Pat Toomey

Mr. TOOMEY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, we are considering the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill. That is what I believe this legislation is called. I think we went on the bill on Monday. Here it is late Thursday afternoon, and it is amazing that we haven't had a debate or a vote on a single amendment in 3 days. Now we are finished for the week so we are not going to have any debate on any amendments or any votes tomorrow either. We are going to go the whole week without having been able to seriously consider the merits or problems with this bill, without being able to offer any ideas to improve or to change the underlying text. It is unbelievable. But this is what has become routine in the Senate. I have offered four amendments. I fild four amendments I wish to debate, I would like to have a vote on. I have cosponsored four other amendments my colleagues have filed. I think, altogether, Republicans have drafted and filed dozens of amendments; I don't know exactly how many--there are dozens--in part because we haven't considered an Energy bill in this Chamber in 7 years. Things change in 7 years. Lots of things change. After 7 years of not having a debate over energy policy in America--something that is so basic to our economy, so important to every single family, every single business, everyone--it might be a good idea to have a debate and to offer some amendments, to have a discussion and have some votes. But that is not the way the Senate functions. We can't do it. The majority party, the majority leader, will not allow us to have amendments. This isn't terribly recent. Over the last 10 months, since July of last summer, the majority leader has permitted Republicans to have a grand total of 8 amendment votes--8 votes in 10 months. The Senate is virtually shut down. That is what has happened. It just so happens that during that same period of time, the House Republicans, who are in control of the House, permitted the minority party to have 136 votes. Of course, the irony is it is the House that has historically always operated under a kind of martial law approach where the majority party dictates all terms--always has. But during that 10-month period, they have had 136 votes permitted to the minority party and we have had 8, and none on this Energy bill. None. Not one. I truly don't understand why the majority party is so afraid of votes. What is so horrifying about casting a vote on an amendment? But, apparently, that is the case. I will speak briefly about two of the amendments I have filed that I would like to have a vote on. I am not asking for an outcome, by the way. I accept that. I don't have any right to expect any particular outcome, but I don't understand why we can't have a discussion, why we can't have the debate, why we can't have the vote. By the way, Thursday afternoon, by now, we could have processed dozens of amendments. Actually, Republicans, in the end, all we wanted was a handful. I filed amendment No. 3037. It would prohibit the Department of Energy from issuing new energy efficiency mandates on residential boilers. It is not very complicated. It is not the end of the world one way or the other, but on the margins, I think this matters a little bit to families. I will tell my colleagues why. We all have residential boilers. These are our hot water heaters. We have them in our basements. We use them to heat water, to heat our house, in some cases, and to heat our water so we can take a hot shower. This is pretty common. We all have them. The Department of Energy is in their periodic process of reviewing the mandates they impose on the energy efficiency standards for the boilers. The only consideration in this review process is whether they will make the mandates more stringent than they are today, make them adhere to a tougher standard than the standard they are forced to adhere to today. Well, I think it would be better not to change the standard. That is my opinion. The reason I hold that view is because the problem with a more stringent energy efficiency requirement on these hot water heaters is it makes them more expensive. It doesn't matter much for really wealthy people, but for a middle-income family or a low-income family, it raises the cost of their home. It raises the cost of replacing a hot water heater. There are a lot of folks who can't afford to have an unnecessary additional cost added to them. By the way, I don't think we need to force consumers to conserve energy. Everybody has an incentive to conserve energy, because energy is not free. So people are perfectly happy to pay a little more for more energy efficiency for a product if they can recoup that added cost in the form of a lower energy bill over time. People get that. They will make that decision. They will do it voluntarily. In fact, the only reason we need to mandate standards is if we want to force consumers to pay bigger premiums than they can recoup. If we only want them to pay for what they can save in the future, they do it voluntarily. So, to me, this is one of those annoying little government mandates that is not necessary, and it reduces consumers' choices and raises their costs, and I don't think it is a good idea, especially now during difficult economic times when median wages have been declining, not rising. I don't think it is a good idea for the government to impose a new cost such as this. So I have an amendment that would forbid the Department of Energy from ratcheting up the cost of an appliance we all have in our homes. I get the fact that not everybody agrees with me. That is fine. Some people do want to impose this added cost for their own reasons, and that is fine. What I don't understand is why we can't have the debate. Why can't we have the discussion and then have a vote? Then I either win or I lose, and we are done. But we don't do that. Apparently, the majority party is not willing to allow Republican amendments. I have another amendment. This one has bipartisan cosponsorship. I have cosponsors who include Senator Coburn, Senator Flake--actually, it is Senator Coburn who introduced it initially. I am a cosponsor. This amendment would eliminate the corn ethanol mandate from the renewable fuel standard. What is that about? Well, existing law mandates that we take corn, convert it into ethanol, and then the law requires that the ethanol be mixed with gasoline, and we all have to buy it when we fill up our tanks. The Presiding Officer may be aware that we now burn over 40 percent of all the corn we grow in America. Over 40 percent of it, we end up burning in our cars, by turning it into ethanol and mixing it with our gasoline. There were good intentions when this mandate was initially created. Some people thought it would be good for the environment. It turns out it is not; it is bad for the environment. It is not just me saying this. The National Academy of Sciences, the Environmental Working Group--everybody acknowledges it increases carbon emissions. Members on the other side of the aisle thought the issue of carbon in the atmosphere--CO2 releases--was so important they were here around the clock in a dramatic display of political theater to make this case. Well, here is an amendment that would reduce CO2 emissions because the ethanol requirement increases CO2 relative to where we would be if it didn't exist. That is not the only problem with the ethanol mandate. It raises the price of filling our tanks. This is expensive stuff. Having to mix it with ordinary gasoline raises the cost of driving. Everybody has to drive. So not only is it bad for the environment, but it is more expensive for every single family who operates a vehicle. That is not all it does. Because we are diverting 40 percent of all the corn we grow to our gas tanks, it is not available in our cereals or in the food we feed to livestock, and so food prices are higher than they need to be; they are higher than they would otherwise be because of this mandate. That is not all. Everybody acknowledges that ethanol has a corrosive effect on engines, so it is doing damage to our engines, which shortens the life of the engines; again, not that big a deal if a person is extremely wealthy and can kind of burn through cars. But for the vast majority of people I represent, cars are a very expensive cost they incur, and having a policy that systematically damages that very valuable asset doesn't make a lot of sense to me. There is yet another reason. These ethanol mandates can have very dire consequences on some of our oil refineries, and that can cost us jobs, and it threatens refineries in Pennsylvania. As a matter of fact, I got a letter from a Philadelphia AFL-CIO business manager, a fellow named Pat Gillespie, who wrote to me asking me to try to do something about this, because it is threatening the jobs of the people he represents at the refineries where they work. I will quote briefly from a portion of his letter: The impact of the dramatic spike in cost of the RIN credits-- That is the system by which the EPA enforces the ethanol mandate-- from four cents to 1 dollar per gallon will cause a tremendous depression in . . . [our refinery's] bottom line in 2013. Of course at the Building Trades, we need [the refineries] to maintain and expand jobs. He closed by saying: ``We need your help in this matter.'' I am trying to help. I am offering an amendment which would repeal the corn ethanol mandate, together with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Again, I understand not everybody agrees with this. There are some people who like the ethanol mandate. They think it is a good idea to grow corn to end up burning it in our cars. Why can't we have this debate? Why can't we have a vote? Why can't we resolve these issues on the Senate floor? But we do not. We spend the whole week waiting and wondering whether we might be allowed to have one or two amendments, only to find out, of course, as usual, we get none. So another week goes by with nothing productive being done on the Senate floor and legislation that could be a vehicle for a meaningful, robust debate about energy policy in America--I have just given two examples. We have dozens of subjects we could be debating. We did not insist on having all of them. But a handful of ideas? It is shocking to me--shocking that we cannot allow the Senate to function, that Senator Reid insists we cannot have an open amendment process. It is disturbing because, of course, historically this was the body that did exactly that, had the open amendment process, had the open debate. This was the--I am chuckling because it seems so odd now, but historically the Senate was considered the world's greatest deliberative body because we would deliberate. The Senate used to do this. The way it used to operate is the majority party would control the agenda, would decide what was on the floor and that is fair enough--but then, once the majority leader would decide what bill was on the floor, then it would be open for debate, until essentially the body exhausted itself and Members were finished offering amendments, and then we would have a final passage vote. Nothing even remotely similar to that is happening today. I know a number of my colleagues, including the distinguished Presiding Officer, have served in the House. It is unbelievable to me that now, for an extended period of time, the House is having much more robust debate and far more amendment votes, by both the majority and the minority party, than we are permitted to even consider in the Senate. This is a sorry state of affairs. It has been 7 years since the last debate on energy policy. An energy efficiency bill has come to the floor, and energy efficiency amendments are not permitted to have a discussion or a vote. That is what the Senate has come to. I urge my colleagues and urge the majority party, in particular, which controls this body, and urge the majority leader: Allow the Senate to function. Allow us to actually have a debate. Allow us to have some amendments. It is actually not that excruciating to have a vote, and in a matter of a very short period of time, we could mow down lots of amendments and move on to the next important piece of legislation. Energy is a very important issue for our country, for our economy, for every consumer, and it deserves to have a more serious consideration than it is getting. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TOOMEY. I withhold my request.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the heroic acts of students and teachers during the crisis at Franklin Regional High School in Murrysville, PA. The entire community displayed astounding courage in the face of tragedy. On the morning of April 9, 2014, a knife-wielding student assaulted students and teachers at Franklin Regional High School. During the attack, 24 people were injured, some gravely. However, thanks to the selfless actions of students, faculty, and support staff, the attacker was subdued and additional harm was prevented. Students shielded friends from danger and administered emergency first aid, an attentive student had the composure to sound the fire alarm to warn people to exit the building, and several brave individuals put their safety on the line to incapacitate the attacker. At a time of crisis, the Franklin Regional family proved their commitment to one another. I also want to acknowledge the brave actions of law enforcement and emergency personnel whose quick arrival ensured the safety of our students. Their prompt arrival provided lifesaving medical attention to injured students and the community remains indebted to their vigilance. I believe that the Senate should recognize the Franklin Regional community for their bravery and resiliency. It is imperative that the community knows that our country shares their grief and stands with them as they overcome this tragedy.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I thank my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Manchin, for his terrific efforts on this legislation. I also want to thank our other cosponsors, Senators McConnell and Inhofe, for their support as well. The tragic story that inspired this bill has a connection to my State of Pennsylvania and Senator Manchin's State of West Virginia, so it made it kind of a natural for us to work together on this. It is a terrible story indeed, and I want to summarize it because it goes to the heart of why I am here this morning. The story begins in Delaware County, PA, where one of the schoolteachers was found to have molested several boys and raped one. Prosecutors decided there was not enough evidence to actually press charges, but the school knew what had happened. So they dismissed the teacher for this outrageous behavior. But shockingly, and somewhat disturbingly, the school also helped this teacher get a new job so they could pass him along and let him become someone else's problem. It happened the new job was in West Virginia. The Pennsylvania school even went so far as to send a letter of recommendation for this monster to get that job in West Virginia, which he did get. He became a teacher, then a school principal, and while there he raped and murdered a 12- year-old boy named Jeremy Bell in West Virginia. Justice finally caught up with that teacher, and he is now in jail, serving a life sentence for that murder. For Jeremy Bell, unfortunately, justice came way too late. But Jeremy Bell's father decided he would not rest until he had done everything he possibly could to minimize the chance that any other child or parent would ever experience a similar tragedy. Roy Bell is Jeremy's dad. He worked with Congress to create protections for children to ensure they would not be victimized at school, and the House of Representatives responded. In October of last year, the House unanimously passed the Protecting Students Against Sexual and Violent Predators Act. Unfortunately, there too, in a way, it was a few days too late. Jeremy Bell's dad passed away 3 days before the vote. But it passed the House, and it passed, as I said, unanimously in the House. Now we are here in the Senate with a chance to pass the same bill so it can become law. This is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill I introduced with Senator Manchin. It is a bill that has other cosponsors. I know there are some folks who say: Well, let's wait, we need more time. I say we have had enough waiting. We have waited too long. Let me explain why we shouldn't wait another day. I will start with two numbers. The first number is 130. Senator Manchin mentioned this number. Since January 1 of this year, 130 teachers have been arrested across America for sexual misconduct with children. That is more than one teacher every day. And these are the ones who have been caught. How many more are happening? The stories are absolutely heartbreaking: A teacher's aide who undressed and sexually assaulted a mentally disabled boy in his care; a child whose abuse began at age 10 and only ended when at age 17 she found herself pregnant with the teacher's child; the 16-year-old raped by her instructor in a classroom closet; one teacher after another caught with images of child pornography; a special education kindergarten girl forced to go shirtless in class. These things are unbelievable. But every day we delay, we delay rooting out one of these predators. The other number I want to share is the number 73. According to the GAO--the Government Accountability Office--the average pedophile molests 73 children over the course of a lifetime. These predators are very devious. They are clever and they are smart. What they do is go where the potential victims are. And where are there potential victims for a pedophile? What better place than a school. So they do in fact go to schools, and from school to school and school district to school district. Every day we delay, we increase the risk a predator is moving on to the next of his 73 victims. So what can we do? Here is what our bill does. Our bill, the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act, is an important first step. It would require mandatory background checks for existing and prospective employees and then require the checks be periodically repeated, the timing of which would be left to the discretion of the States. There are five States that do not require checks at all. The bill would also check to make sure all employees or contractors who have unsupervised contact with children would be subject to this background check--not just teachers but coaches, schoolbus drivers, anyone who has unsupervised contact with the kids. There are 12 States that don't require that now. The bill requires a more thorough background check. For instance, in Pennsylvania, there is a background check requirement. But if you have lived in the State for more than 2 years, it does not require a background check on the Federal criminal database, and yet we know these people move across State lines. A fourth and important piece is that our bill forbids what has sadly developed its own name--passing the trash. This idea, this practice, unfortunately, of actually recommending the predator to another job in another school or another State so as to get rid of the problem and let him become someone else's is so disturbing it is hard to imagine anyone would do this, but we know it happens. We know it happens. And a given State doesn't have the power to prevent some school district in another State from doing exactly this, as happened in the case of Jeremy Bell. There is a list of folks who under our legislation a school would simply not be able to hire: anyone ever convicted of any violent or sexual crime against a child. I think that makes a lot of sense. There are certain felonies that would also preclude a person from ever being hired: homicide, child abuse or neglect, rape or sexual assault, and a few others. In addition, a person who was convicted in the last 5 years of a felony physical assault or battery or a felony drug-related offense would create a 5-year prohibition against hiring such a person. The enforcement mechanism we have is withholding Federal funds, which would be the inducement for the States to adopt these requirements. Let me stress that this bill has broad support. I mentioned before this passed the House unanimously. There was not a single objection in the House. It has bipartisan support here in the Senate. Various child advocacy groups are fully in support: the National Children's Alliance, the Children's Defense Fund, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Prosecutors and prosecutor associations--the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys and the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association--both fully endorse this legislation. Teachers groups: the American Federation of Teachers and the Pennsylvania School Boards Association. I forget how many former teachers in the House--I think 19 or so--all voted for this bill. I am willing to venture the overwhelming majority of the American people would support this effort to keep our kids as safe as we can. I would also stress there is nothing radical about these proposals. In the Senate we just passed a very similar background check requirement in the child care development block grant legislation, where we insist on almost identical background checks for employees of daycares. That makes perfect sense to me. It is a good step. It is very likely to help protect children in our daycares. But why in the world would we protect the kids in daycare and not provide comparable protection for kids who have gone on to later grades? This is a bipartisan commonsense bill that has passed the House unanimously. This is our opportunity to pass it in the Senate and send it to the President for his signature. I believe it is a moral imperative we do this to protect these kids. It didn't come soon enough for Jeremy Bell. And sadly, every day we learn there are more victims. But now is the time we can act. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1596 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, needless to say, I am extremely disappointed that we find ourselves here at this impasse with nothing accomplished, and who knows how long it will take to get something accomplished. I will point out that the Senate, I think just last week, voted for nearly identical background check language in the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act. We voted for this. This is the language vetted by this committee. If it is vital to keep kids safe at a daycare--which I think it is-- why isn't it just as vital to keep kids or their older siblings safe for the rest of the day? I don't think we need to go through the committee to answer that question. We have waited long enough. This is the 16th background check bill which has been introduced in the House or the Senate since 2009, and here we have nothing on the Senate floor. The committees had 5 years to act. The committees had 5 months when they could have taken up this bill at any time, marked it up, and moved it through the process, but they didn't do this. As far as using the committee process, I am generally a fan of going through the committee. But let's not pretend that is how we normally operate around here. There are 27 bills so far in this Congress which have received floor consideration without going through a committee at all--7 under the jurisdiction of this committee. Last Congress there were 42 bills which received floor votes without going through committee. Let's be candid. In just the last week or so, and looking forward another week or two, we have more legislation under the jurisdiction of this committee. Whether it is paycheck fairness or a minimum wage bill, those are under the jurisdiction of this committee. They are going to be brought to the floor without having gone through the committee. By the way, those are bills we know are going nowhere. Those are political statement bills. So is it more important to get bills that are political statements to the Senate floor than it is legislation which could actually be signed to protect kids from violent predators? This seems to me to be a very misordering of priorities. I say to my colleague, for whom I have a great deal of respect and with whom I generally find myself in agreement, on this issue I happen to disagree with the senior Senator from Tennessee. In my view, this is not a mandate on the States. If a State chooses not to develop the background checks we have put into this bill, then we would withhold the ESEA funding, which is 3.5 percent of total funding. That is not insignificant. But it leaves it up to the State to decide. We think kids ought to be safe in schools. If they disagree about the background checks, OK, then they don't have to take this funding. The Supreme Court, by the way, has agreed that this does not represent coercion. It does not amount to coercion when it is on this scale. The second point I would make in this regard is part of this legislation absolutely requires Federal legislation. As I mentioned briefly in my comments earlier, this all originated from a case where a school in one State sent a letter of recommendation to a school in another State for one of these monsters to be hired. Frankly, I don't know how the school in the State where this person ended up could have prevented that from happening. But Federal legislation can prevent that, and I think it should. So I am deeply disappointed we are not able to move to this today. I hope we will be able to soon. I think my colleague from West Virginia had a point he wished to make, so I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on S. 1596, the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act. Before I do that, though, I want to say a few words about a terrible event that occurred this morning in Pennsylvania. The students at Franklin Regional High School in Murrysville, PA, suffered a terrible, devastating tragedy this morning. A person--and this person is believed to be a fellow student--took out a knife and attacked his fellow students before the start of the school day. It appears that as many as 20 people were injured, some severely. Our thanks go out to the first responders who did respond as rapidly as they could, and our prayers go out to those who were injured and their families at Franklin Regional High School. Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act Mr. President, I want to turn to this bill that I have introduced, the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act, S. 1596. I want to thank my cosponsors, Senator Joe Manchin and Senator Mitch McConnell. The inspiration for this bill begins with a story of a boy named Jeremy Bell. The story begins in Delaware County, PA. One of the school teachers in the school in Delaware County was found to have molested several boys and raped one of them. Prosecutors decided there was not enough evidence to bring a case. The school knew about what was happening and decided to dismiss the teacher for this appalling behavior. What was so amazing and disturbing is the school also helped this predator land a job at another school in West Virginia, even passing on a letter of recommendation so they could move their problem somewhere else. The story ended in 1997 when that teacher, by then a school principal, raped and murdered 12-year-old Jeremy Bell in West Virginia. Justice finally caught up with that teacher who is now in jail serving a life sentence for that murder. But for Jeremy Bell justice came way too late. Jeremy Bell's father wouldn't rest until he knew he had done all he could to help to ensure that no child or parent would ever experience a similar tragedy. Roy Bell, Jeremy's father, worked with Congress to create protections for children to ensure they were not victimized at school. I think for him it was some consolation for his loss. The House of Representatives responded to this terrible, terrible tragedy. On October 22 of last year, the House unanimously passed the Protecting Students Against Sexual and Violent Predators Act. But again, sadly, justice came too late. Jeremy Bell's father passed away just 3 days before the vote. So we are now in the Senate with a chance to pass the same bill, a bill that has already passed the House unanimously. It is a bipartisan bill. The bill that I introduced is a companion legislation. As I mentioned, we have bipartisan support for this bill, but I hear some people suggesting that maybe we should wait, maybe now is not the right time. Maybe we need more time. I want to say as strongly as I can that we have had enough waiting. We have wasted enough time. Let me explain why we cannot wait another day. I want to start with 2 numbers, the first is 130. Since January 1 of this year, 130 teachers have been arrested across America for sexual misconduct with children. That is more than 1 teacher arrested for each day of the year so far. And that is, of course, only those who have been caught and arrested. Every moment that we delay we are delaying rooting out some of these problems. The other number is 73, and 73 is the number that comes from the Government Accountability Office. GAO says that the average pedophile molests 73 children over the course of that pedophile's lifetime. These predators actively seek out the environment where they can find victims. That is what they do. What better place for them than schools. They go from school district to school district, sometimes from State to State, methodically looking for victims. Every moment we delay we let a predator move on to the next of his 73 victims. The damage that these predators do is just enormous. It is damage far beyond what any number can convey. Over the past few months I have had a chance to visit a number of child advocacy centers around Pennsylvania, meeting with the men and women who work with abused children, whether it is helping them through the criminal justice system or just helping them to start the healing process. These folks do some incredibly important and very, very good work. But again, you cannot visit one of these centers without being profoundly impacted by how devastating the abuse is. I cannot come up with the words to convey how devastating it is, but I can let some of the children speak for themselves. I am going to quote from two students who were victims. Shannon was raped by a teacher. The teacher was later convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to life in prison. Nine years later here is what Shannon wrote: When I was a senior in high school, Mr. Peterson approached me and said I would need to go to night school if I wanted enough credits to graduate on time. And of course he taught those courses--a computer class. I was 17, and he raped me four times over the course of the year. He said he would fail me if I ever told. He also hit me and made threats against me and my family. So I didn't tell. I held it in for a year and a half. In the end 66 people offered to testify against Peterson. His first victim dated back to the year I was born. Some of those who spoke up were parents. Their daughters had complained at the time but nothing was done. That made me very angry. It still does. I learned that a handful of teachers and two principals knew about him. And his teaching license had been revoked in Michigan years before, but no one knew why. I am different because of what happened. I have to watch people all the time, analyze them. I can't be carefree. Now I have a 7-year-old son and two daughters, ages 3 and 1. I will home school my girls. Next is a case of a boy from South Carolina named Gary, one of at least 29 boys abused by a teacher, Mr. Fisher, over the teacher's 37- year career. The teacher is serving 20 years in prison. Two school principals were sued for allegedly covering up the abuse. What Gary wrote is as follows: I was 9 when it started. The abuse was frequent and long- term--until I went to college. I knew there were others, too, but until it all came out I never knew how many. You feel so guilty, so ashamed. It's frightening now to look back and see how calculating Fisher was. I did everything I could to get kicked out of school. I was in the guidance counselor's office all the time. Finally, in tenth grade I got myself kicked out for cheating. By the time I went to college I was drinking all the time. I was terrified to quit because then I would have to feel. But I couldn't drink and do school, so I entered rehab. I was 18. It took me a year and a half, and I've been sober since. My life is good now for the first time. You can survive it, but you have to deal with it. He goes on to say: I always felt that what the school did was far worse than what Fisher did. Fisher was sick, an evil monster. But [the school] just calculated the damage to its public relations. We kids were disposable, which is a whole other category of evil. So the question before us is what are we going to do about this? What can we do? What are we going to do? My bill, the Protecting Students From Sexual and Violent Predators Act is a sensible first step in protecting these kids. It would require a mandatory background check for existing and perspective employees, and the checks would have to be periodically repeated. There are five States today that don't require any background check at all. The second thing my bill would do is it would check all employees or contractors who have unsupervised contact with children--not just teachers, coaches, and school bus drivers. Anybody who has contact with kids in my view should undergo this background check. There are 12 States in which there is no such requirement from contractors. My bill would also require a more thorough background check. It would require a check of four major databases, both State and Federal. In Pennsylvania, for instance, if an employee has been living in the State for 2 years or more, there is no Federal background check at all, only the State check, and I don't think it is adequate. The way these predators move from State to State, I think it requires that we check the Federal database. Importantly, my bill would also ban what we call ``passing the trash.'' This is the horrendous practice whereby the school discovers they have a predator and they intentionally ease the predator out and sometimes actually facilitate that predator getting a job somewhere else. That should be illegal, and my bill would make it illegal. The fifth thing that my legislation does is it would stipulate that schools cannot hire a person who has ever been convicted of any violent or sexual crime against a child. I think that is a very reasonable first step. In addition, it would ban hiring of a number of specific felonies-- not all felonies, but felonies such as homicide, child abuse or neglect, crimes against a child including pornography, spousal abuse, rape, sexual assault, and kidnapping. Any of those felonies are so egregious it would qualify to keep a person excluded from working with children. In addition, anyone convicted of a felony physical assault or battery or a felony drug-related offense would be prohibited for 5 years, couldn't be hired for 5 years. The enforcement of all of this would be that if a State refused to adopt these very commonsense measures to protect kids, then they would get no Federal funding from the EASA. I think the States would adopt these reforms. I would point out there is nothing the least bit radical about these proposals. In addition to having passed the House of Representatives unanimously, we in the Senate just passed virtually an identical background check requirement on the Child Care and Development Block Grant legislation we adopted last week or perhaps the week before--very recently. That bill essentially had identical background check provisions for daycare workers, and that is very sensible. That is an important and good step. It makes sense to protect children in daycare, but it makes no sense whatsoever to protect kids in daycare and then leave them defenseless when they move on to an ordinary school. Finally, I want to emphasize that this bill has broad bipartisan support manifested in the House and here in the Senate. More than that, I think it is a moral imperative. Our children deserve to be protected now. If that is not a responsibility we have, I don't know what is. The protection didn't come soon enough for Jeremy Bell or Shannon or Gary, but we don't have to fail other children by delay. I ask any of my colleagues who object to this legislation that passed unanimously in the House--legislation that is completely consistent with what we passed a couple of weeks ago--to please come forward with their concerns or issues. I welcome hearing any objections, if there are any, but I want to see a very speedy passage of this legislation. It is my intention tomorrow to come down here to the Senate floor and ask for unanimous consent from my colleagues to pass this legislation here on the Senate floor. That will expedite this process and that will assure we put this important safeguard in place as soon as we possibly can. Ex-Im Bank I have one other issue I want to address briefly before I yield the floor, and that is about the Ex-Im Bank. I believe this afternoon we will be considering a nominee to a very senior post at the Ex-Im bank. My focus is not principally on this particular candidate, but I think we need to ask ourselves some important questions about the way the Ex- Im Bank operates and what it does and how it does it. I hope we will make some very significant changes when we get to the reauthorization debate in the fall. First of all, I should point out this is an institution--the Ex-Im Bank--that gives rise to a very substantial taxpayer risk, and it is large and growing. In 2007, Ex-Im Bank's total exposure was $57 billion. Today it is almost precisely twice that amount. It is $113 billion, and the Ex-Im Bank wishes to increase that exposure further. In 2013, the GAO, after doing an audit, found multiple weaknesses in Ex-Im's risk management processes, failures to account for changing environments that could lead to higher losses, lapses that would not be acceptable in fully private institutions. Another point I wish to make is--I hope we don't kid ourselves about this; I know sometimes people suggest to the contrary--taxpayers are systematically subsidizing the activity of the Ex-Im Bank, and the risk that taxpayers are taking is not adequately compensated. How do we know this? We know this because buyers of products that are subject to Ex-Im Bank financing get the Ex-Im Bank financing because no private lender is willing to make the loan or, if they are, they are not willing to do it under terms as generous as the Ex-Im Bank. That is all the evidence we need to confirm that they are systematically underpricing the risks they are taking, and I find that very objectionable. There is another concern I have, and that is the nature of the activity, the financial subsidization it provides for certain overseas buyers of some American exports. The nature of this process inevitably creates winners and losers back here in the United States. The Ex-Im Bank effectively subsidizes--and I will give one example. Indian Airlines gets a subsidy to purchase Boeing jets, and that is very nice, except that Indian Airlines competes directly with some American airlines and American companies. They are direct competitors, but they don't get the advantageous funding. Yet their foreign-based competitor does. How can that possibly be fair? How can that possibly make sense? My final point is that one of the most predictable things in the world is that when we create a government entity to engage in an economic activity, that entity will be politicized. It is a creature of Congress and the government. It is going to be affected. Sure enough, it didn't take long for that to happen. It already happened in the Ex- Im Bank. I have seen Members of this body come down to this floor and attempt to offer amendments that would require, for instance, certain quotas that the Ex-Im Bank must lend to certain places in the world that are geographically favored by particular Members for whatever reasons. There are other mandates on Ex-Im Bank's financing, such as that it must accommodate certain economic activities or certain products. This has nothing to do with market forces or general exports. This has everything to do with the politics that individual cares about. This is the kind of politicization and distortion that inevitably occurs. In my view, we ought to make it a high priority of our trade discussions to insist with our trading partners around the world that we have a mutual and reciprocal phasing out of these counterproductive, taxpayer-subsidized export entries. While we will not have the opportunity to do that with respect to this nominee we are going to consider this afternoon, we will have the opportunity to do it when the reauthorization debate begins in the fall, and I hope my colleagues will engage in that debate. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

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

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

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak in support of two nominees for Federal judgeships from Pennsylvania. I believe my colleague Senator Casey is going to have a message he will share with us momentarily. First, I wish to be very clear that I am very enthusiastically in support of both Judge Ed Smith and Mr. Gerald McHugh, the two nominees, both of whom are likely to get a vote this week. If confirmed, they will serve as U.S. district judges for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley for their work in ushering these candidates through the committee process. I thank Leader Reid and Leader McConnell for their role in ensuring these nominees would have a chance to have a vote on the Senate floor. Most of all, I thank my colleague Senator Casey. Senator Casey and I have been working hard to fill a number of vacancies on the Federal bench in Pennsylvania since I got to the Senate. He predates my arrival here, so he has been at this longer than I have, but since I have arrived we have had a terrific working relationship. We have had eight terrific men and women confirmed to the Federal bench across Pennsylvania. Hopefully, these two gentlemen will join them and we will be up to 10. We have developed a rigorous process by which the many candidates who apply for these vacancies are thoroughly vetted, and I am very pleased that we have been able to make this ongoing process work. Pennsylvanians expect us to work together across party lines--a Democratic Senator and a Republican Senator--to simply find the best candidates. I have to say that I think we are doing exactly that with respect to our judicial nominees, and there could be no better examples than Judge Smith and Gerald McHugh. Ed Smith was approved by the Judiciary Committee by a voice vote on January 16. He is very well respected. I have known Judge Smith for nearly 20 years. There is no question that he has the requisite skills, the knowledge, the background, and the acumen. He will be a great Federal judge. We know this because of what he has already accomplished in his career. He serves as a captain in the U.S. Navy, in the JAG Corps. He has been a commanding officer at the Navy Reserve Naval Justice School. He served as a military trial judge in the Navy Reserve. He was deployed to Iraq in 2007 and 2008 to serve as a rule of law advisor to the Iraqis, and he received a Bronze Star for his service. Currently, Ed Smith is a judge on the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas. He has been a partner in the law firm of DeRaymond & Smith, and he is a cum laude graduate from Dickinson Law School. Importantly, Judge Smith has agreed that if he is confirmed, he will sit in the Easton Courthouse in the First District. That is a courthouse which has not had a district court judge since 2004. The people of Northampton County deserve to have that courthouse filled, and Judge Smith is an outstanding candidate to do it. I am also delighted to support Gerald McHugh. Gerald McHugh is a highly accomplished attorney, of very keen intellect, with a great commitment to public service. He is currently a partner in the Raynes McCarty firm. His work has mostly been in civil litigation, in medical malpractice, in litigation regarding unsafe products, aviation disasters, and in civil rights. He has been a shareholder in the firm of Litvin, Blumberg, Matusow & Young. He began his career clerking for District Court Judge Luongo in the Eastern District. He is a cum laude graduate from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Gerald McHugh is not only a skilled lawyer, but he has been very active in his community. He has been giving back to the greater Philadelphia area for a long time. He is on the boards of many charitable and civic organizations. He is the president of the Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network and has been since 2004. He cofounded the Hospitality House of Philadelphia to help ex-offenders, and he does pro bono work to improve neighborhoods and prevent crime in West Philadelphia. Both of these candidates have the crucial qualities necessary to make outstanding judges, and they have manifested that throughout their very distinguished careers. They have the intelligence, they have the integrity, they have the commitment to public service, and they have respect for the limited role the judiciary has under our constitutional system. So I am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of these two highly accomplished nominees, and I urge my colleagues to support their confirmation later this week. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

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

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I rise this morning to speak on the nomination of Debo P. Adegbile as the candidate to serve as the Director of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. He would be the assistant attorney general in the Justice Department if he were to be confirmed. It was 3:55 a.m. on December 9, 1981, when 25-year-old Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner was brutally murdered in the line of duty. A few weeks ago, Officer Faulkner's widow Maureen Faulkner pleaded with the Senate Judiciary Committee to listen to her story. It is a heartbreaking story. It is a story about how 32 years ago a coldblooded killer murdered her husband and how political opportunists then seized the chance to deny her justice and propagate a very pernicious set of lies. It is also a story about how President Obama's current nominee to head the Civil Rights Department, this fellow, Debo Adegbile, joined in this gross abuse of our legal system. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee--our Democratic colleagues--did not allow Maureen Faulkner to testify when the committee was considering this nominee. I think Maureen Faulkner deserves to be heard. I think she has a right to be heard. We have heard a lot of voices and a lot of arguments in this discussion. I think Maureen Faulkner's voice deserves to be heard. Since she was not permitted to testify before the committee, I wish to read to my colleagues in the Senate the letter she sent to all of us, and I will begin now. Maureen Faulkner writes: Dear Senators, while I would have preferred to do so personally, I'm writing this letter appealing to your sense of right and wrong, good and evil, as you consider the nomination of Debo Adegbile to be the next head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Thirty-three years ago my husband, Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner, was violently murdered by a self- professed ``revolutionary'' named Mumia Abu-Jamal. I was 24 years old. While most of my friends spent their summer at the Jersey Shore, I sat in a hot steamy courtroom and watched in horror and disbelief as the man who murdered my husband tried to turn the courtroom into a political stage where he could spew his hatred and contempt for this country and our judicial system. At the moment my husband's blood stained shirt was displayed by the evidence handler, Mumia Abu-Jamal turned in his chair and smirked at me; demonstrating his contempt for law enforcement. Thankfully, a racially mixed jury that was selected by Abu- Jamal while representing himself, found him guilty. The following day they sentenced him to death for the brutal act he committed. That's when my second nightmare began. For three decades, my family and I endured appeal after appeal, each rooted in lies, distortions, and allegations of civil rights violations. And year after year, judge after judge, the conviction and sentence were unanimously upheld. Then, thirty years after the fact, my family, society and I were denied justice when three Federal District Court judges who have found error in every capital case that has come before them, overturned the death sentence. Today, as my husband lies thirty-three years in the grave, his killer has become a wealthy celebrity. He pens books and social commentaries critical of our country. He regularly uses his nearly unlimited access to the prison telephone to do radio programs, has cable TV in his cell and is permitted to hold his wife, children and grandchildren in his arms when they visit. Old wounds have once again been ripped open and additional insult is brought upon our law enforcement community in this country by President Obama's nomination of Debo Adegbile. While publicly demonstrating that he doesn't even know my husband's name, Mr. Adegbile feigns sympathy and caring for my family and me. In reality, Mr. Adegbile was a willing and enthusiastic accomplice in Mumia Abu-Jamal's bid to cheat us of the justice we had waited so many years for. Mr. Adegbile freely chose to throw the weight of his organization behind Mumia Abu-Jamal, and he has publicly stated that he would get Mumia Abu-Jamal off death row. Mr. Adegbile holds Mumia Abu-Jamal, a remorseless unrepentant cop killer, in high esteem. We know this because attorneys working under Mr. Adegbile stood before public rallies held in support of my husband's killer and openly professed that it was ``an extreme honor'' to represent the man who put a hollow based bullet into my husband's brain as he lay on the ground, wounded, unarmed and defenseless. And while Mr. Adegbile and those who support his nomination will undoubtedly argue that he did not personally make such statements, he did nothing to counter or stop them. In the end, like so many attorneys before him, Mr. Adegbile's allegations of civil rights abuse rang hollow. Mumia Abu-Jamal's death sentence was overturned not because of civil rights abuse as alleged by Mr. Adegbile, but because three judges with a personal dislike for capital punishment conveniently determined that the wording in a standard form given to a jury might have confused them. While Debo Adegbile may be a well-qualified and competent litigator, through his words, his decisions and his actions he has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that he is not the best person to fill this important position. Certainly there are others with similar qualifications that would be better choices. I would argue that Mr. Adegbile's decision to defend a cop killer should preclude him from holding any public position. Your decision means a lot to me personally. The thought that Mr. Adegbile will be rewarded, in part, for the work he did for my husband's killer is revolting. Throughout my long ordeal I have frequently been labeled a racist by many who support my husband's killer simply because he is black and I white. I have also been asked to throw my name, my voice and my support behind political candidates from both parties. In each case I have declined. I have always believed that my husband's death and my quest for justice transcends politics and race. From my heart, I'm asking you to do the same thing. Set aside any partisan feelings you have and do the right thing today when you vote on Mr. Adegbile's confirmation. Please spare my family and me from further pain. Sincerely, Maureen Faulkner. To conclude, as the Justice Department's Web site explains, the Civil Rights Division ``fulfills a critical mission in upholding the civil and constitutional rights of all individuals.'' This requires the head of the Civil Rights Division to have an absolute commitment to truth and justice. There are many highly qualified Americans who can carry out this critical mission--and it is a critical mission. Mr. Adegbile's record and what he actually has done create serious doubt that he is one of them. For these reasons I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture on the nomination of Mr. Adegbile to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of Debo Adegbile to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Some Americans may vaguely recall Mumia Abu-Jamal from the ``Free Mumia'' T-shirts and posters that once cluttered college campuses. Maureen Faulkner will forever remember him as a cold-blooded cop killer who left her as a widow at age 24. Maureen Faulkner has endured three decades of endless appeals and a dishonest international campaign to turn her husband's killer into a celebrated icon for some on the radical left. Now one of the lawyers who helped promote that campaign, Debo Adegbile, has been nominated to lead the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. This cannot stand and I hope the Senate will not confirm him. Let's review the facts. At 3:51 a.m. on December 9, 1981, 25-year-old police officer Daniel Faulkner pulled over a car in the city of Philadelphia. The car's headlights were off, driving the wrong way down a one-way street. The driver exited the car and began assaulting Officer Faulkner. The driver's brother, Mumia Abu-Jamal, was watching from across the street. Four eyewitnesses saw Abu-Jamal race across the street, shoot Daniel Faulkner in the back, and while Officer Faulkner was lying helplessly on the ground, Mumia Abu-Jamal shot several more bullets into Faulkner's chest and face. Three other witnesses heard Abu-Jamal brag that he had shot Daniel Faulkner and hoped that Faulkner would die. During the trial, when Daniel Faulkner's bloodstained shirt was displayed, the jury saw Abu-Jamal turn in his chair and smirk at Officer Faulkner's young widow Maureen. So it was no surprise when a Pennsylvania jury took just 3 hours to convict Abu-Jamal of murder, and the next day 2 hours to sentence him to death. Instead of allowing Daniel Faulkner's young widow to grieve in peace, a group of political opportunists decided to use this case to further their own political agendas. They fabricated claims of racism. They spread lies about the trial and the evidence. They organized rallies that, amazingly, portrayed Mumia Abu-Jamal as the victim. Before long, Abu-Jamal was a cause celebre, complete with adoring Hollywood celebrities, ``Free Mumia'' T-shirts and posters. He had his own HBO special, and they even named a street after him in Paris. In 2009, 27 years after Daniel Faulkner's murder, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, or LDF, decided they would join the fray. For decades before Mr. Adegbile assumed his leadership role in the LDF, the LDF served as a force for truth and justice for all Americans--a very important and well-deserved reputation for having done that. But, unfortunately, LDF's representation of Abu-Jamal promoted neither truth nor justice. It is important to point out this is not a case about every accused person deserving a legal defense. That is a principle upon which I hope there is no disagreement, certainly not from me. The fact is, though, Abu-Jamal had multiple high-cost lawyers already volunteering their time. Mr. Adegbile was director of litigation for the LDF. He told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he ``supervised the entire legal staff'' at LDF--18 lawyers. Also, he was, in the words of the LDF's own Web site, responsible for LDF's advocacy ``both in the courts of law and in the court of public opinion.'' This is important to understand because this duty to supervise has very specific implications for lawyers. A lawyer must confirm that the lawyers he oversees are honest while presenting facts in a case. The law backs this up. Supervising lawyers can be sued for malpractice or sanctioned by a court for the actions of the lawyers he or she supervises. And how did the LDF's lawyers comport themselves under Mr. Adegbile's direction and leadership and supervision? Well, under Mr. Adegbile's oversight, LDF lawyers promoted the pernicious myth that Abu-Jamal was an innocent man and that he was framed because of his race. There was never any merit to the claims of racism. That was a conclusion that was investigated and reached by both State and Federal courts. In fact, the jury that convicted and sentenced Abu-Jamal to death included two African Americans and would have included one more except that Abu-Jamal himself ordered his lawyer not to seat that third juror. Yet, in February of 2011, Mr. Adegbile's group issued a press release stating that ``Mumia Abu-Jamal's conviction and death sentence are relics of a time and place that was notorious for police abuse and racial discrimination.'' In May of 2011, two of the lawyers supervised by Mr. Adegbile traveled to France. They went there for a rally on behalf of Mumia Abu- Jamal. One LDF lawyer said she was ``overjoyed'' that Abu-Jamal's death sentence was suspended, but she bemoaned the fact that Abu-Jamal would not have a new trial and so could not be set free. The other LDF lawyer described Abu-Jamal as one of the ``people who are innocent'' but ``will continue to be put to death in America.'' At another event in New York City that same year, a lawyer working for Mr. Adegbile gushed, ``It is absolutely my honor to represent Mumia Abu-Jamal.'' She continued: ``there is no question in my mind, there is no question in the mind of anyone at the Legal Defense Fund, that the justice system has completely and utterly failed Mumia Abu-Jamal'' and that failure ``has everything to do with race.'' I agree that the justice system has failed. But it has failed Officer Danny Faulkner and his family. No one understands this story of injustice better than Officer Danny Faulkner's widow Maureen. Maureen Faulkner pleaded with the Senate Judiciary Committee for a chance to tell her story, for a chance to testify before the committee as they were deliberating the candidacy of Mr. Adegbile. But the Senate Democrats on the committee would not allow her to testify. They did not let her tell her story and, instead, they voted to send his name on to the Senate floor for confirmation. I think Maureen Faulkner has a right to be heard. So I hope my colleagues will listen as I read a letter she wrote addressing all of us: Dear Senators, While I would have preferred to do so personally, I'm writing this letter appealing to your sense of right and wrong, good and evil as you consider the nomination of Debo Adegbile to be the next head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. 33 years ago my husband, Philadelphia Officer Daniel Faulkner, was violently murdered by a self-professed ``revolutionary'' named Mumia Abu-Jamal. I was 24 years old. While most of my friends spent their summer at the Jersey Shore, I sat in a hot steamy courtroom and watched in horror and disbelief as the man who murdered my husband tried to turn the courtroom into a political stage where he could spew his hatred and contempt for this country and our judicial system. At the moment my husband's blood stained shirt was displayed by the evidence handler, Mumia Abu-Jamal turned in his chair and smirked at me; demonstrating his contempt for law enforcement. Thankfully, a racially mixed jury that was selected by Abu-Jamal while representing himself, found him guilty. The following day they sentenced him to death for the brutal act he committed. That's when my second nightmare began. For three decades, my family and I endured appeal after appeal--each rooted in lies, distortions and allegations of civil rights violations. And year after year, judge after judge, the conviction and sentence were unanimously upheld. Then, thirty years after the fact, my family, society and I were denied justice when three Federal District Court judges who have found error in every capital case that has come before them overturned the death sentence. Today, as my husband lies thirty three years in the grave, his killer has become a wealthy celebrity. He pens books and social commentaries critical of our country. He regularly uses his nearly unlimited access to the prison telephone to do radio programs, has cable TV in his cell and is permitted to hold his wife, children and grandchildren in his arms when they visit. Old wounds have once again been ripped open and additional insult is brought upon our law enforcement community in this country by President Obama's nomination of Debo Adegbile. While publicly demonstrating that he doesn't even know my husband's name, Mr. Adegbile fains sympathy and caring for my family and me. In reality, Mr. Adegbile was a willing and enthusiastic accomplish in Mumia Abu-Jamal's bid to cheat us of the justice we had waited so many years for. Mr. Adegbile freely chose to throw the weight of his organization behind Mumia Abu-Jamal and he has publicly stated that he would get Mumia Abu-Jamal off death row. Mr. Adegbile holds Mumia Abu-Jamal, a remorseless unrepentant cop killer, in high esteem. We know this because attorneys working under Mr. Adegbile's supervision have stood before public rallies held in support of my husband's killer and openly professed that it was ``an extreme honor'' to represent the man who put a hollow based bullet into my husband's brain as he lay on the ground, wounded, unarmed and defenseless. And while Mr. Adegbile and those who support his nomination will undoubtedly argue that he did not personally make such statements, he did nothing to counter or stop them. In the end, like so many attorneys before him, Mr. Adegbile's allegations of civil rights abuse rang hollow. Mumia Abu-Jamal's death sentence was overturned not because of civil right abuse as alleged by Mr. Adegbile, but because three judges with a personal dislike for capital punishment conveniently determined that the wording in a standard form given to the jury might have confused them. While Debo Adegbile may be a well qualified and competent litigator, through his words, his decisions and his actions, he has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that he is not the best person to fill this important position. Certainly there are others with similar qualifications that would be better choices. I would argue that Mr. Adegbile's decision to defend a cop killer should preclude him from holding any public position. Your decision means a lot to me personally. The thought that Mr. Adegbile would be rewarded, in part, for the work he did for my husband's killer is revolting. Throughout my long ordeal I have frequently been labeled a racist by many who support my husband's killer simply because he is black and I white. I have also been asked to throw my name, my voice and my support behind political candidates from both parties. In each case I have declined. I have always believed that my husband's death and my quest for justice transcends politics and race. From my heart, I'm asking you to do the same thing. Set aside any partisan feelings you have and do the right thing today when you vote on Mr. Adegbile's confirmation. Please spare my family and me from further pain. Sincerely, Maureen Faulkner. As the Justice Department's Web site explains, the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department ``fulfills a critical mission in upholding the civil and constitutional rights of all individuals.'' Clearly, this requires that the head of the Civil Rights Division have an absolute commitment to truth and justice. There are many highly qualified Americans who can carry out this critical mission. Mr. Adegbile's record creates serious doubts that he is among them. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the nomination of Mr. Debo Adegbile to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TOOMEY

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

Mr. TOOMEY

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

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, fairly recently, the President of the United States nominated a candidate to lead the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. His name is Debo Adegbile. I am here this morning to explain to my colleagues why I believe that Mr. Adegbile is a very bad choice to run the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. To make my case clear, I need to start with a story of a slain Philadelphia police officer. His name was Daniel Faulkner. This is a picture of Daniel Faulkner. It is important to tell his story. It is a story that begins 32 years ago. Many people have never heard this story, others have perhaps forgotten, since it was some time ago. But the fact is that Danny Faulkner can no longer speak for himself and those who have tried to speak for him have often been drowned out by some powerful and wealthy voices that have had a political agenda and that have perversely defended his killer rather than the memory of Daniel Faulkner. The story begins late at night on December 9, 1981. It was actually in the early morning hours that 25-year-old Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner stopped a car that was driving in Philadelphia. The driver got out of the car and began to assault Officer Faulkner. The driver's brother Mumia Abu-Jamal was watching the incident from across the street. When he saw what was happening and as Officer Faulkner attempted to handcuff the driver of the car, Abu-Jamal ran up to the car and shot Officer Faulkner in the back. As Officer Faulkner was falling, he got off a shot, but the shot did not seriously wound Mumia Abu-Jamal. Officer Faulkner then collapsed on the ground. While he was lying on the ground, helpless, defenseless, and severely wounded, Mumia Abu- Jamal stood over him and pumped four more bullets into him, including five bullets to the face, which killed Danny Faulkner on the spot. Abu-Jamal himself was quickly apprehended. There were police who were on the next block over, and they got there almost immediately. They arrested Mumia Abu-Jamal. They took him to the hospital because he had been wounded, and while he was at the hospital he bragged about the fact that he had just shot a police officer and stated that he hoped the police officer would die. Given these facts, Mumia Abu-Jamal's guilt was never in any serious question. There was a trial. There were four eyewitnesses to the shooting. There were three other witnesses who heard Mumia Abu-Jamal brag about the murder he had committed while he was in the hospital. In addition, there was ballistic and forensic evidence that made his guilt completely obvious to everyone. So it was not surprising that a jury took only 3 hours to convict Mumia Abu-Jamal after the trial occurred. It took them a further 2 hours to sentence him to death. Then, instead of allowing Daniel Faulkner's young 24-year-old widow and his extended family to grieve in peace, a group of political opportunists decided this would be the case they would use to launch a campaign to further their political agenda. They fabricated a whole set of claims that Mumia Abu-Jamal was somehow framed. They spread lies about the trial. They organized a rally. Amazingly, what they were doing was portraying Mumia Abu-Jamal as a victim when, in fact, he was unquestionably a cold-blooded murderer. It was part of a bigger campaign to turn Abu-Jamal into a celebrity and use him by those who had an agenda to attack America's criminal justice system. Unfortunately, to a large extent it worked. Abu-Jamal the murderer became somewhat of a celebrity in certain Hollywood circles. In Paris, they even named a street after him, and there were plenty of high-priced lawyers who lined up to volunteer their time to jump on this cause and to file endless series of appeals in a case that was an open-and-shut case. This, of course, among other things, had the effect of forcing Danny Faulkner's widow to relive this tragedy, this disaster for her, time after time, for decade after decade. This gross abuse of justice, this travesty of justice had been going on for nearly three decades when in 2009 the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, or the LDF, decided to volunteer its time, considerable resources, and its donor funds to join in this fray, to join in this travesty, initially as an amicus to the trial and then as co-counsel. The President's nominee to run the Civil Rights Division, Mr. Debo Adegbile, was the person responsible for the LDF's decision and its behavior in this outrageous set of circumstances. At the time, he was the LDF's director of litigation, and, as Mr. Adegbile told our own Senate Judiciary Committee during his testimony, he ``supervised the entire legal staff'' at LDF. That was 18 lawyers. He was also, if one looks at the LDF's site, responsible for ``providing leadership and coordination regarding both litigation and non-litigation legal advocacy'' and was also, according to the LDF's own description, ``responsible for LDF's advocacy both in the courts of law and in the court of political opinion.'' So all of the legal, public, and political actions LDF was taking, it was taking under the direction, the supervision, and the authority of Mr. Adegbile. It is important to understand this. There is a very clear legal principle that a supervising lawyer has the responsibility for the actions undertaken by the lawyers who report to him. That is the case in these circumstances, as well as the fact that the LDF openly acknowledges this. What is it that the LDF lawyers then did in the circumstances of this case? When they should have been pursuing their historic role of providing the truth and justice for American people, they were advancing neither cause. It is also important to point out that this was never a case of a criminal deserving a legal defense. Criminals do deserve appropriate legal counsel in their defense. The fact is that the trial had occurred decades ago. Abu-Jamal had multiple high-cost lawyers volunteering their time. He had plenty of lawyers. He didn't need more lawyers. What Mr. Adegbile did was he decided to join a political cause. That is what he decided to do. That is what this was all about. In my view, by doing so he demonstrated his own contempt for and, frankly, a willingness to undermine the criminal justice system of the United States. Under Mr. Adegbile's oversight, the LDF spread misinformation about the trial, about the circumstances, and about the jury. He promoted division and strife among the American people and blocked justice for Danny Faulkner and Danny Faulkner's family. These LDF lawyers promoted the myth that Mumia Abu-Jamal was somehow a heroic political prisoner and that he was framed. In fact, he was a coward and an unrepentant murderer. Under Mr. Adegbile's oversight, in January 2011 the LDF issued a press release decrying what I quote as the ``grave injustices embodied'' in Abu-Jamal's case. In May 2011 two of the lawyers reporting to Mr. Adegbile traveled to France for a rally on behalf of this murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal. One of these LDF lawyers said she was ``overjoyed'' that Mumia Abu-Jamal's death sentence was suspended but bemoaned the fact that he would not have a new trial so he could be set free. Another LDF lawyer described Abu-Jamal as ``people who are innocent'' but ``will continue to be put to death in America.'' Later, the same lawyer would falsely state that there was an absence of forensic evidence tying Abu-Jamal to Officer Faulkner's death. The fact is that there was forensic evidence. There were four eyewitnesses to the murder, and there were three witnesses to the subsequent bragging by Abu-Jamal about the murder. At another rally again celebrating this murderer, one of the LDF lawyers supervised by Mr. Adegbile gushed: ``It is absolutely my honor to represent Mumia Abu-Jamal.'' This attorney went on to say: ``And there is no question in my mind, there is no question in the mind of anyone at the Legal Defense Fund, that the justice system has completely and utterly failed Mumia Abu-Jamal.'' I have to say I agree the justice system failed, but the justice system failed Danny Faulkner, not Mumia Abu-Jamal. Now we are faced with a situation where an individual who was directly responsible for some of these terrible injustices that have been done in the wake of Danny Faulkner's murder has been nominated to a high-ranking position in the Justice Department. The Civil Rights Division is an extremely important division in the Justice Department. The head of this division plays a very important role. And what is his responsibility? According to the division's Web site, the Civil Rights Division ``fulfills a critical mission in upholding the civil and constitutional rights of all individuals.'' Of course, this requires that the head of the Civil Rights Division have an absolute commitment to truth and to justice. I do not believe Mr. Adegbile's nomination is consistent with the goal of promoting truth and justice in America. I do not believe Mr. Adegbile's nomination is consistent with respect for America's legal system and rule of law. I do not believe Mr. Adegbile's nomination is consistent with justice for the family of Officer Danny Faulkner or for anyone else who cares about the law enforcement community across this country. For these reasons, I will oppose Mr. Adegbile's nomination to head the Civil Rights Division, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about a bill I have introduced. This is a bill that is about protecting our kids in schools. As the father of three young kids, I share the feeling I suspect every parent has: There is no higher priority than making sure our children are safe. We can't personally provide that security all day everywhere at all times, and so we want to make sure the places our kids go are as safe as they can be. Our kids obviously spend a great deal of time at school, and so we want our schools to be the safest environment they can be. And it turns out there is more we can do. I have a bill--it is a bill I have introduced with Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia--a bipartisan bill that is going to help provide greater security for kids in our schools. My immediate inspiration for introducing this bill came from a tragic story that originated in Pennsylvania. It is a story that begins at a school in Delaware County. One of the schoolteachers, it turns out, had molested several boys and had raped one. The prosecutors never felt they had enough evidence to actually mount a case against him, but the school knew what had happened so they dismissed the teacher. But unbelievably, to me, although they dismissed him, they also gave him a letter of recommendation he could take with him as he applied--where do you think--to other schools. Because that is what these predators do--they look to be in an environment where they can find more victims. That is exactly what this guy did, and he managed to get another teaching job in West Virginia. This episode ends in 1997, when that teacher--who by then was a school principal--raped and murdered a 12-year-old boy named Jeremy Bell. So justice has caught up with that teacher. He has since been apprehended, charged, tried, and convicted, and he is now serving a jail sentence for murder. But that was all too late for Jeremy Bell. Unfortunately, Jeremy Bell's story is not unique. I was at a YMCA in Chester County, PA, a few weeks ago. Our district attorney there, Tom Hogan--the district attorney for Chester County--told me a very disturbing story. They are doing an investigation of the Coatesville School District for alleged financial mismanagement. That is what the investigation was about. But in the course of the investigation, they discovered there are numerous school employees who are felons. He couldn't reveal many details because it is an ongoing investigation even now, but he was able to share one story. It is a story of a Victor Ford, who was an employee. He had been convicted three times for felony drug dealing. In 2009 he was hired as a special education classroom aide and a seventh grade boys basketball coach. In 2010 he raped a young girl--not at this school. Later, he resigned from the school and has since pled guilty to corruption of minors. This is appalling, and it is so completely unacceptable anywhere in America. So I have introduced a bill that has broad bipartisan support. In fact, it is a bill that has passed the House unanimously. This should not be controversial. This bill would insist that schools conduct proper criminal background checks for both existing and prospective employees and that these background checks be repeated periodically. There are five States that don't require any check at all, according to a GAO report, and my State of Pennsylvania requires it only for new hires but never relooks at people who may have been working for the school for many years. This bill also requires the background check for a criminal history be done for any employee who is going to come into contact with kids, so not just teachers. It could be a coach, a contractor, or anybody who is going to interact with children. There are 12 States that have no such provisions. The bill would also require a more thorough background check. Some States check their own State's database for criminal activity but they do not look at the FBI's database or a national record of criminality. Our bill would require that. The bill would forbid knowingly passing on a letter of recommendation to a predator. It is shocking that even has to be contemplated, but it has occurred. Sometimes there is this feeling of, well, let's just make the problem someone else's problem. So it does happen, but it is outrageous and appalling, and it needs to be forbidden. Our bill would do that. The bill would preclude the possibility of hiring people ever convicted of a violent sexual crime against a child, whether that is a misdemeanor or a felony and a number of other violent felonies, including homicide, child abuse, neglect, crimes against children, including pornography and other serious crimes, and other felonies if they have been committed within the previous 5 years. The enforcement mechanism basically is to withhold Federal funding for schools in States that refuse to do an appropriate check to make sure our kids are safe. This is just common sense and it has broad bipartisan support. Again, I thank Senator Joe Manchin for being my cosponsor on this legislation. It is called the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act. It is S. 1596. Again, it passed the House unanimously. But this is more than just a piece of legislation. This is a moral imperative. This is something we know we can do to make our schools safer for our kids, and I think we should do just that. I am engaged in discussions with some of my colleagues. I hope this will not be controversial and that we will soon get to the point where we can pass this by unanimous consent or hotline this so we get this done. As I said, it has already passed the House. As soon as we pass this bill, it will go to the President and it will be signed into law. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort and we will be able to get it done soon. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

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

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, today I wish to recognize the Pittsburgh Opera, the seventh oldest opera company in the United States. The Pittsburgh Opera is currently engaged in its 75th season, and I would like to congratulate them on this momentous anniversary. The company started in 1939 when five ambitious women were determined to bring opera to their community. Within a year, these women had assembled musicians, singers, sets, costumes, and lighting, and produced the opera company's first performance, Offenbach's ``The Tales of Hoffman'' at Carnegie Music Hall. Before long, the Pittsburgh Opera Society, under the leadership of general director Dr. Richard Karp, had become a fully professional organization. The Pittsburgh Opera is not only recognized as an asset to southwestern Pennsylvania, but it is known throughout the international opera community for the fine skill and artistry of its productions. It has welcomed numerous celebrity vocalists over the years, and the company's notoriety only continues to grow and attract more talent. I believe that the Pittsburgh Opera has been undeniably successful in fulfilling its stated mission ``to culturally enrich Pittsburgh and the tri-state area, and to draw national and international attention to the region,'' and I think that the 31,000 Pittsburghers and visitors who attend the opera's productions annually would agree. The Pittsburgh Opera is also dedicated to fostering the development of future opera talent. The company has established and nurtured a resident artist program that ranks among the top five in the country and has the distinction of being the only program in the United States that trains singers as well as stage directors. These artists present two fully staged productions of their own and also develop a variety of general music programs to perform at public schools, community centers, and libraries. Six years ago, after nearly 70 years without its own center, the Pittsburgh Opera acquired and renovated the original home of the George A. Westinghouse Air Brake Co. in Pittsburgh's historic Strip District and transformed it into a state-of-the-art home for the development and production of opera. This structure is the oldest LEED-certified building in Pittsburg, and it is a fitting home for an opera company with such a rich history and a promising future. Again, I want to recognize the Pittsburgh Opera on its 75th anniversary. I wish them nothing but success in the next 75 years.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss briefly my amendment and the underlying bill. But first I want to thank my cosponsors--Senators Coats, McConnell, Coburn, Hatch, Kirk, and Johanns--and I want to thank the bipartisan coalition of Senators who are supporting my approach. There is a real problem with our flood insurance program as a result of the reforms, and it needs to be addressed. The problem is that, in the process of reforming this program so it would actually be sustainable--so that it actually could become solvent--in the process of making those changes, some people's premiums go up very dramatically and pretty suddenly. The phase-in is very quick and the increase is very high. That is a huge problem, and it needs to be addressed. The Menendez bill addresses it the wrong way. What this bill does is it does kill the meaningful reform. It completely suspends for 4 years. There is no adjustment of premiums toward an actuarially sound market- based level of premiums that do not require taxpayer subsidy. So we will be going back--oh, it busts the budget, by the way--we will be going back to a system where literally Warren Buffett can buy a home, and as long as he makes it his primary residence, he can continue to have taxpayers subsidize his cost of flood insurance. I just do not know how that is even remotely defensible. But that is what we would be heading back to if we adopt the Menendez bill. In addition, by throwing out the reform, by throwing out the movement toward an actuarially sound system, we go right back to the insolvent, unsustainable program we had before, which means the NFIP, under the Menendez bill, will that much sooner reach the day when it cannot honor its claims, when the people who have been paying their insurance premiums discover there is no money to honor their claim when the flood occurs because it does not have the reforms that put it on a sustainable basis. Finally, it is flawed because it cannot become law. This approach is not going to become law. We know that. It is not just me who opposes this approach. The administration does not accept this approach. This is what the Statement of Administration Policy said that was put out this week by the President of the United States about this bill. He referred to this bill specifically and said: Delaying implementation of these reforms-- referring to the Biggert-Waters reforms-- would further erode the financial position of the NFIP, which is already $24 billion in debt. This delay would also reduce FEMA's ability to pay future claims made by all policyholders. The Speaker of the House and the leadership in the House feel the same way. They are not willing to throw out the reforms and leave us with an NFIP that cannot honor its claims. They are not going to do it. So if you really want to do something for the people who are facing these big premium increases, you have to support a program, an approach that actually works. That is why I have offered this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. What we do is simple. We phase in the premium increases gradually. For people facing a big premium increase, we phase it in very gradually. It gives people time to adjust, time to mitigate, time to challenge if the map is drawn wrong. They can do that. We preserve the important, valuable ideas in the Menendez bill, such as the ability to recoup the cost of a successful challenge to a mapping problem for an individual homeowner, also for a community. That is there. That is important. We preserve the opportunity to have the benefit and force NFIP to recognize the benefit of mitigation measures that have been taken by others. So if your community has built a levee or a dam or some kind of flood mitigation system, with or without Federal money, that needs to be acknowledged, that needs to be reflected. If your community, your home is safer because of that investment, your premium needs to reflect the fact that you have a safer situation. We cover that as well. Finally, the administration supports this approach. In the very same Statement of Administration Policy, President Obama's administration stated this: The Administration strongly supports a phased transition to actuarially sound flood insurance rates. The Menendez bill absolutely does not do this. My amendment absolutely does because this is what makes sense. This is how we soften the blow. We create a reasonable transition and we maintain a fiscally sound, actuarially sound program that does not bust the budget. That is what my amendment does. Finally, let me just conclude with this. There are a lot of Members of this body on both sides of the aisle who have spent a lot of time, especially in recent years, in sincere, concerted ongoing efforts to address one of the biggest challenges we face as a country; that is, the fiscally unsustainable position of our Federal Government, driven by mandatory spending. We have cut discretionary spending significantly as a percentage of our budget, as a percentage of our economy. Any way you measure it, discretionary spending has been squeezed. Mandatory spending has been almost completely untouched. It is growing far too fast. Recently this body, including every Democrat who supports this Menendez bill, voted for a reform, a reform of one mandatory program that makes it sustainable, makes it viable. We should not be walking away. If we were at all serious about getting our mandatory spending under control, we should not walk away from this reform. Please, I urge my colleagues, support the Toomey amendment. I yield back my time.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I think I made my case. I will yield back the remainder of my last minute.

Mr. TOOMEY

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

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I rise to address the amendment I have. I will formally ask to call it up in a few moments, but I wish to say a few words about it. I would like to start with a little bit of background and a reminder of how we got here and the circumstances that brought us to this point. It all started, of course, with a completely unsustainable National Flood Insurance Program. I don't think there is any dispute that this program is massively in debt, it has been completely under water, it was insolvent, and there was no prospect for this to right itself because of the massive subsidies for homeowners of all stripes. By the way, in addition to being fiscally insolvent and therefore a huge drain for taxpayers, it has a lot of very bad incentives. When you subsidize homes built in dangerous places, you subsidize and encourage homes to be rebuilt there, homes to be bought in places that are dangerous and costly. So there are problems inherent. The CBO was very clear about this. This program was not going to be able to honor its commitments. That is what happens when a program like this is insolvent and is unreformed: People who think they have insurance for their home end up discovering one day that they don't because of its insolvency. So along came the Biggert-Waters approach to reform the National Flood Insurance Program and to put it in a position where it would actually be solvent and would actually be able to honor the policies people are paying for. It was September of 2011 that the Senate banking committee took up the reforms, and they passed it with a voice vote. In other words, there was no dissent. There was no objection to the Biggert-Waters reforms. That was, of course, after many hearings. This had been discussed at length for many years before we got to that point. But we did. We passed it in the banking committee. In June of 2012--so less than 2 years ago--Biggert-Waters, the flood insurance reform program--was wrapped into another bill. It was wrapped into the MAP-21 Transportation bill and it passed--and it passed with overwhelming support. As a matter of fact, as it happens, every single Democratic Senator who was in the Chamber voted in favor of the Biggert-Waters reforms I think in part because they understood this program needed to be reformed, and I think we all believe this program needs to be in a fiscally sustainable place. So the final passage of that bill less than 2 years ago required the reforms of Biggert-Waters, which includes as central to those reforms that over time everybody who participates in the National Flood Insurance Program will eventually be paying actuarially sound rates-- rates that actually reflect the risk of their home, so taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook and they wouldn't be subject to the worry about whether this program is going to go away altogether. That is where we were when, lo and behold, we start to discover that for some people premium increases are going to be very dramatic. I have heard a lot from Pennsylvanians. This is a problem with the Biggert- Waters reform. One of the problems I suspect a lot of folks did not anticipate was that the premium spikes would be quite substantial and happen over a pretty short period of time. There is a phase-in under the Biggert- Waters reforms, but it is quick, and it is very problematic for that relatively small handful of people who would be adversely affected, because it turns out that the remapping determines that they are in a higher risk profile than had previously been understood or, if they had built their home prior to the initial mappings, they wouldn't be subject to the premium increase. But upon sale of their homes, the premium increase would go into effect, and it would go into effect immediately. And that of course can have a devastating impact on the value of a person's home. I want to be very clear. There is no question in my mind that if we don't do anything, if we simply leave Biggert-Waters alone, that has an unacceptable impact on people who are adversely affected in the form of premium increases that are way too big way too quickly. And that is not the right outcome. We shouldn't settle for that. I know cases in Pennsylvania where people are facing thousands of dollars in increase. In some cases it is immediate. In a case where they are going to be selling their home, the new buyer would face that immediately. In other cases, it is phased in quickly. The Menendez approach--the underlying bill we are debating today-- deals with this, but it deals with this in the wrong way. It deals with this by completely suspending all the reforms. It completely dispenses with the idea that we should move toward an actuarially sound program. It says for 4 years there will be no change in premiums. It is hard not to see this as a measure designed to kill the reform. I understand it is painful to have any premium increase, but to say that the response should be to abandon any effort to move to a fiscally sound, actuarially based program can't be right. To do that is to completely throw out the reforms that took so many years to get. And, by the way, it doesn't provide any certainty for the homeowners it is meant to protect--where for 4 years nothing happens, and after the fourth year nobody knows what happens. I know it is the intent of some to continue indefinitely without making any changes, but that is not a solution. This is an insolvent program. What that means is we will get to the day--relatively soon, according to CBO--when the National Flood Insurance Program will simply be unable to honor the commitments it has made. It will not have the resources. It will not have the borrowing authority. It will run out of money. And people who then get their homes flooded will find it of little comfort that their premium was a little lower when it turns out there is no benefit to be paid, there are no resources for them to rebuild. So this doesn't work. And it is not just me who observes this problem with the underlying Menendez bill. As a matter of fact, the President of the United States has weighed in on this. I have a quote here from a Statement of Administrative Policy they put out 2 days ago directly referring to this bill, identifying it by number. This is the bill they are talking about, the Menendez bill. One of the things they say is: Delaying implementation of these reforms would further erode the financial position of the NFIP, which is already $24 billion in debt. This delay would also reduce FEMA's ability to pay future claims made by all policyholders. This is the President of the United States. His administration has looked at the Menendez bill, and this is their conclusion: This doesn't work. This doesn't work for the policyholders. It doesn't work for taxpayers. It doesn't work for anybody. There is another problem I would point out with the Menendez bill: It wouldn't work if it were to become law for these reasons, but it is not going to become law. The administration has made it clear they don't support it. The Speaker of the House has made it abundantly clear he will not put a bill on the House floor that guts the reforms of Biggert-Waters. The House chairman of the banking committee, who has jurisdiction over this, has made it abundantly clear: He is not going to move a bill that does away with these fiscal reforms. If your goal is to do something to help homeowners who are facing premium increases, a vote for the Menendez bill does nothing, because that bill is going nowhere. The administration doesn't support it. They have said so. The House is not even going to take it up. So if your goal is to do something for constituents who are facing a big premium increase--and, frankly, that is a big part of my goal--the Menendez bill doesn't cut it. That is going nowhere. What the administration said would work and what House leadership is willing to work with us on would be to phase in these premium increases more gradually, because everybody acknowledges the premium increases are occurring too quickly, and that needs to change. This is another quote from that same Statement of Administration Policy on the same bill. What they said was: The administration strongly supports a phased transition to actuarially sound flood insurance rates. They didn't refer to my amendment, but this is exactly what my amendment does. It phases this in gradually so as to minimize the pain, allow people an opportunity to adjust, allow people the time to maybe mitigate the risk and still maintain the integrity--the fiscal integrity--of the program so it actually can pay the claims that surely will be submitted. Let me run through quickly exactly what the amendment does and doesn't do, because there has been some confusion about this. Our amendment actually retains very significant portions of the underlying Menendez bill because parts of it made a lot of sense. Section 1 is the title. Section 2, definitions. Unchanged. Section 3 is where we phased the premium increases in gradually rather than suspending them altogether. That is the big difference. Section 4 of the Menendez bill is an affordability study and report, requires FEMA to complete this study--as Biggert-Waters does--within 2 years of the enactment of the bill. We leave that intact. I think that is a good idea. We need that. My amendment would not affect that whatsoever. The Mendendez bill also provides some additional funding for the affordability study. It lifts the cap that was set before. My amendment wouldn't change that. I think we need to lift that cap. Section 6. This is a measure that provides funds to reimburse homeowners when they challenge the redraw. So when a new map comes out and someone's house is deemed to be in a more risky place and therefore the premium is higher, a homeowner can challenge that. If the homeowner wins, under the Menendez language--which I support and stays in this bill under my amendment--the homeowner would be reimbursed the cost of that challenge. Senator King from Maine had a very good suggestion, which is: If a community chooses to challenge the mapping because they think there was a mistake made, they think it was inaccurate and it adversely affects them, that community too would be reimbursed for its costs if it turns out to be successful in its challenge. I agree with that. We have incorporated that into our amendment. Section 7 addresses the flood protection system. This is a very important part of what the Menendez bill does and I fully support it, and that is this: Under current law, one of the problems is in order for a community or a homeowner to fully benefit from risk mitigation that they may have done--a levee that may have been built or a dam or some other risk mitigation. In order to fully benefit from that, the Federal Government has to have paid for some portion of it. That is ridiculous. What difference does it make who paid for it? If it has been built and it is providing protection, that is all that should matter. This language would achieve that, the Menendez bill achieves that, and my amendment incorporates that. We keep that intact as well. Section 8 addresses floodproofed residential basements, addresses that. Our amendment doesn't change that. Section 9 creates a designation of a flood insurance advocate. Again, my amendment makes no change to that. Section 10. Senator Blunt had an amendment that would change the remodeling trigger for loss subsidies from 30 percent to 50 percent of a home's value. We incorporate Senator Blunt's amendment into our own, so that is there. Senator Hagan had an amendment to exempt escrow requirements for flood insurance payments. We fully incorporate that into my amendment as well. Senator Rubio had an amendment also that was accepted by the managers. It is in ours. What it comes down to, the difference between my amendment and the Menendez approach is one keeps us on a path of reform, keeps us on a path to an actuarially sound, fiscally responsible flood insurance program, whereby the flood insurance program is actually able to pay its claims, and the Menendez bill dispenses with it. It dispenses with the most important, most fundamental reform. The other part that we do is we soften the blow. If your concern is with these homeowners who are facing these huge premiums, my amendment is the only way we are actually going to achieve that help for those folks because this is the only legislative approach that has a chance of actually legislatively becoming law. By the way, in addition to its problems with the other body and the administration, the Menendez bill is subject to a budget point of order because it increases our deficit and forces more government borrowing. It is subject to a point of order. I don't know that it can sustain that. I don't know it can defeat a budget point of order and that is an important issue. Because our approach is fiscally sound, we are not subject to a budget point of order. What we do is we say the longer delay in the phase-in of the premium increases costs the flood insurance program some money until you get to the point where people have reached the level where they are paying actuarially sound rates, but we fully offset that with a very modest surcharge on all flood insurance policies in the country. It is about $40 per year in the first year, the most expensive year, unless your income is over one-half million dollars a year, in which case it is about $80, and that is it. It goes down after that because over time, when the higher premiums phase in, the loss to the program is diminished and therefore the surcharge goes down with it. But let's be very clear. The maximum that anybody would be paying is about $40 a year unless their income is over one-half million dollars a year, in which case it would be $80 a year. I will wrap up. I think we cannot continue to ignore all of the fundamental mandatory spending problems we have. When we actually go through a long and painful and deliberative systematic process to reform a program, for us to then walk away within 2 years and say never mind, we are not going to have any reform, is just so disappointing and irresponsible. We have bigger challenges facing us. If we cannot deal with this, I don't know what we are going to do. I fully acknowledge we have to soften the blow for people who are going to face much higher premiums and my amendment does that. The way we do that is by ensuring nobody's premium could go up by more than 25 percent. In the case of people who would face a big increase, under my approach it will take many years of gradual phasing in before they would actually be forced to pay that higher actuarially sound rate. If they think the rate is unfairly high, they can challenge it or they can leave the program and buy private insurance. They can do that. But to suggest we are going to just do nothing after having put the reforms in place I think would be a big mistake. There are a lot of groups that are supporting my amendment. I have a list I am going to run through quickly: Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, The Nature Conservancy, Taxpayers for Common Sense, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, Reinsurance Association of America, American Rivers, National Fire Protection Association, National Leased Housing Association, the R Street Institute, American Consumer Institute, Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, the Coalition to Reduce Spending, the Cost of Government Center, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Freedom Works, National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Taxpayers Protection Alliance. You can see there is a combination of fiscal watchdogs, folks who are very concerned about fiscal prudence, as well as people who are concerned about environmental integrity. There are other groups coming on continuously. As I mentioned, every Democrat who voted on the Biggert-Waters reform voted in favor of it. What my amendment does is it preserves the integrity of the reform while softening the blow for the people who will be affected by it. I think this is a very important, although modest, step in doing these two things. Amendment No. 2707, as Modified I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so I may call up my amendment, No. 2707, with the modification at the desk.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair that the Coburn amendment is not in order.