europe which obviously it is well known that mr. baghdadi has instructed some of these young men and possibly young women to be prepared to commit acts of terror in european and american countries. already some of those plots have been foiled. the director of national intelligence has testified before our committee that the world is more crises than at any time since world war ii. that america is in danger of terrorist attacks. who do we rely on? we rely on the men and women who are serving in the military. that's why we passed on a vote of 24-3 through the senate armed services committee the work on both sides in a cooperative and bipartisan fashion, the defense authorization bill. you would think that all of

those facts would argue for us to take this bill up immediately. debate, vote. that's what the senate is supposed to do. that's what the senate is supposed to do. that's what our founding fathers had in mind. so, again, the democrat leader is going to object to us moving forward. why? why in the world, with the world as it is today, with the challenges that we face, with the men and women who are serving our nation in uniform with courage one of whom -- a citizen of my own state was just killed, and we're blocking the ability of this nation to defend, trained, equip, reward the men and women who are serving in the military. why? why wont we move forward, debate? we've always had lots of amendments, lots of debates, lots of votes, and we've done

that every year in the years i have he been here. the democratic leader and i came to the congress together 30 -- by my calculation, almost 34 years ago. and we've had a very cordial relationship from time to time, and we have strong and spirited differences. and those differences have been honest differences of opinion because of the party and the philosophy that he represents. but i must say to my friend from nevada, i do not understand why we would not go ahead and take this legislation up and begin voting. that's what we're supposed to do. that's what has happened for 53 years where we have debated, we've gone to conference ans we've voted and it's been to the desk of president. a couple of times it's been vetoed, it's gone back.

but the fact is, we have done our job. what greater obligation do we have than to defend this nation when greater obstacles do we have to -- obligation do we have to assist the men and women of this nation? that obligation is to do our job and do our duty. the american people have a very low opinion of us on both sides of the aisle. what they see that we're not even moving forward on legislation to protect and help and train and equip the young men and women who have volunteered to serve this nation in uniform, no wonder they're cynical, no no won demplet heree have a piece of legislation that is the product of hundreds of -- literally 100 hearings, literally thousands of hours of discussion and debate, of work together on a bipartisan basis,

and we're not able to move forward with it and begin the amending process. i don't get it. i say to the democrat leader, i don't get t i do not understand why he doesn't feel the same sense of obligation that the rest of us do, and that is for us to as rapidly as possible take care of the men and women who are serving, meet the challenges of our national security that are larger, according to the director of national intelligence, than at any time since the end of world war ii. that's what i don't get. maybe the democratic leader will illuminate us on that issue. but i don't see that there's any argument. and when the democrat leader and i meet the braving men and women who are serving in uniform, those who are out at nellis air force base and at yuma and at luke air force base and tell them that we wouldn't move forward with legislation that

was to protect, to house, to feed, to protect, to train that's men and women, i'd be very interested in th the respoe that the democratic leader might have to that. so, i would urge my friend for many years, over the last 34 years, to allow us to move forward and begin debate on this very important aspect. i know of no greater obligation than we have than to address this issue of national security, which is embodied in the defense authorization act. and i might say, in all these 34 years, i have never objected to moving forward with this legislation. i've had disagreements, i've -- and i've had strong problems with some of the provisions. but i thought it was important to debate and vote. so i urge my colleagues not to

object, and the fact that the bill is long, i.t. been out there -- it's been out there for over a week now. everybody knows the major points of the bism so i hope that the democrat leader will not use that as a flimsy excuse because it is not one. most importantly, i appeal -- i appeal to my colleague from nevada to think of the men and women in uniform who are serving our country and think of our obligation to act as best we can, as best we can to protect them and help them carry out their responsibilities and their dutieduties as they go into hars way. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time be yielded back and the senate proceed to consideration of s. 2943. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: reserving the right to object, mr. president, i need not say every time i come to the

floor -- and my friend is on the floor speaking -- to tell everyone within the sound of my voice how much i admire him and the service he has rendered to our country, both as a naval pilot and as a senator and a member of the house of representatives. however, he has a job to do, and i have a job to do. i, like most people in the senate, have not served in the military. i acknowledge that. but i didn't go to canada. did i my best. i had civil obligations during all the time my friend was in vietnam. mr. president, i -- mr. mccain: if my colleague would yield, i believe you have served the state of nevada and this nation with honor. mr. reid: so, mr. president, i do believe that we have a job to $. he does his job the best he can

and everyone knows how hard he works. this is a very big, important bill. i have had the good fortune for all of these years to work on it. it's been difficult sometimes. we just barely made t i can remember one year that senator levin, who was our man on defense, and senator mccain, we were able to do the bill in two days. we had an emergency situation. we've gotten the bill done over all the years that i've been here. we've gotten it done all the years thaifer a been the -- all the years that i have -- that e been the leader. here is the situation we find ourselves:

this bill is almost 2,000 pages long. it could have been online from sometime wednesday night, but the truth is that we didn't get the final version of this bill until last night at 5:00. the committee voted on the appendix to this bill. last night they completed it at 5:00 last night. and a pretty important part of the bill deals with the intelligence aspect of this bill, and a lot of people want it read that and the rest of the bill. i don't think it's asking too much for allowing members of the united states senate to understand a bill to have the opportunity to -- i don't -- i could -- there are some, there is no doubt about that -- the presiding officer is a very studious man. maybe he'll read every page of that bill.

most senators won't. but they'll mawk sure their -- but they'll make sure their staff reads every line. why? because they need to do that. this bill was marked up in closed session. it was marked up privately. no press was there. it was done in the closed rooms over in the ruvment ssell building. i believe that's where the hearings took place. where the markups took place. we have amendments that we want to offer. we have a caucus tomorrow to talk about that. we have a number of senators who are preparing amendments. they want to discuss it with the rest of the democrats prior to moving to this bill. when we come back -- because we're out a week for the memorial day recess -- it would stome me it would be much more

efficient and productive if we were ready on that monday we came back to start legislating. we're not ready to do that yet. simply we're not ready to do that. we are going to proceed very deliberately, in spite of all the castigations about me made on the senate floor. i'm going to ignore those. because, to be quite honest with you, anytime that we need to talk about any statements i've made at any time, i'm happy to do it. i think it would distract from what we're doing here today to go into the statements made by the very junior senator from arkansas. but i do just have to say this: you i think i'm not the reason why we're having such short workdays in the senate, even

though that was alleged by my friend from arkansas. if we're going to do our job, we're going to do it in the best way we can, because it is important. i have said it here on the floor, and i will go into a lot more detail than what i'm saying here, but down in the room where we meet on closed -- on a closed, confidential basis, last thursday i met with the secretary of defense. i have the good fortune of being briefed on what's going on around the world by military, by others who help us be safe and secure in this country. and we talked about autumn in of things. -- and we talked about a number of things u one thing we can talk about openly here is the secretary of defense thinks it is really, really, really -- underscore every "really" i said -- to put in this bill what my friend from arizona said he is going to do, and that is move

$18 billion from war fighting, overseas contingency fund, into regular everyday authorization matters, that take away from the ability of the pentagon to plan what they're going to be doing next year or the year after. this is something we, i, need to take a hard look at because i've said here on the floor earlier today, i appreciate very much the republican leader responding to a letter that we wrote to him saying that on these budgetary matters, he would stick with the two-year deal that weigh made. i'm glad. that's great. but my friend from arizona wants to violate that deal. and i think that's wrong. and we're going to take a hard look at that. because we believe that not only a secure nation -- a secure nation not only depends on the

pentagon, but it also depends on all the other agencies of government that help us maintain our security: the f.b.i., the drug enforcement administration, all the different responsibilities of the department of homeland security. so let's understand p that no one is trying to stall this legislation. if nothing happens on this bill during the next 24 hours, i think it will be a much better process to finish the bill when we come back. we'll do it with our eyes wide open. what i said, and i'll say it with my friend on the floor, there are a lot of little goodies in this bill. i think we need to take a a look at those and my friend of all people who has worked hard during the entire time that he's been in the senate -- he and i didn't get much done in the house. when you're there for two terms you don't get much done. he has gotten a lot done

focusing on what he believes is wasteful spending in government. i've disagreed with him, some of the examples dealing with he have in. but we have a responsibility and we've been trained pretty well by the senior senator from arizona, look at these bills, what's in them. and i frankly believe with my limited knowledge of this bill but i've been told by my staff they've identified things in this bill we better take a close look at. so, mr. president, i'm not here in any way to not give my full support to the efforts made by jack reed, the ranking member on this committee. this bill is not john mccain's bill. it's not jack reed's bill. it's our bill and i want to make sure this bill comes out in a way that is good for the american people. my view of what's good for the american people may be different

from others but i think we have a responsibility to do everything we can to proceed in a very orderly fashion. as soon as we get on this bill, i'll be able to do my very best and move along as quickly as possible. so i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: mr. president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: it is. mr. rubio: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. rubio: thank you, mr. president. i came to the floor a few weeks ago to bring to the attention an abuse that's occurring in our welfare system and it involves cuban immigration. in sum, let me describe it, the situation we face today. if an immigrant comes to the united states from cuba legally, entering the united states from another country, let me rephrase

that. if an immigrant legally enters the united states from any country in the world except for cuba or haiti, they cannot immediately receive federal benefits. if you are a legal immigrant -- you did your paperwork, filled it out, paid the fees and you come to the united states from venezuela, come to the united states from mexico, come to the united states from japan, you're here legally but you do not qualify for any federal benefits for the first five years that you're in this country. there's an exception, however. there's an exception for people that come from cuba. under the cuban adjustment act, anyone who comes from cuba legally or illegally, if you cross the border and say i'm a cuban, you are allowed to -- you are immediately accepted into the united states legally. and i have never advocated, i'm not here today to talk about changing that status even though we have a significant migratory crisis building and i think that issue needs to be reexamined. but here's the exception to the law. if you come to the united states as a -- from cuba, whether you

entered across the border or you entered on a visa, you are one of the only immigrants in america that immediately, automatically qualifies for federal benefits. right away. you don't have to prove that you're a refugee. you don't have to prove you're fleeing oppression. you don't have to prove anything. you are automatically assumed to be a political refugee and given not just status in the united states but the run of a series of public benefits. so for decades this has been because u.s. law made the presumption that if you are leaving cuba to come to the united states, you are obviously a refugee. and i believe for a lot of people that are still coming that's true. because they're fleeing a horrible and repressive regime and they have nowhere else to go because they fear for their life in many cases in cuba. but for some time now there's been growing doubt about whether all the people that are now coming from cuba are in fact fleeing oppression or have they really become increasingly more

like an economic refugee. and so we know now from what we see in south florida with our own eyes but also from the investigative reporting of the south florida ""sun-sentinel"" that there are growing abuses to this. the reason why is many people coming from tkpwa supposedly -- from cuba fleeing oppression are going back 20, 50 times a year so that raises alarm. if you are entering the united states, if you are immediately and automatically given status as refugees and in addition to that being given access to a full portfolio of federal benefits, that's being done because you're supposedly fleeing oppression. but then you're traveling back to cuba 15, 20 or 30 times a year in many cases, it puts in serious doubt whether everyone that's now coming should be considered refugees for purposes of benefits. but today they are. and so even at this very moment we are seeing an historic

increase in the number of people crossing the mexico-u.s. border who are originally from cuba. we have seen an increase in the number of rafters. just a week ago there was a standoff between the coast guard and some cuban migrants who went up to a lighthouse and wouldn't come down because they wanted to get the status under the wet foot, dry foot policy. and i think we can debate that issue. i am not here today to propose changes to the status, but i do think we have to ask ourselves what about the federal benefits? what about the benefits that they're collecting which are specifically and exclusively intended for refugees and refugees only? because obviously if you're traveling back to cuba over and over again, you're not a refugee. and, therefore, you should not be eligible for these benefits. the abuses we've now seen are extensive. the stories of people that are actually living in cuba, they're living in cuba but they're collecting government benefits in america, and their family is wiring the money to them.

people that are collecting an as sortment of benefits from housing to cash, and the money's being sent to them while they live in cuba for months, sometimes years at a time. it's an outrage. it's an abuse. by the way i'm of cuban descent from a community with a cuban migrants that leave there and people in florida are saying this is an outrage. they see this abuse. it's their taxpayer money and they want something done about it. today we learned from the congressional budget office, which analyzes these issues in depth and determines how much they cost taxpayers, we learned that the long-term cost of this abuse over the course of the next ten years is approximately $2.5 billion of american taxpayer money. that is $2.5 billion -rpbgs -- much of which, a significant percentage of which is going to people that aren't even living in the united states. it's money that we know from

investigations, they don't often end back in cuba. what we've seen people abuse the system over and over again is they figure out a relative in the u.s. that goes to the bank every month, takes a cut and sends the rest to them. that's your money that's being sent. the american people are generous people, but right now those who abuse the system are taking american taxpayers for fools, and we need to stop this. and that's why i'm hopeful that today's report from the c.e.o. c.e.o. -- congressional budget office will give us momentum to end this problem and reform the system. the way to do is by passing a law i introduced in that ends of the law. they have to prove they are refugees legitimately fearing for their lives. how the process would work is if you cross the u.s.-mexico border and you're from cuba or if you

arrive on a raft you get your status. you'll be legal in this country. but you're going to have to prove that you are actually coming because you fear persecution before you automatically qualify for refugee benefits. in essence, all i'm asking is that people prove they are refugees, political refugees, before they qualify for federal benefits that are only available to political refugees. now lest anyone think this is some sort of partisan trick, this is a bipartisan measure that my democratic colleague from florida supports, the senior senator from florida, that has over 50 bipartisan cosponsors in the house, including the chairman of the democratic national committee. so i hope we can get this done. even if the best way to do it is on its own merits with a straight up-or-down vote or as an amendment included in a larger bill or with all the talk about paying for zika virus funding, maybe this is one of the ways we can pay for some of that. but let's get it done. $2.5 billion is still real money, real taxpayer money, a

significant percentage of which is being misspent on a loophole that exists in the law that most people don't even know is there. and i truly hope that we can address it. it makes all the sense in the world. everyone is asking for it. there is no good faith or reasonable reason to oppose it. and it is my hope that we can address it before this congress adjourns at the end of this year. sooner if that's possible, and that we can put an end to these abuses once and for all. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. sullivan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i want to add my voice to the chairman, chairman mccain's comments a little bit ago about moving forward on the defense authorization bill. i have the honor of serving with

him, and i saw senator reed, the ranking member of that committee, the armed services committee. it's a huge honor. but as skphaeupbl -- senator mccain mentioned, it's also an enormous obligation and responsibility that we have, probably the biggest, most important thing we do here is our national defense. the chairman asked a really important question, simple question: why? why are we not taking up the defense authorization bill at this time? why is the minority leader moving forward with a filibuster on this important bill that was voted out of committee almost complete bipartisan basis? we have an enormous obligation to our troops and to the national defense of our country, and that's what this bill is all

about. we can debate it, but we need to begin. my colleague and friend from arkansas was on the floor here a little bit ago expressing his frustration of why we're delaying this. and i share that frustration. i share the chairman's frustration. why? why are we filibustering? why is the minority leader filibustering this important bill? i'd like to remind my colleagues on the floor here, this is as pattern. this is actually a pattern. if you remember, at this time last year the minority leader led a filibuster of the defense appropriations bill, the bill that funds our troops who, by the way, are overseas in combat despite the fact that the president and others in the white house want to tell the

american people they're not in combat, they are in combat. we all know it. we know it's a fiction. and yet last year the minority leader led a filibuster of the defense authorization spending for our troops not once, not twice, but three times on the senate floor. a pattern of procedural delays that clearly undermine our troops. there's no doubt about that. so, i want to add my voice to my colleagues, and i believe it's a bipartisan frustration. it's not just the republicans. remember, mr. president, the ndaa came out of committee with huge bipartisan support and certainly one of the most important things we do here is focus on our national defense,

focus on having a strong military, focus on taking care of our veterans. we should be bringing that bill on the floor, not delaying any longer, debating its merits and moving forward. and i just don't understand why we're not doing that right now. and i certainly don't think the american people understand it. mr. president, another important topic that we should be talking about on the senate floor a lot more is the state of our economy. in my view, national defense, economic opportunity for americans, these are the critical things we need to be debating in the senate. as i've been doing recently, i wanted to come down here and talk about the health of our economy, the importance of getting to a healthy economy.

make no mistake, right now we have a sick economy. we need to bring the u.s. economy, the greatest economic engine of growth that the world has ever known, back to life. we need to bring people who have lost economic hope opportunity once again. and let me be clear. americans don't easily give up on hope. we are a country of hope. a country of dreams. progress is in our d.n.a., always moving forward. but, mr. president, americans are starting to lose hope because they're not seeing opportunity. they're not seeing progress. they're not seeing a healthy economy. so what's going on? you'd luke to provid -- i'd lika

quote from a recent a recall in atlantic monthly entitled "the secret shame of middle-class americans." i would recommend this article to my colleagues. the author is talking about americans from all spectrums who, because of the weak economy and because of no economic opportunity, are living paycheck to paycheck. millions of americans he describes in this article, paycheck to paycheck. he says -- quote -- "it was happening to the soon-to-retire, as well as the soon-to-begin. it was happening to college grads as well as high school dropouts.

it was haming all across the country -- it was happening all across the country, including places where you might least expect to see such a problem. i knew that i wouldn't have $400 of additional income in case of an emergency. what i hadn't known," the author goes ton say, "couldn't have conceived was that so many americans wouldn't have that kind of money -- $400 -- available to them either. my friend and local butcher, brian, who is one of the only men i know who talks openly about his financial struggles, once told me, 'if anyone says he's sailing through right now, he's lying'." then the author goes on to make a very, very important statement. he says, "in the 1950's and

1960's, american economic growth democrat ticed prosperity." everybody had opportunity. strong economic growth. but in the 2010's, "he says, "we have managed to democratize financial insecurity." that's what's happening across the country. and in my opinion, mr. president, a big part of the problem, one that is playing out in our politics right now, is the fact that those who are hurting are not being heard. they see their lives. they know their lives. they know the challenges. nearly half of americans would have trouble finding $400 in a crisis, as this article lays o

out. and yet it doesn't match up with what their leaders are telling them. let me give you an example. in a recent speech, president obama actually said -- quote -- "we are better off today than we were just seven years ago." he said that anybody who tells you differently -- quote -- "is not telling the truth." that's the president. i guarantee the president is not agreeing with this article. well, i hate to inform the president, but even former president bill clinton recently had this to say about the obama economy. quote -- "millions and millions and millions of people look at the pretty picture of america president obama painted and they can't find themselves in it." unquote. that's former president bill

clinton. -- on the current state of the u.s. economy. and it's hard not -- it's hard to see why so many can't find themselves in the picture that the president has painted of our current economy. during nearly eight years of the obama administration, the number of americans participating in the labor force slan -- shrank s lowest level. what does that mean? americans have quit looking for jobs. in the last eight years, more americans have fall noon poverty. family paychecks have declined and the number of people on food stamps has skyrocketed by 40% -- all during the last eight years. the percentage of americans who own homes, the marker of the

american dream -- homeownership -- is down over 5%. let me give you another number that, although many americans aren't familiar with impacts them deeply. a few weeks ago it was announced by the commerce department that the economy essentially stopped growing. last quarter we grew at .5% g.d.p. growth. gross domestic product growth. that's slings an indicate -- that's essentially an indicator of progress, an indicator of the health of our economy, of our kurntio-- ofour country, of opp. it was stagnant, didn't grow. let me put this in perspective. in the past 200 years, american growth -- democrat, republican presidents, doesn't matter, we've had ups and downs, but the past 200 years, real g.d.p. growth has been about 4%, 3.7%.

this is what has made our country great. this is what's fueled the engine of the middle class of america. under this administration, the average has been an anemic 1.5% g.d.p. growth. we have never had even one quarter of 3% g.d.p. growth now, the administration doesn't talk about that. in fact, very few do. we need to talk about it more on the u.s. senate floor. but the american people feel it. this article describes it. they see it again and again when one of their neighbors or loved ones loses a job or they see their paychecks stagnant for eight or they see another small business in their community closing or when they start

wondering how they're going to put their children through college. they see it in the long road ahead of them that shows no promise of a brighter future because of the lack of economic opportunity. they see it. and as this article describes, they feel the sting of shame. bottom line, mr. president, we have had a lost decade of economic growth and opportunity in the last ten years, and we need to get serious about this problem. we need to focus on this problem almost above any other thing. my colleagues a lot of times come down here tawngdz about a moral -- down here and talk about a moral imperative. this is a moral imperative -- to create a healthy economy for the entire country, but we're not doing that. now, mr. president, what are the

solutions? well, one thing is when you ask the experts, how do you grow the economy, how can we create articles that talk about opportunity, not the shame of the middle class? one idea certainly is we have to reform a federal government that tries to overregulate every aspect of our economy. especially the small businesses. and when you ask the experts or the politicians, they all agree. a number of us had the opportunity to talk to former chairman of the fed alan greenspan yesterday. this clearly was one of the issues that he thinks we need to ignite traditional levels of economic growth. regulatory reform. again, bill clinton in a "newsweek" article, cover article in 2011, said the number-one thing we need to do is move forward on regulatory reform, to get projects moving, to build this country again.

and even president obama in his state of the union address this year said we have to cut red tape, we have to lessen the regulatory burden on americans. so there seems to be widespread agreement. but it's all talk. the and when we actually try to act, when we actually try to do just minimal reforms to this, which is the explosion and the growth of federal rules and regulations over the last several decades, when we try to do just a little of this, we stall, we get stymied, we get caught up in politics. let me give you just two recent examples, mr. president. i had a bill called the red tape act, very same bill. debated here on the senate floor. it essentially would put a cap on federal regulations, a

one-in, one-out rule. if you are a federal agency and you're going to put more regs on the u.s. comirks then you have to look at -- on the u.s. economy, then you have to look at your big portfolio regulations and sunset in terms of regs. four-page bill. the u.k. is doing this, canada is doing this, and it's working. some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle thought it was a good idea. we bring it to the floor. a simple idea that would help our economy. party-line vote, goes down. and just last week, as we were debating the aappropriations bill in terms of transportation, we wanted to move forward on another simple reg idea -- real simple: if there is a bridge in your

neighborhood and it's structurally deficient -- by the way, the united states has 61,000 structurally deficient bridges -- and you're not going to expand the bridge, you're just going to do maintenance or reconstruct it, you expedite the permitting, so it doesn't take five years to build a bridge or to reconstruct the bridge. again, very simple amendment. very common sense on regs. we were told, no, the other side viewed that has a poison pill. we even heard that the white house is thinking about threatening the bill if that amendment was attached to it. now, mr. president, these are simple, commonsense ideas that the american people fully support to keep them safe and to grow our economy.

we need to grow our economy. we need to take action on the senate floor to help grow our economy. we need to bring this sick economy back to health. but we're not doing it right now. instead, we see articles like i just mentioned about middle-class americans living paycheck to paycheck because they don't have opportunity. what we need to do, in addition to focusing on the defense of our nation and taking care of our troops, is get this anemic economy, this lost decade of economic growth that we've seen over the last ten years, roaring again, to provide opportunity and hope for americans. that's what we should be focused on, mr. president. i yield the floor.

sulaymaniya-- i have five unanimous requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record rm. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. i rise this afternoon to speak on s. 2943, which is the national defense authorization act that we recently invoked cloture on the motion to proceed. i guess we are going to be on this bill, and i'm glad we are. in particular, i want to address section 578 of this act. section 578 is simply designed to protect our service members' children when they're at school, to -- specifically to protect them from convicted pedophiles and other dangerous felons who are trying to infiltrate our nation's schools when they can to find more victims. this is a cause i have been working on, well, for at least

two and a half years here in the senate, mr. president. we have -- we have a serious problem, and we've made some progress but we have got a long way to go. for me, this campaign, this effort to address this began with a terrible, terrible story of a child named jeremy bell, and the story begins in my home state of pennsylvania, in delaware county, pennsylvania. a schoolteacher had molested several boys, had raped one of them. the officials at the school figured out that something has gone wrong here. prosecutors were brought in, but they never felt like they had enough evidence to actually press charges, to bring a case. the school decided that they would dismiss this teacher. they didn't want him around anymore, but shockingly and

appallingly, they decided that to facilitate his departure from the school, they would help him get a job at another school. they would actually recommend him for hire somewhere else. well, he did get a job at another school in west virginia, with the help in part of the letter of recommendation he got from the delaware county school district, and that teacher went on to become a school principal, and of course he continued his -- his appalling victimization of children, and it ended when he raped and murdered a 12-year-old boy named jeremy bell. well, justice eventually caught up with that monster who had gone from pennsylvania to west virginia. he's now in jail where i hope he will remain for the rest of his life but for jeremy bell, of course, that justice came too late. and sadly, mr. president, jeremy bell is not alone.

year after year, we see staggering and heart breaking numbers. 2014, at least 459 teachers and other professional school workers across the country were arrested for sexual misconduct with the kids they're supposed to be taking care of. that's more than one per day. in 2015, the number went up. it got worse. it was 496 arrests. again, schoolteachers and school personnel who have unsupervised contact with these children. and so far, 2016 is not doing any better. we've had 185 arrests in just 144 days. so, you know, one way to look at this, mr. president, is just since i got engaged in this battle two and a half years ago, we've had at least 1,140 school

employees arrested for sexual misconduct with the children in their care. and of course these are just the ones that have been caught. these are the ones we know about. these are the ones where there is enough information and evidence that the law enforcement folks were comfortable in making an arrest. how many more? how much is this going on? and of course, every one of these stories is a terrible, terrible tragedy for the victims, like the child whose sexual abuse began at age 10 and only ended when at 17 she found she was pregnant with a teacher's child, or the teacher's aide who raped a young mentally disabled boy who was in his care. these are hard things to even talk about, mr. president. think of how infinitely harder it is for the victims to suffer through this. and the examples go on and on. this has to stop. we have to be doing everything

we can to try to prevent this and to protect the kids that are in our country's schools. this is why back in 2013, i introduced a bill that was meant to do exactly that. it was called the protecting students from sexual and violent predators act. it's a bipartisan bill. and it included fundamentally two protections. the first was a ban on this terrible practice that led to the murder of jeremy bell. it holds that a school would have to be forbidden from knowingly recommending for hire someone who is a known child molestor. it seems like so appalling, how could this happen, but the jeremy bell case is not the only case. in fact, this phenomenon by which schools try to get rid of their monsters by making him someone else's problem, it is so widely recognized that schools will facilitate that person

getting a job somewhere else, this phenomenon has its own name. it's called pass be -- passing the trash. people who are advocates for crime victims, people who help children to cope with the horrendous experience that they have been through, they know this very well. they know this phenomenon because they have seen it all too often. so that's the first piece of my legislation from 2013, make it illegal to knowingly pass the trash. and the second is to just require a thorough background check, a thorough criminal background check whenever someone is being hired who will have unsupervised contact with children in the school. so that means teachers, but it also means coaches, it means the school bus driver, it means contractors, if the contractor will have that kind of access to the children. now, last december, mr. president, we had an important victory on this because the first protection, the prohibition against knowingly passing the trash,

that passed the senate. it was a battle. there were people here who fought this very aggressively, but eventually i was able to get a vote on the senate floor, and it passed overwhelmingly. it was then included in the text of the every student succeeds act. that legislation has since been signed into law, so it is now the law of the land that it is forbidden to knowingly recommend these pedophiles for hire. but as i said that was only the first part of our legislation. that success we had back in december was only a first step, and we were not able to succeed with the tougher, more comprehensive background checks that we need, and so i said at the time i'm not finished, we're going to continue this fight, and we are. and that's why i'm here today, because the legislation that we are about to take up, the national defense authorization act, takes us another important step forward, and what it does

is helps in this effort to have more comprehensive background checks. you know, i've got a personal interest in this, mr. president. that is that i have three young children, a 15-year-old, a 14-year-old and a 6-year-old. and i represent 12.8 million pennsylvanians, and the vast majority of the people that i represent have the exact same feud that i do, which is that when we put our kid on a bus in the morning to go to school, we have every right to believe that we're sending our child to the safest possible environment. so that's what this is about. what this legislation does in the defense authorization bill is it incorporates a bill that i introduced earlier this year, and that bill was called the protecting service members children act. the national defense authorization bill takes my bill, this protecting service members' children act, and incorporates it, builds it in.

what it does is it covers department of d.o.d., defense department-operated schools in the u.s., of which there are many, but it also covers schools in school districts that receive federal impact aid because the children of our military folks attend those schools. so that is one of the ways that we cover some of the costs of educating our men and women in uniform, their kids. we do it by providing this impact aid to the school districts to which they send their kids, and what my legislation does and what the ndaa therefore does is it requires these schools to conduct the same kind of background check that the d.o.d. requires of its own schools, which is exactly the right thing to do. and that provides also that if a person has been convicted of certain serious crimes -- and that would include violent or sexual crimes against a child -- then that criminal may not be

employed in a position that gives him unsupervised access to children. it's as simple as that. this will cover schools that represent 17% of our children, about 8 and a half million kids. mr. president, i think this is common sense. a background check for school workers is common sense. all state, all school districts do this to some degree. the problem is not everyone does it to an adequate degree, and my view is that a person, it should not be possible for a person who's been convicted of child rape to walk out of a prison, walk down the street and get a job in an elementary school. i mean, that should be absolutely impossible. i'm not suggesting that that convict shouldn't be able to get any job, but i absolutely am suggesting that he should not be able to get a job in which he has unsupervised contact with

children. that to me is a no brainer. this feature, my bill, the legislation does not impose any new burdens on the department of defense. the d.o.d. regulation as i said already requires this thorough background check on all d.o.d. operated schools, but what we do is we reaffirm that so that no future administration could water that down by executive order or some other way. these -- i would also suggest, mr. president, that there's an important reason why it's absolutely essential we provide this protection to the members of our military, and that is that the men and women who put on the uniform of this country don't always have a say in where they're going to be stationed. they don't necessarily get to decide which base and which state they're going to work and, therefore, which school their children will attend. so when they get moved to

another state over which they have no say, they certainly have no say in the background check policy of that school or that school district or that state. and so here they are, these men and women who take enormous personal risk, and make huge sacrifices to protect us seems to me the least we could be doing is protecting their kids when their kids are going to school. i should salute the efforts of state senator tony williams from pennsylvania because the fact is the children of pennsylvania, in pennsylvania are protected by a very rigorous background check system thanks largely to senator williams insistence that we do this and his advocacy for legislation that gets that done. but you know when pennsylvania service members are stationed in some other state, they still deserve the same level of protection that they get in

pennsylvania, but tony williams' bill that is now the law of the land in pennsylvania, well, it doesn't apply beyond the borders of pennsylvania and that's why we need this legislation, to make sure that all the men and women who wear the uniform of this country can know that their children will have this protection. i just think it is the least, really, truly the least we can do for the people who are ensuring the safety and security of all of us in our country is to make sure that their children are at least safe from convicted pedophiles and other dangerous felons who attempt to infiltrate these schools. let me also thank someone else. i want to thank the chairman, senator mccain has been an ally of mine in this ongoing battle to keep our kids safer for years now. his leadership has been outstanding and it's because of his commitment to the safety and security of our kids that my

legislation is in the national defense authorization act, the legislation that we're considering today. senator mccain was a cosponsor of my first bill to protect kids in the classroom, and his support was essential in the victory we had last year when we were able to prohibit passing the trash. and it is absolutely the case that without his steadfast support, we would not have this provision in this legislation today. so i am very grateful to senator mccain for his leadership on this and i'm just proud to be standing with him in this important issue. let me just close with this, mr. president. the fact is it is past time to act. it is past time to do something about this. in the two and a half years since i have been trying to make sure that we stop permitting schools to pass the trash in the two and a half years since i've been trying to get the most rigorous standards for doing

background checks, during that time alone, there have been over 1,100 school employees arrested. and as i say, those are the ones we know about. how much bigger does this number have to get? how much longer do we have to wait? more importantly, how many kids have to be brutallyized? how many kids have to have their childhood shattered before we're going to impose the toughest possible regiment to protect these kids? i've seen way more than enough. the families who have been torn apart by this devastating crime -- these devastating crimes, they've seen way too much. so i urge my colleagues today, let's get this done. let's get this done. let's take a big step forward in providing a significant additional level of security and protection for the children of the men and women who sacrifice so much to protect all of us.

and i yield the floor.