Pat Toomey

Mr. TOOMEY

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

Mr. TOOMEY

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

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to offer my support for a gentleman for whom cloture was just invoked. We are going to have the confirmation vote this afternoon. I am talking about Mr. Joseph Leeson from Pennsylvania. He has been nominated to serve as a U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I wish to start by thanking Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley for facilitating and moving his candidacy through the process, through the committee, and Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, our respective leaders, for bringing the nomination to the Senate floor. I appreciate that cooperation. I should also point out that I am very grateful for the cooperation of my colleague Senator Casey. Senator Casey and I have spent a lot of time and energy making sure we fill the vacancies that occur on the Federal bench in Pennsylvania with absolutely the most qualified, terrific Pennsylvanians, and we have been blessed that so many wonderful Pennsylvanians have offered to serve in this role, to make this sacrifice for public service. In the 4 years I have been in the Senate, Senator Casey and I have confirmed 13 district judges. We placed a judge in the Reading courthouse in Berks County, which had been vacant for 3 years; placed a judge in the Easton courthouse, which had been vacant for 10 years; and when Mr. Leeson is hopefully confirmed this afternoon, that will bring our total to 14. I look forward to Joseph Leeson's speedy confirmation, and here is why. He is going to be a great Federal judge. Joe Leeson is a graduate from Catholic University, where he got his law degree. I have known Joseph Leeson certainly by his reputation for a very long time. He is a very well-respected attorney in Allentown, PA, and my family and I live just outside Allentown and have for a long time. Joe Leeson is a partner in Leeson & Leeson. He has very extensive trial experience. He has counseled people in accidents and injury cases. He has represented legislators and mayors. His practice includes litigation, municipal law, nonprofit, and religious law. Across the board he has a very diverse portfolio. He has also had a long and distinguished commitment to public service. Joe Leeson has served as the Bethlehem city solicitor, as a member of the Bethlehem city council, and on the administrative board of the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference. If confirmed, he will sit in the Allentown courthouse, and we need a Federal judge in the Allentown courthouse. We have an outstanding judge there now, but we need another because the size of the Lehigh Valley region requires that. It will be terrific to have a second Federal judge in the Allentown courthouse for what I think will be the first time. Mr. President, I will conclude by saying there is no question in my mind that Mr. Leeson has the experience, the acumen, the temperament, and the integrity to be an outstanding Federal judge. He will be a great addition to the bench, and I urge all my colleagues to support his confirmation. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to offer my support as well to the two nominees to serve as judges for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Jerry Pappert and Mark Kearney, whom we are scheduled to confirm in a short time. Let me start by thanking Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley for facilitating this process and handling this at the committee level, and I want to thank Leader Reid and Leader McConnell for bringing these nominees to the Senate floor. I also want to take a moment to thank my colleague from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, for all the work he and I have been able to do together. The collaboration we have had has been very constructive and it has been a pleasure to work with Senator Casey. In the 4 years I have been in the Senate, we have confirmed 11 district court judges. We have been able to place a judge in the Reading courthouse in Berks County which had been vacant for 3 years. We were able to place a judge in Easton courthouse in Northampton County which had been vacant for 10 years. With the confirmations that I am certainly hopeful about tonight, Mr. Pappert and Mr. Kearney, that number will rise to 13 members of the Federal bench from Pennsylvania in just the past 4 years. We have one additional district court nominee, Joseph Leeson, awaiting a vote from the full Senate, and I am looking at a speedy confirmation of his candidacy as well. Before I speak on the two nominees before us this evening, I want to briefly note how pleased I was that on November 20 the Senate confirmed Wendy Beetlestone to serve on the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. She was confirmed unanimously by voice vote and I think that was a testament to her strong qualifications. I am delighted that Senator Casey and I were able to see that to completion. Let me say a couple of words about Jerry Pappert. Senator Casey spoke about Mr. Pappert. Jerry Pappert is eminently qualified for this post. He is a graduate of Notre Dame Law School and has an extensive and diverse legal background. He is currently a partner at Cozen O'Connor, which is a practice that has an emphasis on commercial litigation. Prior to that he was the general counsel at Cephalon, where he oversaw all of the company's litigation, financial transactions, and intellectual property issues. Not only has he handled a very wide range of issues in the private sector, but Mr. Pappert has also demonstrated his dedication to public service. As Senator Casey pointed out, he was a very successful attorney general for Pennsylvania for 6 years. He has successfully argued cases before the U.S. and Pennsylvania Supreme Courts. He won a landmark case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Booth v. Churner, which set forth the administrative exhaustion requirement for a prisoner seeking to sue in Federal court. Mr. Pappert has also enjoyed bipartisan support in the Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee successfully voted him out of committee on a voice vote back in September. Mark Kearney is the other gentleman we will be voting on in a short time. He is a graduate of Villanova University School of Law and a very successful attorney. As Senator Casey pointed out, he is a managing shareholder at Elliott Greenleaf & Siedzikowski, where he has been for 24 years and practices commercial litigation. Mr. Kearney is highly respected by his colleagues. He received the AV peer review rating in the Martindale-Hubbell system--the highest rating. He has also taken time to give back to his community. He put a lot of time and energy into an issue that is very important to me; that is, protecting children from dangerous predators. Mr. Kearney has worked with the Montgomery County Child Advocacy Project, representing abused children, and I commend him for that service. Mr. Kearney has also enjoyed bipartisan support in the Senate. He was voice voted out by the Senate Judiciary Committee, reflecting unanimous support for his candidacy. It is clear, and I believe strongly, that both Mr. Pappert and Mr. Kearney have the experience, acumen, and commitment to public service that will make them excellent additions to the Federal bench. I am pleased to speak on their behalf, and I am grateful to Senator Casey for the cooperative effort that has gotten us to this point. I urge my colleagues to support the confirmation of these two outstanding individuals. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I wish to say briefly that I thank Senator Casey for the terrific cooperative working relationship he and I have. When Wendy Beetlestone is confirmed, that will make the 11th Federal judge who has been confirmed as a result of the work we have done together. Wendy is an outstanding candidate, and I think she will make a great Federal judge. I urge my colleagues to support her nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I wish to recognize former Penn State linebacker Shane Conlan for being named to the College Football Hall of Fame Class of 2014. On the night of January 2, 1987, more than 52 million Americans were introduced to Shane Patrick Conlan, then the 22-year-old cocaptain of the Pennsylvania State University Nittany Lions. This was the brightest of spotlights--the bowl game between No. 2 Penn State and No. 1 Miami still remains the most viewed college football game of all time and Conlan's performance was worthy of the stage. Despite an injured knee and a twisted ankle, Conlan intercepted his Heisman Trophy-winning opponent two times, returning one for 40 yards to set up Penn State's game-winning touchdown. This National Championship victory against a highly favored opponent and the accompanying defensive most valuable player award would be crowning achievements in a storied college career. Mr. Conlan's origins are much more modest than that memorable night in the desert of Arizona. This son of a State policeman and a grocery store clerk grew up in a western New York town that was too small for even a stoplight. The relative obscurity of Frewsburg almost hid the young Conlan's athletic prowess. Even though he was named Western New York Player of the Year in 1981, Mr. Conlan only had one scholarship offer waiting for him when he graduated high school: Penn State. In State College Mr. Conlan would evolve from a 6'3", 185 pound, mild-mannered freshman to become one of the most significant contributors to Penn State's cherished legacy as ``Linebacker U.'' A 4- year letterman, 3-year starter, and first-team All-American, Mr. Conlan helped lead a football team that would go 23-to-1 over his final 2 years. In a lasting display of the reverence for Mr. Conlan in Happy Valley, several star linebackers at his alma mater have since donned his No. 31 as a tribute to his success and leadership, while he wore the blue and white. This October 25 his university and fans honored Mr. Conlan once again with a mid game salute by a sold-out crowd of 107,895 at Beaver Stadium. After graduation from Penn State with a degree in administration of justice, success would follow Mr. Conlan to the National Football League. There he would be named Defensive Rookie of the Year and earn three trips to the Pro Bowl during a 9-year career. Today, Mr. Conlan resides in the Pittsburgh area with his wife Caroline and their four children: Patrick, Christopher, Mary Katherine, and Daniel. I am privileged to have the opportunity and the venue to offer congratulations to this adopted son of my State and thank him for his significant contributions to college football, the Penn State University community, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I wish him all the best as he is inducted as a member of the College Football Hall of Fame this December. Thank you.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, today I wish to honor a naval vessel and crew that served with distinction during an important chapter of U.S. military history. The Navy's modernization program of the 1950s included construction of a new class of fleet tankers that combined speed and an enlarged capacity to deliver fuel to the fleet. One of the vessels ordered in this modernization effort was named the USS Ponchatoula, AO-148. The vessel was laid down in Camden, NJ on March 1, 1954. The new fleet tanker displaced 38,000 tons when fully loaded greatly exceeding the capacity of tankers used during World War II. The ship had a complement of 324 officers and men. Although the USS Ponchatoula was a support vessel rather than a combat warship, she was armed with two 5-inch guns and twelve 3-inch antiaircraft guns. The launching of the USS Ponchatoula into the waters of the Delaware River took place on July 9, 1954, at Camden, and she subsequently sailed across the river to Philadelphia, where the vessel was commissioned on January 12, 1956. Assigned to the Pacific Fleet, USS Ponchatoula made the long voyage to the west coast. Following her arrival at Long Beach, CA, on March 10, 1956, the oiler conducted her shakedown cruise off the California coast. In the fall of 1956, USS Ponchatoula was ordered to the western Pacific, her home waters for most of her active career. While en-route to Sasebo, Japan, to join Seventh Fleet as a unit of Service Squadron Three, she assisted a disabled Panamanian merchant ship that had been battered by two typhoons. USS Ponchatoula accompanied the Seventh Fleet in early 1958 as the Navy sailed into harm's way in the Formosa Strait off the coast of the People's Republic of China, PRC. PRC forces were threatening to occupy several small islands off the coast of China, notably Quemoy and Matsu. President Eisenhower ordered the Navy to the area to symbolize American determination and support Taiwanese forces holding those small islands. President Eisenhower's tough stand and the presence of the Seventh Fleet off shore forced the PRC to back down. In late April and early May of 1962, USS Ponchatoula replenished ships in the task force that participated in the atmospheric nuclear test Operation Dominic near Christmas Island. In September 1962, the oiler sailed to Midway Island to supply ships involved in the recovery of CDR Wally Schirra's Project Mercury Space Capsule Sigma 8 and in May 1963 supported the recovery of the then- Major Gordon Cooper's Mercury Space Capsule Faith 7. USS Ponchatoula also supported recovery operations for Gemini 4, 6, and 7 in 1965 and Apollo 7 in 1968. When hostilities began to escalate in Vietnam during the summer and fall of 1964, USS Ponchatoula was deployed to the South China Sea to support fleet operations off the coast of Vietnam. She refueled numerous warships in those waters during the 1964 and 1965 bombing campaign against targets in North Vietnam. In the summer of 1969 and into 1970 the USS Ponchatoula returned to Pearl Harbor and served the fleet in Hawaiian waters. During the 1970s USS Ponchatoula's area of operations expanded into the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf, reflecting growing U.S. Navy activity in that part of the globe. In September 1980 the ship was transferred to the Military Sealift Command, becoming USNS Ponchatoula, T-AO-148 and beginning operation with a mainly civilian crew. Based at Subic Bay for most of the next decade, she continued her underway replenishment work, helping maintain the Navy's mobility and striking power in an often troubled region. USNS Ponchatoula was inactivated in February 1992 and laid up at Suisun Bay, CA. Though stricken from the Naval Vessel Register at the end of August 1992, she remained in Navy custody until transferred to the Maritime Administration for disposal in May 1999. During the 43 years between her commissioning in 1956 and her transfer to the reserve fleet in 1999, the USS Ponchatoula rendered meritorious service to her country, helping to stop aggression in the Taiwan Strait, assisting the space program and supporting U.S. forces in Vietnam. She and the thousands of Navy sailors who served aboard her over the decades deserve the accolades of a grateful nation.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I find myself in the unusual position of disagreeing with the senior Senator from Tennessee. I have so much respect for the Senator. We are in agreement far more than we are in disagreement, but we do disagree about this, and I feel compelled to address several of the issues the Senator from Tennessee raised, and then I will be finished. I know there are other Senators who would like to speak. First of all, I think it is very clear that my bill no more creates a national school board than the child care and development block grant creates a national school board for childcare centers. It is the exact same set of circumstances, the exact same protections, and it is provided by the Federal Government. I don't understand why, if it is OK for the Senate and the Federal Government of the United States to ensure greater security for children daycares, it is somehow not acceptable to provide that same level of security to kids who happen to be a little older. That is what we are talking about. I don't understand that. The other point I would make is that, in fact, both bills--the child care and development block grant bill and my bill, the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act--are voluntary. Neither one has the power or attempts to compel a State to do a thing. It says: This is what we want you to do. If you don't, you are going to lose some funding, but that is it. So there is absolutely a mechanism that creates an incentive, but we don't have the constitutional power to actually enforce it. Neither bill does. Both bills use the exact same mechanism to encourage compliance with a standard that will ensure greater safety and security for our kids. Furthermore, I suggest that we absolutely have a responsibility to be concerned with how the money is spent. The taxpayers whom we represent expect us to provide some oversight and insist that there are some standards in the way the moneys are spent. That is a reasonable expectation for the Federal Government. In addition, there is an element of this problem that can't be solved by any given State, and that is the cross-border nature of the problem. Specifically, the case of Jeremy Bell illustrates this perfectly-- tragically but perfectly--and that is when a teacher leaves one State and goes to another State and commits the atrocities on a new set of victims. There is nothing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania can do to make it illegal for another State to have a school that sends a letter of recommendation. The powers of Pennsylvania end at the border of Pennsylvania, and that is the case with all 50 States. So it seems to me that this, like other circumstances, simply requires a Federal solution. Finally, I will say that my constituents are in many ways very skeptical of the Federal Government. There is no doubt about that, as Senator Alexander observed with his constituents. But many of them are shocked to learn we don't have background-check requirements such as what my bill contemplates and what the child care and development block grant bill does. They are shocked to discover this is not already the law. I think they would feel safer if they knew it was the law.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his comments. He cited I believe two principal arguments or concerns of his. One is the fact that this legislation has not yet been considered by his committee, and the second is that there are States taking action in various ways that ought to be contemplated. I am going to address both of those, but I would like to begin at what is, for me, the beginning. Let me start by stating that I am a strong supporter of the Child Care and Development Block Grant bill. I voted for this bill in March, and I look forward to voting for it again. But one of the very reasons I support the bill is this bill that we are going to vote on, the Child Care and Development Block Grant bill, addresses the issue that I am trying to address in my bill, and that is protecting our children from sexual and violent predators. I am the father of three young kids. I can't imagine anything more important than the safety and security of my kids, and I think most Americans would agree with me on that. While the Child Care and Development Block Grant bill takes an important step in that direction--it requires criminal background checks on daycare workers. And because it does, it is going to provide a level of protection for the 1.6 million children in federally-subsidized daycare--protection from the sexual and violent predators who might otherwise obtain jobs as childcare workers or employees of these daycare centers. My question is this. Why are we stopping there? Why are we interested only in protecting the kids in federally-subsidized daycare? The 1.6 million there deserve protection, but what about the 49.6 million children who are a little bit older? They are in our Nation's elementary, middle, and high schools. Don't they deserve the same protection from sexual or violent predators as the really young kids do? I think we need to act now to protect all of our kids. That is what I am trying to do here, and it is a very urgent matter. Senator Manchin talked of the absolutely horrendous case of Jeremy Bell. That is how I became aware of this situation. As Senator Manchin pointed out, it began in my State, Pennsylvania, and the terrible story ended in Senator Manchin's State. When the perpetrator began molesting and abusing children, he was a teacher. He had molested several boys and raped one before the school figured out what was going on. Unfortunately, the prosecutors never felt they had enough evidence to actually bring a case. The school dismissed the perpetrator. But then, amazingly, this school in Pennsylvania helped this monster get a job at a school in West Virginia. As Senator Manchin pointed out, he worked in West Virginia in exactly the same capacity, which gave him an opportunity to abuse more kids, and this tragic story didn't end until he raped and murdered a 12-year-old boy. Well, justice has finally caught up with that teacher. He is going to spend the rest of his life in jail--which is, frankly, too good for him. But that is way too late for Jeremy Bell, his 12-year-old victim. Of course, now we know Jeremy Bell is not alone. As Senator Manchin pointed out already, this year over 410 teachers and other school employees have been arrested across America for sexual assault or misconduct with children--410. That is more than 1 per day. And let's be clear. These are the people about whom we know enough and have enough credible evidence to actually have an arrest. How many more are out there but the prosecutors aren't confident yet that they can make a case? In contrast to the 410 that have happened so far this year, back in April when Senator Manchin and I first came to the floor and asked the Senate to pass our bipartisan bill, at the time the number of teachers arrested was only 130. In the time we have waited, we have gone from 130 teachers and other school employees arrested for sexual misconduct with children to now over 410. How much bigger does this number have to get before the Senate decides this is something we should address? Every one of these 410 stories represents a horrendous tragedy. One is a child whose abuse began at age 10 and only ended when, at age 17, she found herself pregnant with a teacher's child. Another is a teacher's aide who raped a mentally disabled boy in his care. Another is a kindergarten teacher who kept a child during recess and forced her to perform sexual acts on him. One teacher after another caught with images of child pornography on their computer--child pornography involving children as young as 1 years old. It is unbelievable stuff. It is important, especially in my home State of Pennsylvania. Twenty- five of these arrested have been Pennsylvania teachers. A recent study found that Pennsylvania is second in the Nation for teachers who have been investigated for sexual misconduct with the children who are supposed to be in their care. So I think we need to be acting now. We need to stop these tragedies. Our bipartisan bill, Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act, takes an important step toward that goal. It works to ensure that school employees we hire are not sexual or violent predators. In fact, the background check provisions in our bill are nearly identical to the background check provisions in the Child Care and Development Block Grant bill, the one that we are going to vote on. Specifically, the protecting students act requires background checks for all existing and prospective school employees who have unsupervised access to children. The background checks must be thorough, covering four databases, including national databases. That would be the FBI fingerprint check, the National Crime Information Center database, the National Sex Offender Registry established by the Adam Walsh Act, the State criminal registries, and the State child abuse and neglect registries. Now, let me give a recent example from the State of Alaska which illustrates just how important this requirement is. On August 29, Alaska State troopers arrested a middle-school teacher in Kiana, AK. The teacher had fled Missouri 4 years earlier to escape arrest. Numerous witnesses accused the teacher over a decade of sexual and physical abuse of his own adopted children. This is hard to talk about because it is so disturbing, but I think we have to face it. The fact is he raped and starved his children. The children literally burrowed a hole in the wall, stole food from the freezer, and heated it on a furnace in their home just to survive. This monster was able to obtain a teaching certificate in Alaska and teach in the State for 4 years. When asked how this could have happened, the Alaska Department of Education explained that Alaska only checks the State's criminal registry when running a background check on teachers. So his name never came up. Now, had Alaska searched the FBI criminal database, as my bill requires, the school would have learned that this monster was a fugitive in another State. The protecting students act forbids schools from hiring a teacher who has committed certain crimes, including any violent or sexual crime against the child--whether a misdemeanor or a felony. This is necessary because all too often a predator will plead down to a misdemeanor when in fact he or she may be guilty of something more serious. The legislation also bans the horrible practice of a school knowingly helping a child molester obtain a new teaching job somewhere else so that he becomes a problem somewhere else. This practice sounds outrageous, it sounds incredible, but it happens. In fact, it happens so frequently it has its own name. It is called passing the trash. Finally, if the State fails to comply with these requirements, it loses a portion of its funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I mentioned earlier that this is a bipartisan bill. It is, to say the least, bipartisan. Support is so broad, in the House it passed unanimously over a year ago, in October of 2013. It was introduced by Democrat George Miller of California, cosponsored by two Republicans and seven Democrats, including Frederica Wilson of Florida, who herself served as an elementary school teacher and principal for 20 years, Charlie Rangel of New York, and Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas. Here in the Senate, it has the bipartisan support of Senator Manchin, Senator McConnell, Senator Inhofe, and myself. Child advocates across America have endorsed the bill. The National Children's Alliance, which oversees national child advocacy matters, the Children's Defense Fund, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape have all endorsed this bill. Law enforcement and prosecutors all support this bill. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association supports it, as do the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys and the National District Attorneys Association. Teachers support this legislation--the American Federation of Teachers, the Pennsylvania School Board Association. So more than 1 year after the House passed this bill unanimously, why have we refused to act in the Senate? Well, some have argued that the Federal Government doesn't need to act because we can leave it to the States. Some States have worked to address this problem to the extent that they can. The Senator from Iowa mentioned that my home State of Pennsylvania has recently enacted legislation that deals with it. This is true--much to the credit of State Senator Tony Williams, a Democrat, and State Representative Dave Maloney, a Republican. The bill makes much-needed reform to strengthen background checks and ban passing the trash within Pennsylvania. But as my friend, Pennsylvania State Senator Tony Williams, explained, under the U.S. Constitution States cannot address the problem of child predators being passed across State lines. The jurisdiction of Pennsylvania ends at the Pennsylvania borders. There is nothing Pennsylvania can do to make it illegal for someone in another State to send into Pennsylvania a predator of this sort. Of course, the example of Jeremy Bell is just exactly one such case. Another example is this. Recently in Las Vegas, NV, a kindergarten teacher was arrested for kidnapping a 16-year-old girl and infecting her with a sexually-transmitted disease. The same teacher had molested 6 children, all fourth and fifth graders, several years before while working as a teacher in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles school district knew about these allegations. How do we know they knew? In 2009 the school district had recommended settling a lawsuit alleging the teacher had molested children. The Nevada school district specifically asked if there had been any criminal concerns regarding the teacher. The Los Angeles school district not only hid the truth, but they provided three references for the teacher. Had my bill banning passing the trash been the law, maybe that 16- year-old child might have been spared. There is another fundamental reason I think the Federal Government has to act; that is, it needs to be accountable to the American taxpayer. When the Federal Government gives billions of dollars to States to help pay for the salaries of people who work with children, the Federal Government has a duty to make sure it is not paying the salary of child molesters. It is a basic accountability that every taxpayer, I would think, should demand. Again, in this regard, our protect all students bill is nearly identical to the child care and development block grant bill that we are going to be voting on. Both the child care and development block grant bill and our protect all students bill act to create what is a voluntary mechanism for States to enhance their security. Both bills provide that if the State accepts Federal funds, the State government must pass the laws or regulations providing for the criminal background checks of persons who will work with children. Both bills provide that a State's compliance is essentially voluntary. A State that declines to improve its background checks forgoes Federal funds. Under the child care and development block grant bill, the State loses 5 percent of the funds under that bill. Under our protecting students bill, the State loses funds under the Elementary Secondary Education Act. Thus, both bills have the same worthy goal, the same principle of accountability for Federal funds. They even have the same basic enforcement mechanism. Both bills were passed unanimously by the House of Representatives, the child care and development block grant bill 2 months ago on September 15, the protecting students bill over a year ago on October 22, 2013. If one bill has legal problems for being passed, so does the other, but in fact neither bill should be blocked. They both take the same approach and they both provide an urgently needed measure of security for our kids. Others have argued and we heard the senior Senator from Iowa make the argument that the Senate should wait and let the committee of jurisdiction, the HELP Committee, consider the bill first. Well, it has been over 1 year now that the HELP Committee has chosen not to take any action on this bill. Senator Manchin and I have been working for months trying to pass this urgently needed legislation, but we have never been able to make progress with the committee. On April 10 of this year Senator Manchin and I asked unanimous consent to pass our bill. The committee chairman objected. Next, the committee assured Senator Manchin and me that they would work with our staff and the committee would vote on the bill in July. The committee scheduled a vote on our bill in July, posted an announcement on its Web site that it was going to have a markup on this bill, and then at the last minute the committee removed our bill from the agenda, had no consideration of it, denied us a vote and we never got an answer as to why. Again, Senator Manchin and I were assured that the committee would vote on this bipartisan bill. We were told the committee would work with our staffs during the 5-week recess in August and provide a vote in September. But then the committee ignored our staffs during the August recess and there was no such consideration in September. Now here we are 7\1/2\ weeks after we went on recess in September and I still have no confidence that the committee is going to take this up and move this legislation. In the meantime, of course, child predators have not been at rest. They have been moving on to new victims. Every day brings another story of a teacher arrested, another family whose child has been shattered and a family who has been torn apart by grief and betrayal. I think the children of America have waited long enough, and I say no more waiting, no more promises about jurisdiction and process and procedures that don't take place, no more passing child molesters on to new schools and new victims, no more defenseless kids such as Jeremy Bell falling victim to other child predators, no more excuses for avoiding an up-or-down vote that passed the House unanimously. Let's act now. Let's protect all our kids. Let's act now to protect the 1.6 million kids in the federally subsidized daycares as the child care and development block grant bill does. Let's pass that. I am for that. But let's also protect the 49.6 million kids who are in our elementary and middle and high schools. We can do this. We can do this tomorrow. We can do this tomorrow. We can pass them both tomorrow if we just have a vote, and we would send two bills to the President's desk. I am quite confident he would sign them both. He would sign the child care and development block grant bill and he would protect those 1.6 million kids and I am confident he would sign the Protecting Students From Sexual and Violent Predators Act, and then we would be protecting the 49.6 million slightly older kids. I urge my colleagues to act now and get on with a vote.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague Senator Manchin from West Virginia for his work on this, for being the lead Democratic sponsor on this very important piece of legislation. I also thank Senators McConnell and Inhofe for cosponsoring the legislation. I would like to thank every single Member of the House of Representatives because every one of them voted in favor of this legislation. I have a number of reasons I want to cite and develop in a series of arguments, Mr. President, but I understand the senior Senator from Iowa has some time constraints, so I will be cooperative in that respect and I will make a unanimous consent request at this time. I think Senator Harkin will likely respond to that, and then I will make my arguments in favor of this legislation. So at this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vitiate cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 1086, the child care and development block grant bill; that following the disposition of the Moss and May nominations, the Senate proceed to a vote on the motion to concur in the House amendment; and that following the disposition of S. 1086, the HELP Committee be discharged from consideration of H.R. 2083 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of H.R. 2083.

Mr. TOOMEY. A good 20 minutes.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I comment today on an issue of tremendous concern to a number of Pennsylvania families who in recent years adopted children from Nepal. In August of 2010, the State Department suspended the authorization for American families to adopt children from that nation with the exception of those families, some from Pennsylvania, who were already in the process of adopting Nepali orphans. The State Department and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services told these ``pipeline'' families that their cases would be processed to completion, but that they should anticipate significant delays and possibly negative outcomes, since their cases were suspected of being heavily tainted by fraud, corruption, and illegal or unethical practices. In response to U.S. government requests for additional evidence substantiating the legality and morality of these adoptions, these families had to undertake extensive investigations on their own to provide such evidence. Since these families were already completely bonded with their adoptive children, each of them eagerly undertook its investigation, at great financial and emotional expense. Meanwhile, most of the children were forced to languish for an additional 6 months in orphanages. While due diligence is appropriate for all adoptions, I am deeply troubled that in this case not a single instance of fraud or corruption was ever found. In fact, the State Department and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ultimately allowed all these American pipeline families bring their children home to the United States. Despite this ultimately successful outcome, the State Department continues to suspend adoption of desperate Nepali children by American families. I ask that the Department reevaluate its policy with the recent experience of the pipeline families as a major consideration. With an eye towards the future of the children who were adopted by the pipeline families, I am concerned that the public record on these adoptions from Nepal is still replete with references to fraud and trafficking. We need to set the record straight and to make it clear that each of the Nepali pipeline adoption cases in progress at the time of the suspension was ultimately approved and was devoid of any findings of malfeasance. Every child deserves a family and no child deserves to be needlessly haunted by clouds of doubt about his or her origin. These American families deserve to have a positive public record created showing that their adoptions were completely legal and ethical. I wish to personally begin that record today.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, it is a privilege to be a part of the national commemoration that will honor the service of our Vietnam veterans and their families. During this conflict, nearly 350,000 Pennsylvanians served their Nation. Of that number, 3,149 paid the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives for the United States of America. I deeply appreciate the Commonwealth's participation in The Vietnam War Commemorative Partner Program that thanks our Vietnam veterans for their service. Although no commemoration can fully honor the profound sacrifice of those who served in Vietnam, I strongly believe we should use the war's 50th anniversary as an opportunity to further honor those who saw our Nation through one of its most troubling conflicts and ensure that their legacy is not forgotten. A grateful nation thanks the veterans of this war, some never to return to the families they left behind. We should all hope to live our lives in a manner that befits their service and sacrifice.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah. Let me respond to my colleagues from Maryland and California briefly. First of all, I am perfectly glad that the committee of jurisdiction addressed this. One of the great things about the Senate is when it is actually functioning, Members who are not on a particular committee still have the opportunity to weigh in on an issue and have that debate on the Senate floor. That is exactly what we are doing today. I am glad we are doing that. I would also observe that my colleagues seem to have very little faith in the ability and willingness of States to protect their own environment. They should spend some more time in Pennsylvania. We care a lot about our environment in Pennsylvania. We have a Department of Environmental Protection that takes that responsibility very seriously. Finally, I would point out that the so-called fix in MAP-21 is extremely incomplete. It is incomplete because, first, it occurs at the discretion of the Department of Transportation. They can simply choose not to have an expedited process. If they deem the project to be ``controversial''--undefined. Who knows what that means. Secondly, the Department of Transportation is not permitted to exclude from this process compliance with the Army Corps of Engineers or the Fish and Wildlife Service reviews, which altogether are extremely time consuming and expensive and costly. Again, we are just talking about repairing existing infrastructure. We are not talking about waiving these requirements for new capacity, for new infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I thank the Senator from Utah. Amendment No. 3584 (Purpose: To empower States with authority for most taxing and spending for highway programs and mass transit programs)

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, let me start by complimenting my colleagues, the chairman and the ranking member of this committee, for a genuine, sincere effort at a bipartisan solution to a difficult problem. There are provisions I like in this legislation. There are provisions I do not like. But I do like the fact that at least with respect to this legislation at the moment the Senate is functioning. The committee was functioning and had a vigorous debate and discussion and came up with a reasonable approach. I thank Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Hatch for their cooperative effort to do this. But I want to address this particular amendment, amendment No. 3585. I thank my cosponsor on this amendment, Senator McConnell. What this amendment does, in short, is it allows communities that are recovering from a natural disaster to rebuild damaged infrastructure without having to acquire--or maybe I should say reacquire--Federal environmental permits. Now, there is no question we all agree it is vitally important we protect our environment. I should point out there is nothing in my amendment that would change Federal environmental permitting requirements for any new construction--nothing at all. We should also recognize that States have their own very substantial standards in place to protect their environments, including during the construction of transportation infrastructure projects. There is nothing in my amendment that would weaken in any way or change in any way any State environmental laws or regulations. The fact is our Federal environmental permitting process for infrastructure is broken. It is too cumbersome. It takes too long. It is too costly. It is a huge problem. I think the most damming statistic I can think of--that I am aware of anyway--is from the Federal Highway Administration itself, which in fiscal year 2011 estimated that on average transportation projects required 79 months to complete the National Environmental Policy Act review process, the NEPA review process--79 months. That is 6\1/2\ years to get permission from the Federal Government to build a road or a bridge or to rebuild an existing road or bridge that has been damaged--6\1/2\ years. That is often longer--sometimes a lot longer--than it takes to actually do the construction, and that is a problem. It is a problem because it just drives the costs up dramatically and unnecessarily. Two weeks ago, constituents of mine in Northampton County, PA, reported to my office that just one environmental survey for a small bridge repair--we are not talking about some massive, new ``Golden Gate Bridge'' here; we are talking about a little bridge that is just going to be repaired--just one of the environmental surveys was $21,000 alone. Senator Rob Portman reports that in Ohio Federal environmental permitting alone increases project costs on average by 20 percent. The reason these delays are so expensive is all of these delays, all of these permitting requirements, require consultants to carry it out, and there are all kinds of engineering and consulting fees that get paid, often on retainer over time; it also means that while waiting for a road or a bridge to be rebuilt or restored, there are longer commutes, there is a big detour, there is more consumption of gas. That is all a waste of time and money. The bottom line is that projects cost more the longer they take. That is the reality. The fact is, recovering communities do not need to have to incur this extra cost. I will give you an example, again in Pennsylvania. Since 2010, Federal environmental permitting has delayed nine projects by over a year. The Cherry Creek Bridge in Monroe County, PA--this is an area that is flood prone; it was struck by Tropical Storm Lee and Hurricane Irene in 2011--the reconstruction for the damaged transportation infrastructure should have started pretty much right away, but Fish and Wildlife review delays alone cost us 2 years before construction could even begin. Senator Ben Nelson recognized this problem--a Democrat from Nebraska who served in this body--and offered a bipartisan amendment to the last highway bill, MAP-21. What his amendment would have done would have been to exempt roads and bridge repair projects from Federal environmental permitting if the roads and bridges were destroyed by a declared emergency, such as Superstorm Sandy, for instance, and provided that the reconstruction would occur entirely within the footprint of the existing structure, the original footprint. Unfortunately, Senator Nelson never got his vote. He was denied a vote. Instead, he got a watered-down provision put into the final bill that allows the Department of Transportation, under certain circumstances, to exclude certain repair projects from this whole process. But they cannot make that exclusion if the project is deemed to be ``controversial.'' Undefined. I do not know what that means. The exclusions do not apply to the Army Corps of Engineers or the Fish and Wildlife Service, the reviews of which constituents tell me are the most time consuming, cumbersome, and costly to comply with. The result is that recovering communities today, after they have been hit hard by a natural disaster, after they have incurred damage to their roads, their bridges, their infrastructure, do not know what environmental standards are going to apply to them, except that some certainly will, and others may or may not be exempted. It still leaves them subject to a lengthy, costly, and unnecessary procedure. Because, once again, let me emphasize, we are talking about roads and bridges that are already there. We are not talking about new infrastructure, new capacity. We are talking about rebuilding what was there already and what was damaged. This amendment I am offering is almost identical to the Nelson amendment. The difference is, at the request of SPTA, which is the Southeast Pennsylvania Transit Authority, it has been expanded to include not just roads and bridge but also rail and transit facility repair projects. That is it. So it simply says: These existing transportation infrastructure facilities, if they are damaged or destroyed by a declared natural disaster, the rebuilding, the identical rebuilding in that very same footprint should not be subject to going through the whole environmental permitting process all over again. That is all it says. I am glad to have the endorsement of a number of organizations and groups: Associated General Contractors, National Association of Counties, Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste. I argue this is just common sense. This is a modest, narrow amendment. As I say, it does not in any way, shape, form, or fashion change any regulations or permitting requirements for any new construction. It says nothing whatsoever about the extensive State requirements. It is silent about all of that. It simply says: With respect to Federal environmental permitting, if you are rebuilding an existing road or bridge because it has been damaged in this way, you do not have to go through this costly, lengthy process that is costing us time, money, jobs, and infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, in 2011 the Federal Highway Administration estimated the average transportation project in America takes 79 months to go through the National Environmental Policy Act review process--6\1/2\ years to get permission to build a road or a bridge. Ben Nelson, a Democrat from Nebraska, recognized the problem and suggested an amendment. The amendment simply says if a bridge or a road is damaged or destroyed by a declared natural disaster or emergency and we rebuild the bridge or road in the exact same place, with the same footprint, the same dimensions--everything is the same-- then we don't have to go through the entire environmental permitting process again. This would save a lot of time and money and allow us to maintain our roads and bridges. I know my friends on the other side think this problem was solved. It was not solved. The Department of Transportation can exclude certain projects, but can choose not to, and does not have the discretion to provide an exclusion for the Army Corps of Engineers or the Fish and Wildlife Service--the very reviews that take the most time and cost the most money. So I urge my colleagues to vote yes.

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

Mr. TOOMEY

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

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from Utah because I got here late and I am intruding on his time, but he has been kind enough to patiently wait for me to make a few points. So I will try to be brief, but I think it is really important that we address this issue, which is a very serious problem happening in America. We see increasing numbers of what we call corporate inversions-- American corporations establishing their headquarters overseas-- typically through the mechanism of purchasing a company overseas and establishing that as the headquarters. First of all, I just hate to see any American company choosing to not be an American company. It is very offensive to me at a deep level, most especially if it were to be a Pennsylvania company--but any company. Secondly, whatever little shred of faith any Americans have in our tax system is further undermined by seeing this. And, most importantly over time, this dynamic that is happening, if unaddressed, I think poses a very serious risk that we are going to lose jobs, we are going to lose corporate headquarters and all of the very substantial and good-paying jobs that are always associated with an American corporate headquarters, from senior executives, to secretarial folks, to the janitorial staff, and everyone in between. There are a lot of jobs that go along with where people decide to establish their corporate headquarters, and I want it to be in America. That is my goal. That is my motivation. So it is useful to start with posing the question: Why is this happening, that American companies that have subsidiaries overseas are deciding they had better be headquartered somewhere other than America? I will tell you why it is happening. There is no mystery here. It is happening because we have a Tax Code that is driving them to do this. We have chosen to inflict on our workers and our businesses the highest marginalized tax rate in the industrial world, so we are systematically less competitive than any of our trading partners, the nations against which we compete. In addition to having such a high marginal rate, we have chosen, quite foolishly, in my view, to adopt a system of taxation with respect to overseas subsidiaries that no one else in the world--virtually no one else in the world--adopts. Let me drill down a little bit into this. Specifically, the difference between a high marginal rate and a low rate is pretty obvious. We have the highest. Other countries have much lower rates. Increasingly, they are reducing their rates. We used to be in the middle of the pack. Twenty years ago the American business tax rate was about the same as most of our trading partners and competitors. Today it is much higher. We stand pretty much alone with a very high rate. That is obvious. That is pretty straightforward. The other piece, though, is how we deal with the tax--with the income of subsidiaries. That is very different. Here is what happens. Basically imagine that an American company has a subsidiary in Ireland. That subsidiary makes some profits. The profits are taxed by the Irish Government. They happen to use a 12\1/2\-percent tax rate, because they want to attract business. It is working, by the way, for them. But be that as it may, the first layer of tax an American subsidiary operating in Ireland pays is the tax to the Irish Government, 12\1/2\ percent. Then here is what we do in America: We say, now if you want to bring that money home to America and invest it in America and build a new factory in Pennsylvania or in Delaware and hire lots of workers, if you want to bring the money home to do that, well, we have a punishment in store for you. We are going to look at our rate, which is among the very highest in the world at 35 percent. We will give you credit for the 12\1/2\-percent that you paid to the Irish Government. We will soak you for another 23 percent. That is the price we will charge you for investing in America. That is what we do. That is what our current tax system does. Now what if this Irish company, this subsidiary operating in Ireland, what if instead it was owned by a company that is headquartered in Sweden or Switzerland or any other number of European countries? Do you know what they do? What they do is say: Well, after you have paid your tax to the Irish Government, if you then want to bring it home to one of those countries, there is almost no additional charge. There is a very nominal toll, if you will, on bringing that money back to those countries. What is the effect of this? The effect of this is that we put our multinational companies at a huge competitive disadvantage. It is an unsustainable competitive disadvantage. The other effect is that we end up trapping money overseas that would be invested in America but is not. So what is the rational response of the corporate management and the board of directors of a business which has this Irish subsidiary that has made this money, it has paid its tax to the Irish Government? Unfortunately, the response typically is: Well, I cannot defend to my shareholders why I should bring that money home and get whacked another 23 percent. So instead, I would rather not do this, but I am forced to look at investing somewhere else in the world where I will not have to pay this tax. This is what I am being told--this is what is happening. The way to avoid all of this is to be headquartered somewhere other than America. This is terrible. This is outrageous. We are doing this to ourselves. It is madness. I have to say, I am very disappointed with how we are responding in this body. We know this is a problem. This is very real. It is growing. We are not taking it seriously. What we are going to vote on later this week, I think, or whenever the vote comes up, is not a serious attempt to solve this problem. It is a completely political show vote, the Walsh-Stabenow bill. It will do nothing to stop these ongoing inversions. It does nothing about the fundamental underlying cause that is driving these inversions. It does nothing to encourage the repatriation of all of this money. By the way, it is attached to a vehicle that is unconstitutional. We cannot originate a tax bill in the Senate. The Constitution forbids that. So if you are even pretending to be serious about tax reform, you take up a House-passed vehicle so it is at least constitutionally possible. Our Democratic friends chose not to even bother with that formality, so blatant is the fact that this is not a serious discussion. That is a shame. We ought to be having a serious discussion about this. There is a more serious alternative bill that some of our friends on the other side are advocates for. That is a bill that basically would make it harder for you to achieve the inversion a company is attempting to achieve. It would require the number of foreign shareholders be quite high at the end of the transaction in order to qualify for it. So it sounds on the surface like: Oh, that might work and make it harder to do this. But the problem still goes to it does not deal with the underlying fundamental driver of this problem, which is a Tax Code that makes it uncompetitive to be American. So if the Levin bill, which is the one I am referring to, were to be adopted, which I certainly hope it would not be, it continues to make it untenable for shareholders of a business to justify being headquartered in America. We will continue to see increasing numbers of startups and spinoff and growth overseas where the governments choose not to punish their businesses the way we punish ours. I think the answer is to deal with the underlying cause, not the reaction to that underlying cause. I do not want to see any more of these inversions. We are going to do that by lowering the marginal corporate tax rates so there is not a huge advantage in being anywhere else other than America, and to adopt a territorial system, a system where once a company pays the tax it owes to the country in which it is located, we do not punish them for bringing that money home and investing it in America. That is the answer. That is the solution. This is no great mystery. The rest of the world has figured this out. They are ahead of us on this. If we would get serious about this very real problem and we made these reforms, what would the net result be? Up to maybe over $1 trillion of money that is trapped overseas would be invested back in America. Can you imagine what that would do to our economic growth almost immediately--the surge in job creation, the surge in expansion of existing businesses. You know, we have this tremendous renaissance in manufacturing that we are on the edge of, because we have such low-cost energy. It is an enormous advantage we have. We could release this pent-up demand and take advantage of this enormous opportunity if we had a Tax Code that made it rational. I am standing here very frustrated, because I am watching us eke out this miserable sort of 1, maybe if we are lucky, 2-percent economic growth. Employment levels are way too low. Workforce participation is nowhere near where it should be. I know we could be booming. We could be growing at 4 percent. We could be creating many hundreds of thousands of new jobs every month. We could be bringing people back in the workforce. We could have the kind of strong economic expansion we have always had in the past after a severe recession. But we are not getting there right now. It is partly because we have a Tax Code that is hampering us. It is driving up transactions that none of us want to see. So I hope after we get through the political exercise we are going to go through this week, we will get serious about solving the underlying problem: lowering the marginal rate so we do not stand out as the worst place in the world to establish a business, and moving to a territorial-based system so that we stop punishing businesses that want to invest in America. That is my hope. I hope we will get to this soon, because, unfortunately, we are seeing the unfortunate consequences of this bad policy. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a bill I have introduced. It is S. 1596. It is the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act. I wish to thank my cosponsors on this legislation. It is a bipartisan bill. Senator Joe Manchin and I have introduced this together, and I am grateful to Senators McConnell and Inhofe for their cosponsorship. This bill was inspired by a terrible story. It is the story of Jeremy Bell, and it begins at a school in Delaware County, PA. One of the schoolteachers molested several boys and raped one of them. Prosecutors decided they did not have enough evidence to bring a case, but the school was aware of what happened, so they dismissed the teacher for this outrageous behavior. But then, amazingly, the school also decided that they would help this teacher get another job at another school so they could be rid of him. And they did exactly that, in fact, passing along a letter of recommendation, helping this predator get a job at a school in West Virginia. The story ends in 1997 when that teacher--by then a school principal--raped and murdered 12-year-old Jeremy Bell in West Virginia. Justice finally caught up with that teacher, and he is now in jail serving a life sentence for the murder, but for Jeremy Bell that justice came too late. The very sad truth is that Jeremy Bell is not alone. Every day seems to bring a new report of a child robbed of his or her innocence by someone they should have been able to trust, someone their parents told them they should obey. The numbers are absolutely terrifying, and, worse still, the numbers are growing. On April 10 of this year, I came to this floor and spoke about the need to pass this legislation to protect our kids from predators in the classroom. I explained then that since January 1 of this year, at that point, 130 teachers had been arrested across America for sexual misconduct with children. Well, here we are just over 3 months later and that number has more than doubled. Since January 1 of this year, 275 teachers have been arrested in America for sexual misconduct with children--275. These are teachers. That is more than one per day so far this year. Let's be honest. These are the ones whom we have caught. These are the ones who have actually been arrested. These are the ones against whom there is enough evidence that they have actually been arrested. How many more are out there who have not been caught or for whom the evidence is not yet sufficiently clear? The damage these predators are doing is enormous. It is far beyond what any numbers or my words can express. So I want to let some of the victims speak for themselves. I will tell you a brief story from Shannon. Shannon is from Nevada. She was raped by a teacher. The teacher was later convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to life in prison. Nine years later, this is what Shannon wrote: When I was a senior in high school, Mr. Peterson approached me and said I would need to go to night school if I wanted enough credits to graduate on time. And, of course, he taught one of those courses--a computer class. I was 17, and he raped me 4 times over the course of a year. He said he would fail me if I ever told. He also hit me and made threats against me and my family. So I didn't. I held it in for a year and a half. In the end, 66 people offered to testify against Peterson. His first victim dated back to the year I was born. Some of those who spoke up were parents. Their daughters had complained at the time, but nothing was done. That made me very angry. It still does. I learned that a handful of teachers, and two principals, knew about him. And his teaching license had been revoked in Michigan years before, and no one knew why. I'm different [now] because of what happened. I have to watch people all the time, analyze them. I can't be carefree. Now I have a seven-year-old son and two daughters, ages three and one. I will home-school my girls. So when you see the number 275, remember Shannon, and remember that so far this year there are 275 others like her. Gary of South Carolina is one of at least 29 boys abused by a teacher named Mr. Fisher over that teacher's 37-year career. Now the teacher is serving 20 years in prison. Two school principals were sued for allegedly covering up the abuse. Here is what Gary wrote about his experience: I was nine when it started. The abuse was frequent and long-term--till I went to college. I knew there were others, too, but until it all came out, I never knew how many. You feel so guilty, so ashamed. It's frightening now to look back and see how calculating Fisher was. I did everything I could to get kicked out of school. I was in the guidance counselor's office all the time. Finally, in tenth grade, I got myself kicked out for cheating. By the time I want to college, I was drinking all the time. I was terrified to quit because then I'd have to feel. But I couldn't drink and do school, so I entered rehab. I was 18. It took me a year and a half, and I've been sober since. My life is good now, for the first time. You can survive it, but you have to deal with it. I always felt that what the school did was far worse than what Fisher did. Fisher was sick, an evil monster. But [the school] just calculated the damage to its public relations. We kids were disposable, which is a whole other category of evil. So when you see the number 275, remember Gary, and remember that there are 275 others like him that we know of already this year alone. So what can we do? Well, my bill is a first step at addressing this problem. It is called the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act. It is pretty simple, really. It requires a mandatory background check for existing and prospective employees, and it requires that those checks be periodically repeated. There are five States that do no background checks. The second thing my bill would do is it would apply to all employees of a school--employees or contractors who have unsupervised access to children, not just teachers. So it would include bus drivers and coaches. There are 12 States that currently do no checks at all on contractors. The legislation would also require more thorough background checks. It would require that school districts check four major databases, both State and Federal. In my own State of Pennsylvania, for instance, if an employee has been a resident of my State for 2 years or more, then only the State database is checked. We just do not find out what this person might have done in another State at a different time. The legislation also would prohibit what has--tragically, it has developed its own name; the name is ``passing the trash.'' This is the phenomenon of when a school knowingly recommends one of these predators to another school. As outrageous as that sounds, it actually happens. Some of these school and school districts so want to be rid of this problem, this embarrassment, that they actually facilitate the person moving on to some other place, where, of course, this predator just strikes again against some other children. That would be banned under this legislation. In addition, there would be a prohibition against hiring these kinds of predators. Schools would not be able to hire a person who has ever been convicted of any violent or sexual crime against a child--if they were convicted of a violent or sexual crime against a child. There are a number of other felonies that would also preclude someone from being hired by a school if they are going to have access to children. Those would include homicide, child abuse or neglect, crimes against children, including pornography, rape, or sexual assault, kidnapping. In addition, a person who has been convicted within the past 5 years of a felony physical assault or battery or a felony drug-related offense--for 5 years from the time at which those crimes were committed, the person would be precluded from being hired in a position, in a capacity where they would have supervisory responsibility over children. The enforcement for all of this is the only way the Federal Government can or should enforce policies such as this on school districts and schools; that is, if a State refuses to adopt these provisions, then they would lose the funding they get from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That is one of many--but an important one--of the Federal Government funding streams for K-12 education. No State wants to lose that source of funding, so I think States would respond by adopting this very commonsense series of measures to protect their children. I should say this is a bill with very broad support--so broad, in fact, that in the House the companion legislation passed unanimously. There was not a single dissenting vote. They voted last year, and it passed unanimously. We have bipartisan support here in the Senate, as I mentioned. I am joined by Senators Manchin, McConnell, and Inhofe. It is supported by child advocacy groups. The National Children's Alliance, the Children's Defense Fund, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children all strongly support this legislation. I appreciate their support. It is also supported by prosecutors--the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. As a matter of fact, there were five district attorneys from southeastern Pennsylvania alone, from different political parties, who wrote an op- ed--a very persuasive op-ed--arguing why this bill is necessary based on what they see every day in their jobs as prosecutors. I wish to thank those district attorneys. Risa Ferman from Montgomery County, Seth Williams from Philadelphia County, Tom Hogan from Chester County, David Heckler from Bucks County, and Jack Whelan from Delaware County all weighed in in favor of this legislation. Finally, there are teacher groups that support this as well. The American Federation of Teachers supports this legislation. The Pennsylvania School Boards Association does as well. I do not think I would be going far out on a limb to suggest that probably a huge majority of Americans support this legislation because one thing I know for sure as a parent of three young kids--my kids are 14, 12, and 4. There is one thing that is most important to most parents I know; that is, that our children be safe and secure. When you put your kid on a schoolbus, you expect that child will be in a safe environment all day long--on the ride to school, while they are in school, and on the way back home. Frankly, we owe it to parents as well as to their children to do all we can to ensure that they do, in fact, have a safe environment--as safe as we can make it--for their kids. Two hundred seventy-five is the number. That is the number that should give us all pause. It marks 275 tragedies that we know of already this year--275 childhoods that are shattered, 275 families torn by grief, betrayal, self-blame. It marks a failure on our part. This kind of child abuse can be prevented. We have the tools to prevent it and to prevent so many children from harm. Again, last year the House acted unanimously to protect children from these sexual predators. This is something we could have done a long time ago. We certainly should not be letting a new school year begin-- really in a matter of weeks--without doing something about this shameful number and without making sure this number does not continue to grow. I hope we will be able to bring this bill to the Senate floor. I hope we will have very broad bipartisan support for it here in the Senate, as we already have in the House. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak on the nomination of Cheryl Krause to serve as a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Cheryl Krause was nominated by the President on February 6, 2014. I want to start with a few thank yous for where we are in this process. First, Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley. I appreciate their expediting the consideration of Cheryl Krause through committee. They moved that process along very quickly. I thank Leader Reid and Leader McConnell for agreeing to bring Ms. Krause's nomination to the Senate floor so quickly. In fact, later this morning my understanding is we have a cloture vote on consideration of her nomination. From my point of view, this is part of an ongoing effort I have with Senator Casey, my colleague from Pennsylvania--a bipartisan collaboration to make sure we are filling vacancies as they occur, as quickly as we responsibly can, to make sure we have as close to a full complement of Federal judges as we possibly can. So thus far, in the 3\1/2\ years I have been in the Senate, Senator Casey and I have worked closely, and we have had 10 people who have gone through the entire process--from the application process, the vetting process, the consideration, the recommendation by Senator Casey and myself jointly to the White House, the nomination, and through the confirmation process--10 people who have successfully gone through that process already. There are four additional candidates, recently nominated by the President at the recommendation of Senator Casey and myself, and I am very hopeful the Senate will confirm all four of them later this year. We still have remaining vacancies, and we are working on filling those vacancies as well, but we are making progress, and it is in this spirit of bipartisan cooperation in filling vacancies on the Federal court that Senator Casey and I are both enthusiastically supporting the nomination of Ms. Krause to the Third Circuit. I certainly hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle today will vote to support her confirmation. Cheryl Krause is an extremely qualified individual. There is no question about that. She has a wealth of legal experience in both public service and in private practice. In fact, her background is so impressive that the ABA gave her a unanimous well-qualified rating. She has excellent educational credentials. She earned her undergraduate degree from the University of Pennsylvania, where she graduated summa cum laude. She went on to Stanford Law School, where she graduated with highest honors. She clerked for Justice Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court. She has been a U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, where she served for 5 years. She has taught at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She is currently a partner at the law firm of Deckert LLP. So she has a wealth of experience--it is relevant experience--and a terrific background. She has been both on the prosecution side and on the defense side, so she understands both perspectives, both of which need to be understood to have a properly balanced perspective on the court. In addition to a very strong legal record, Cheryl Krause has demonstrated a commitment to serving her community. She served as counsel to the Philadelphia Board of Ethics. She has represented children with disabilities. She has led Deckert's partnership with Penn Law School in a project that supervises law students representing indigent defendants. She comes from a family of public service. Her husband has a distinguished career in the United States military. So, to conclude, I am confident Ms. Krause will serve as an excellent Federal appellate judge. She has the crucial qualities we look for in a candidate for such an important post: intelligence, integrity, experience, a commitment to public service, and an understanding of and respect for the limited role the judiciary plays in our constitutional system. The Senate Judiciary Committee apparently shares my confidence in Cheryl Krause. They unanimously reported her out of committee, unanimously supporting her confirmation. So I am pleased to speak on behalf of this highly qualified nominee, and I urge my colleagues to support her confirmation. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I wish to recognize Little League International on its 75th anniversary. Little League International was founded in Williamsport, PA, in 1939 by Carl Stotz as a means for area youth to learn the sport at a time when they were considered too young to play organized baseball. The basic goal of Little League was, and remains, to introduce children to a game that teaches its set of values, including courage, character and loyalty, that will guide them throughout their lives. Congress recognized the valuable role Little League has played in America's communities when it unanimously granted Little League a Federal charter on July 16, 1964. That charter was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson the very next day. Over the course of its 75 years, Little League Baseball has become the world's largest organized youth sports program, growing from 3 teams in 1939 to nearly 200,000 teams located in all 50 States and more than 80 countries worldwide. Each year, more than 2.4 million children participate in Little League Baseball in various divisions, including baseball, softball, and a challenger division for physically and developmentally challenged children. Some notable Little League alumni include former U.S. President George W. Bush, two Vice Presidents, numerous U.S. Senators and Representatives, two Nobel Prize laureates, and a Medal of Honor recipient. Also, several professional athletes and Hall of Fame baseball players began their journey in Little League. In keeping with the tradition of our national pastime, thousands of games are played throughout the summer months at various levels of competition. These events bring together children from the international community and foster principles that transcend cultural or regional differences. Since the very first game was played on June 6, 1939, Little League International has made an invaluable contribution to the lives of millions of children across the globe. I wish Little League International all the best as it continues to grow and fulfill its mission by laying a strong foundation for today's youth.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I wish to recognize the Harrisburg Regional Chamber on its 100th anniversary. The Harrisburg Regional Chamber was established in 1914 by a group of local businessmen whose goal was to promote and grow Harrisburg's manufacturing and distribution industries. Since then, the Harrisburg Regional Chamber has been a catalyst for smart public policy, job creation, and business growth in central Pennsylvania. Starting with 200 initial members, the Harrisburg Regional Chamber has grown to represent 1,300 members who employ nearly 100,000 people in the capital city region. Over the course of its 100 years, the Harrisburg Regional Chamber has played a key role in the planning and development of numerous construction and infrastructure projects in the region. Without the chamber's assistance, historic structures such as the Penn-Harris Hotel may not have ever been built. The chamber was also instrumental in developing the region's first airport in 1930. Additionally, the chamber backed U.S. military construction projects at Olmstead Army Air Depot in Middletown, the U.S. Army General Depot at New Cumberland Army Depot, and at Carlisle Barracks. Since 2001, the Harrisburg Regional Chamber has completed 355 projects, which have had an overall economic impact of $416 million and assisted businesses throughout the region create and retain over 12,500 jobs. The Harrisburg Regional Chamber is dedicated to the success of the community and the members it represents. It continues to strive toward the fulfillment of its core mission by adhering to a set of fundamental values: excellence, leadership, inclusion, innovation, and fun. Today, I want to recognize the significant contributions that the Harrisburg Regional Chamber makes to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I wish the chamber all the best as it continues its efforts to lead by example with a vision for a better future for all and as it continues to grow and serve central Pennsylvania. Thank you.