votes in the Senate, as well as every Republican Senator the last time it was brought up. It is strongly supported by the labor community because they recognize the benefits of the jobs it will create, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I also would like to take a moment to thank Leader McConnell for doing exactly what he said he would do and what many of us said we needed to do in this Chamber, which is to reopen this body--reopen it and have debate and put legislation on the floor and open it for amendment. Let's have a discussion. Let's change policy in this country in ways that will be constructive. We are beginning this process now as we said we would, and I think that is terrific and I intend to take advantage of the opportunity. I have several amendments I am going to file and I intend to bring up with respect to this legislation. One is going to be an amendment that will encourage a transition of our Federal Government's vehicle fleet from the current practice of burning gasoline mostly, and I encourage the adoption of natural gas as an alternative fuel because natural gas is cleaner, it is domestic, it is actually cheaper. Without any government subsidy or taxpayer help, natural gas is a cheaper source of fuel. We have a staggering quantity. The United States is the world's No. 1 producer of natural gas. We have 2.2 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is too big a number for me to wrap my brain around, but let's put it this way: That is the gas we know of, and it is enough to last the next 85 years, based on any plausible projection of our use. It is a staggering amount. I have another amendment that also has bipartisan support. I thank Senator Feinstein, Senators Flake and Manchin for supporting the effort to repeal the corn ethanol mandate in our fuel. This is a very bad policy that we have had for far too long. It is time to end this mandate that we grow corn and use it to burn in our gas tanks. It is a practice that is bad for the environment. It raises the cost of filling our tanks. It raises the cost of food because so much of our corn production goes into this, and it is not good for our engines. There is no good reason to continue this, and I look forward to having the debate that will enable us to repeal the corn ethanol mandate. But the amendment I wish to talk about is another bipartisan amendment. I thank Senator Casey for being the Democratic cosponsor for this amendment, and I thank Senator Hatch for joining me. This is an amendment that will preserve an important, environmentally beneficial source of alternative energy that we have especially in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and it is under threat by two new rules that have been proposed by the EPA. Let me give a little bit of background as to why we have gotten to this place. In Pennsylvania and West Virginia we have been mining coal for well over a century, and for many of the decades, especially in the early years of our coal development, we took the high-energy density coal and our coal miners sold it to the steel industry where it was used in the manufacturing process of making steel, and the low-energy coal was left in piles--huge piles--actually mountains. It is often referred to as waste coal. The first photograph illustrates one of these waste coal piles. It is in Nanty Glo in Cambria County, PA. It is one of many piles or, as I say, mountains throughout Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection estimates that there are 2 billion tons of waste coal such as this covering 180,000 acres in Pennsylvania alone. Think about that. It is a massive scale because of over a century of legacy of coal mining. Some of these piles are literally in people's backyards. Here we can see the people who live literally within a stone's throw--if you have a reasonably good arm--within a stone's throw you can reach this pile. That is also Nanty Glo in Cambria County. There are people who live within a couple of hundred feet. What is the problem with these mountains? The problem with these mountains of coal is it rains on them, and when it rains the runoff is horrendous. It looks like this. It looks like this in every one of these mountains of waste coal everywhere that one exists, every time it rains. In 2003 in an op-ed entitled ``The Benefits of Waste Coal,'' former Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell's Department of Environmental Protection secretary, whose name is Kathleen McGinty, wrote: ``For years these piles sat abandoned, generating iron, manganese and aluminum pollution that discharged as runoff into Pennsylvania's waterways.'' That is exactly what happens when these piles just sit here. In 2011 the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection report states: Coal refuse piles that are not removed (i.e. burned for fuel) generally create severe acid mine drainage, with pH in the 2.5 range . . . A pH that high, by the way, is somewhere between the intensity of stomach acid and hydrochloric acid. That kind of acidic chemical running into our waters is enormously damaging. Slide No. 4 is another depiction of exactly what happens when rainwater runs through these piles and finds its way into the streams, rivers, ponds, and lakes of Pennsylvania. It pollutes hundreds of miles of rivers and streams. In 2007 former Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell said: These piles are domestic energy sources that have significant value when put into production in CFB cogeneration plants. When left on the ground, waste coal presents a grave environmental threat. Runoff from these piles contributes to the ``abandoned mine drainage'' that is the second leading water pollution problem in the Commonwealth, literally killing all life in some 2,000 stream miles in Pennsylvania. But that is not all. Photo No. 5 shows something else that happens with these piles. They catch fire. They spontaneously combust. It could be from lightning, carelessness, and sometimes it is unknown, but they catch fire. This particular photo is from Fell Township in Lackawanna County, PA. The pile caught fire in December of 2013. It burned for over a year. It is very hard to put these fires out. It burned out of control with, obviously, no ability to do anything about the pollutants that are being released by the combustion because it is completely uncontrolled. We think the fire went out in January, but authorities are still not certain that it may not be smoldering somewhere below the surface. By the way, this mountain is 600 feet from residential housing. What is the effect of this kind of combustion on the residents in that area? How much of this will burn? Maybe some people think this is just a freak incident. Not really, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection estimates that 6.6 million tons of waste coal burns each year--unintended, uncontrolled, but it is burning--and in the process it emits 9 million tons of carbon dioxide and many tons of other uncontrolled air pollution. What about cleaning all of this up? The costs would be absolutely staggering. Again, former Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Secretary McGinty estimated that it costs between $20,000 and $40,000 to reclaim just one acre of waste coal. We have hundreds of thousands of acres of waste coal. The Pennsylvania General Assembly has estimated it would cost approximately $15 billion to remediate Pennsylvania's abandoned mine set. That is the bad news. The good news is the market has figured out a solution to address this matter. The free market has developed a way to systematically eliminate these mountains of waste coal, and for decades we have had powerplants designed specifically for the purpose of burning this coal and doing so in a controlled and regulated fashion. They have removed 210 million tons of waste coal and used it to produce electricity. They have remediated over 8,000 acres. They have generated 1.769 gigawatts of electricity, which is enough to power 1.3 million homes, and in the process the generation of electricity from this waste coal has directly resulted in creating 1,200 jobs. In the past, the EPA has always acknowledged the benefits of systematically eliminating these mountains of waste coal and doing so by generating electricity. In fact, I will quote a report from the EPA in 2011 that says this: ``Because of the unique environmental benefits that coal refuse-fired EGUs provide, these units warrant special consideration.'' The problem I am here to address is that there are two new rules passed by the EPA that would bring an end to the systemic elimination of these mountains because these rules are prohibitive. It is not possible for the waste coal powerplants to comply with these rules, so they would all be shut down and we would be left with these piles indefinitely, which would mar our landscape and pollute our water and air. The two specific rules that would do this--the cross-State air pollution rule is very likely to have the effect of imposing absolutely unattainable goals on waste coal powerplants, and the utility MACT rule establishes new and very stringent emission controls and a whole new generation of very stringent regulations that this industry cannot meet. If these rules go into effect--and they are scheduled to go into effect later this year--then waste coal and electric generation ends, and these plants close. As a result, we lose the electric power they have been generating, the 1,200 jobs they sustain, and the low-cost energy that is reliable and domestic. We will end up with a more serious air pollution problem when the spontaneous combustion continues, and we will have an ongoing problem with water and air pollution as the nearby streams and water table will be polluted. That is why Senator Casey, Senator Hatch, and I have joined together to offer an amendment to this legislation that will exempt the waste coal powerplants from the most onerous and prohibitive aspects of these new rules. With respect to utility MACT, we would retain all of the regulatory limits on mercury, chromium, nickel, and other heavy metals, but it would exempt the waste coal plants from the cross-State air pollution rules, and it would allow these plants to continue remediating these waste coal sites. I wish to stress that it is important to point out that all of the existing regulations that have long been in effect will remain in effect. What we are talking about are the two new rules that would be guaranteed to shut down the industry. Those two rules would not go into effect with respect to the waste coal electric generation. The fact is if our amendment is adopted and becomes law, we will be helping our environment by continuing to systematically eliminate these blights. I want more success stories like the one in this photograph. This photo was taken in Nesquehoning in Carbon County, PA. The first photo shows what the ground looked like when the waste coal was piled up. The second photo shows what happens after it has been consumed and the land has been restored. This happened precisely because there is a nearby waste coal powerplant that was able to take this coal, generate electricity for us to use, and restore the land to a much safer, much more environmentally friendly, and much more attractive environment. We need to keep these plants operating. It is about improving our environment, it is about keeping people working, it is about the low- cost, reliable electricity that we have from it, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, first, I congratulate my colleagues Senator Hoeven and Senator Manchin, the cosponsors of this legislation. I also commend the energy committee chair, Senator Murkowski. This is important legislation. It is long overdue that we take this up, but it is encouraging that we finally are doing that. So I commend them for that. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Mr. TOOMEY

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

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

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, today, I honor fallen Philadelphia firefighter, Joyce Craig Lewis. Ms. Craig Lewis tragically perished on Tuesday, December 9, 2014, while courageously battling a house fire in the West Oak Lane section of Philadelphia. Ms. Craig Lewis was a proud 11-year veteran of the Philadelphia Fire Department and a certified EMT. A native of Philadelphia, Ms. Craig Lewis was one of 58 women among the nearly 1,800 firefighters in the city. Joyce served in several of the most active firehouses in Philadelphia. Philadelphia Fire Commissioner Derrick Sawyer praised Ms. Craig Lewis for having a strong work ethic as evidenced by her desire to be stationed in challenging environments. Mayor Michael Nutter aptly stated that her passing is a tremendous loss for Philadelphians. Joyce Craig Lewis is the first female firefighter in Philadelphia to die in the line of duty. She is survived by her 16-year-old son and 16- month-old daughter. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, I wish to express my condolences to her family, friends, brothers and sisters in fire departments across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. May she rest in peace.

Mr. TOOMEY

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

Mr. TOOMEY

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