Jerry Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senators Merkley and Bennet.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. MORAN. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 232, S. 1590.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 373, submitted earlier today.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the joint resolution on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I understand there is a joint resolution at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, October 23; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to resume consideration of S.J. Res. 50. I further ask the debate time on the joint resolution expire at 2:45 p.m. tomorrow and the Senate vote on passage of S.J. Res. 50; finally, that following the disposition of S.J. Res. 50, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 3055.

Mr. MORAN

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, last evening, I was here at this exact spot asking my colleagues to support the idea of advancing appropriations bills, and I am pleased to see today that has today occurred. It occurred on a vote of 92 to 2. That is a good sign. It is a goal of mine to see the Senate function. One of the ways we can determine whether we are doing our jobs is whether we can pass appropriations bills. The Senate is now considering 4 of 12 appropriations bills that should be adopted on an annual basis. I begin my remarks this evening by thanking Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy for their leadership and for working hard to bring appropriations bills to the floor, including my subcommittee's work on the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. As the chairman of that CJS Subcommittee, I worked closely with the ranking member, Senator Shaheen, the Senator from New Hampshire, whom I know very well. Senator Shaheen and I have worked together to produce a good-government, bipartisan bill that is part of this appropriations package we are now debating. I express my gratitude to her and her staff for her partnership, and I am proud we were able to report the bill out of the Appropriations Committee by a unanimous vote. I appreciate Senator Shaheen's willingness to find common ground, and I look forward to seeing this bill pass the Senate and ultimately be enacted into law. As I have said before, this is a good bill. It is consist with our subcommittee's 302(b) allocation, and I believe it balances the many competing priorities of our funding jurisdiction. As you expect in a bill that is titled ``Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies,'' there are many competing interests in determining how we allocate the spending within that 302(b) allocation. The CJS bill supports activities related to national security; Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement; space exploration; economic development; trade promotion and enforcement; scientific research; and many other critical government functions. The CJS bill provides funding for the Department of Commerce, which includes an increase of significant amounts of dollars that are necessary in fiscal year 2020 to fund the Census Bureau to ensure that we have an accurate counting for the 2020 decennial census--a constitutional requirement. It is one of the reasons that it is difficult to allocate money in our bill, because the census is so critical and must be done in a professional and timely manner. We believe we have included the necessary support for that to occur. This bill also has a strong support for NOAA programs--the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--to ensure continuation of core operations, including ocean monitoring, fisheries management, coastal grants to States, aquaculture research, and severe weather forecasting, and additional opportunities for economic growth by supporting the Economic Development Agency and continuing the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program. The CJS bill also supports space and scientific exploration. This bill is the bill that funds NASA. As many of my colleagues know, this year the administration took a step--a bold step--in advancing the timeframe by which American astronauts will return to the Moon. The plan is now to return to the Moon by 2024. This bill helps accelerate that goal and will cement America's leadership in space exploration. The bill provides robust funding for NASA, including funding for science and aeronautics and the Artemis mission--that trip to the Moon--which will allow NASA to begin to take those important steps to achieve its goal--and a goal of mine--of putting the first woman on the Moon by 2024. The bill also includes needed funding for STEM education programs. In most recent times, when the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 was celebrated, it caused me to remember back to the days in which many people in this country saw what we were able to accomplish and dedicated their lives--young people--to science and research, to space exploration. This bill is supportive of that and is designed to inspire the next generation of scientists--young people and others. Finally, the CJS bill also provides for increased funding for the Department of Justice. The funding includes additional resources for the Department's law enforcement components, enabling the Department to hire additional agents, deputy marshals, and correctional officers, expanding the Department's efforts to combat mass violence and violent crime. Funding for the Executive Office for Immigration Review is also increased so that additional immigration judges and support staff can be hired, continuing our committee's effort to reduce the immigration court backlog, which is now over 960,000. Additionally, as an original sponsor of the First Step Act, I am proud that this bill provides $75 million--the fully authorized level-- to the Bureau of Prisons for its implementation. Our bill provides $2.3 billion in funding for State, local, and Tribal law enforcement assistance, including a total of $517 million to combat the various opioid, meth, and substance abuse crises raging our communities, $500 million for grants authorized under the Violence Against Women Act, and $315 million for juvenile justice grants. These grants will help local communities prevent crime and also provide support and assistance for crime victims. Unfortunately, many of our law enforcement officials are under significant stress, increasing pressures, and there is an increasing level of suicide among law enforcement officers across the country. Again, we have provided funding for counseling--something I wish were not necessary. We have a transparent product here. We worked in a bipartisan manner, as many Kansans and Americans have asked me to do, asking: Can we get along? The answer is yes, we can get along to do something as basic as an appropriations bill. I hope the answer will continue to be yes. It is important for us to address the priorities and needs of our Nation. I look forward to advancing this legislation. I will be here on the Senate floor from time to time to respond to my colleagues' questions and to respond to any amendments that may be offered. I urge my colleagues to support this package of four bills, including our CJS bill, so that we can move one step closer to completing our constitutionally required work of funding the Federal Government. I again thank Chairman Shelby and the vice chairman, Senator Leahy, for their leadership throughout this entire process. I look forward to working with them for the next few days and throughout the year to see that we have a successful conclusion. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN. Madam President as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's consent to the resolution of ratification with respect to treaty document No. 116-1.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to my colleagues on the Senate floor this evening. I really come to talk about something that shouldn't be momentous, shouldn't be unusual, and should be routine around here. Unfortunately, as you and I have experienced, it is not routine. What is not routine is the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Congress getting its job done. Part of that job is the appropriations process, and it ought to be something we do every year on a routine basis. Every city council, every county commission, and every school board in the State of Kansas every year passes a budget and determines the spending for that school board or that city council or for that county commission. Yet, when we come to Washington, DC, over the years, it has become problematic and it has become difficult for us to do one of the basic things of a functioning government: to determine the amount of money to be spent, in broad terms, and then to fill in the spaces with what we should do for individual Agencies and Departments within that budget agreement. We are poised for a vote tomorrow, a motion on cloture. What that means to folks in Kansas is this: Should we begin the process of debating, amending, and passing appropriations bills? I am here to urge my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to vote yes on cloture, to bring us to the point in which we can have the debate. I wouldn't have thought when I came to the U.S. Senate that one of my primary tasks, at least as I saw it, would be to try to help this place function and have an appropriations process that is thoughtful, that establishes priorities, that allows every Member of the Senate to have input. That is something we ought to be able to accomplish without a lot of work, and I hope that we demonstrate that we can do that in the vote tomorrow. The appropriations process has involved an Appropriations Committee of which you, Mr. President, and I serve on. Many of the bills have been considered and voted on. There will be four bills as a package in this motion to invoke cloture that will be presented to the full Senate tomorrow. For the subcommittee that I chair--Commerce, Justice, Science--that appropriations bill will be a part of that cloture package. Agriculture, something hugely important to my constituents in Kansas and across the country, Interior, Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development--those four bills have passed unanimously out of the Senate Appropriations Committee in September. Every Republican on the committee and every Democrat on the committee voted in favor of them. I know in my own circumstances, on the Commerce, Justice, Science bill, I worked closely--perhaps a better way to say it is that the ranking member of our subcommittee, the Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs. Shaheen, and I worked closely together--to try to find a path by which we could avoid those issues that would prevent us from finding an agreement that allowed our bill to move forward. I am pretty certain that occurred in the other three subcommittees. Presented tomorrow is an opportunity for the Senate to take up 4 appropriations bills--4 out of 12--and those 4 are ones that were unanimously agreed to by the Appropriations Committee. I commend Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy for their efforts in the full committee to bring us together to get us in a position where we have those four bills now, soon, I hope, to be pending in front of the Senate. Why does this matter? There is a lot of work that has gone into trying to determine what those appropriations bills should say and should contain. Certainly, how much money we spend is important, but if you sidetrack the appropriations process, you eliminate the prioritization. We need to make decisions every year on behalf of the American people. Is there something that we should spend no money on? Last year it received money but not this year. It is not enough priority for us to spend enough money on this year. Are there things we are spending money on today, this year, that are about right, and are there a few things we should spend more money on? That is a process that involves hearings. It involves witnesses. It involves testimony. It involves other Members, the U.S. Senators, and 100 of us have the opportunity to provide input as to how much money should be spent in those various areas of the appropriations bill. Are there things that are higher priorities, programs that work better than others? We ought to care about this from a fiscal point of view--how much money we spend. Are we on a path to get us toward greater fiscal sanity, getting our books to balance? But at the same time, in the process of doing that, are we making decisions that determine that something is more important than something else because we know we shouldn't and can't spend money on everything? That is what the appropriations process does. Maybe we didn't get it exactly right, but allowing the bills to come to the Senate floor allows 99 of my colleagues to join me in the ability to offer amendments to change those priorities. So every Member of the Senate, on behalf of their constituents back home in their home States, ought to care about an appropriations bill being on the Senate floor. Perhaps, this is the point when I should say that if we fail to do this, what this normally will mean is that we have what we call a CR, or a continuing resolution, meaning that we are going to fund the Federal Government next year at the same levels and in the same way as we did this year. That lacks any kind of common sense or a basis for making a good decision. Not everything is equal. Just because we spent something last year in this amount doesn't mean it is the right amount next year. If we have been doing continuing resolutions one year after another, what that means is decisions we made about spending 3 or 4 years ago remain the priorities for next year's spending. We ought to avoid the continuing resolution. We ought to do our work. Tomorrow's vote puts us on a path to do that. Again, we are only on that path if the Members of the Senate decide that this is something we are going to proceed to accomplish. Fiscal order, prioritization of spending--I also think that Congress over the years has deferred too often to Federal Agencies and Departments. I tell my constituents that I know the American people are not satisfied with the nature of Congress as an institution and perhaps not satisfied with even their own Senator or U.S. Congressman or Congresswoman, but we are the closest thing that you have to the ability to make your will known and cause and effect in Washington, DC. Someone can visit with me and someone can visit with every U.S. Senator and have a consequence here. It is through this process, if you allow us all to participate in the legislative process, that we can take our constituents' will and bring it to Washington, DC, on their behalf. In the absence of that, it just means the Departments, the Cabinets, the Cabinet Secretaries, the Agency heads, the Bureau chiefs, and the people who work within the bureaucracy have more say if we don't do appropriations bills than elected officials representing Kansans and the people of 49 other States. This is a way we can bring the people of the United States into decisions made in Washington, DC. When we defer, when we do a continuing resolution, it means it is more likely that no person within the bureaucracy has any reason to pay any attention to our interests. A constituent brings me a problem and says: Something is going on at the Department of Interior, and this is what we are seeing, and this is how it affects us. Could you help solve that problem? Can you get somebody's attention at the Department of Interior? Could you get somebody's attention at the Department of Commerce? If we don't do appropriations bills, our ability to influence people at the Department of Commerce--the power of the purse strings-- disappears. It means that we have less ability not only to determine how money is to be spent but to be able to tell an Agency head or a Cabinet Secretary: This makes no sense. What you are doing to folks back home is very damaging to them. Let us explain to you. If human nature, being what it is, says that if you are the person or if you are the organization--in this case, the U.S. Senate--that determines how much money an Agency, Department, or Cabinet Secretary gets within their realm of authority, you are going to be much more likely to listen to a Member of Congress and help us solve problems on behalf of our constituents. The appropriations process matters greatly. I think we are poised for the opportunity to demonstrate that this place can work, it can represent the American people, and we can allow all of our colleagues to have input in the appropriations process, which has been ongoing since last year. I hope the conclusion tomorrow by my colleagues is that this is a worthy endeavor. The U.S. Senate ought to return to the days in which we did 12 appropriations bills on an annual basis and allowed the American people their input in the appropriations process.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks while seated.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, while my remarks in front of me say ``I rise today,'' I sit today on this Senate floor to congratulate a Topeka, KS, native, a 2019 U.S. Open champion, Gary Woodland. Gary Woodland grew up in Topeka and attended Shawnee Heights High School. After high school, Gary attended Washburn University on a full basketball scholarship before transferring to the University of Kansas to join the golf team. This U.S. Open was the first major championship victory of Gary Woodland's career, and Gary made history by becoming the first graduate of the University of Kansas to ever win a PGA major tournament. Gary's performance at Pebble Beach was truly elite. He scored under par in all four rounds, including an impressive 6-under-par 65 in the second round. On Sunday's final round, Gary battled the elements and a late surge by last year's U.S. Open champion, Brooks Koepka. On hole 18, Gary sunk a long birdie putt to solidify his win at 13 strokes under par, 1 stroke better than Tiger Woods' historic 2000 U.S. Open victory at Pebble Beach. I congratulate Gary on this historic win, but I also recognize his actions off the course. Gary is an advocate for Special Olympics and also partners with Folds of Honor, a nonprofit organization that grants scholarships to family members of U.S. servicemembers. Gary even wore patriotic golf gear to honor our troops and Folds of Honor at the U.S. Open. After the win, Gary thanked our troops for their service and stated: ``There's men and women who sacrifice and do so much for us so I can go out and play a game of golf and live my life under freedom.'' The final round also coincides with Father's Day, and this undoubtedly made this championship even more significant as Gary's father watched him sink the final putt on 18. Gary said, after his win, that his dad worked nights so he could pursue his love of sports and spend time with him during the day. I recognize Gary, but I also want to recognize the entire Woodland family-- his parents, Dana and Linda; his wife, Gabby; his son, Jaxson; and the twin girls they are expecting. This is a tremendous achievement. Kansans are extremely proud of you, Gary. We wish you and your family the best of luck moving forward, and we will continue to root for your success. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jake Vance and James Schmidt, legislative correspondents in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, this week, as we know, our Nation observes National Police Week, a time when we pay tribute to our law enforcement officers, especially those who died in the line of duty. Today I rise to honor their dedication and their significant and tremendous sacrifice. On Monday evening, thousands of people gathered on the National Mall to pay tribute to the 371 officers who gave their lives in the line of duty. Four officers from Kansas were among those memorialized on Monday. Last June, Wyandotte County sheriff's deputies Theresa King and Patrick Rohrer were shot and killed while preparing to transport a prisoner. Theresa King joined the Wyandotte County Sheriff's Office in 2005. A working mother of three children, Theresa, or ``TK,'' was known for coming to work every day with a smile and a willingness to help out in any way that she could. She is a founding member of the Kansas City- based Lancaster-Melton Peacekeepers Civitan Club, a group of law enforcement officers and their families dedicated to honoring slain officers. Patrick Rohrer, a husband and father of two children, joined the Wyandotte County Sheriff's Office in 2011. Patrick was known as a dedicated deputy that never lost his sense of humor and often peppered his colleagues with his favorite ``Star Wars'' quotes. He was also known for his competitive spirit. Patrick had been a varsity letterman on the swim team at Shawnee Mission Northwest High School. His family's motto became ``Keep on Swimming.'' I will echo Wyandotte County's Sheriff Don Ash's words in memorializing the deputies: ``Theresa and Patrick were heroes in every sense of the word'' when they put ``their lives between a cold-blooded killer and the citizens they swore an oath to protect.'' In September, Deputy Sheriff Robert Kunze of the Sedgwick County Sheriff's Office was fatally shot during an encounter with a suspect in a stolen vehicle. He, too, was a husband and father who had served with the Sedgwick County Sheriff's Office for 12 years and had previously served with the Shawnee County Sheriff's Office for 6 years. Robert Kunze's impact on the department was made apparent when Sedgwick County's Sheriff Jeff Easter referred to his death as the loss of a ``family member.'' Robert was known as an exceptional law enforcement officer and has been remembered by his colleagues as having a contagious laugh that always made others feel welcome. This year we also memorialized Jefferson County undersheriff George Burnau, who died in the line of duty on April 29, 1920. His dedication set an example for generations of law enforcement officers in Kansas and around the country, those that followed him. I would like to honor one additional law enforcement officer who is serving on my staff as a Department of Justice fellow. ATF Special Agent Matt Beccio has become an integral part of our team over the past year, giving sound advice on issues relating to Justice and traveling to Kansas to meet with local law enforcement officials. His firsthand enforcement experience and passion for bettering the lives of law enforcement officers across the country have been tremendous assets to our office. This week Matt led members of my staff in participating in Police Week's 5K memorial run alongside Kansas law enforcement and their colleagues from across the country. Thank you, Matt, for your dedication and for using your role in our office to better support your colleagues in law enforcement. During National Police Week and throughout the year, we are reminded that law enforcement needs our support. We must provide them with the resources they need to do their jobs. As chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that funds the Department of Justice and, particularly, those law enforcement grants, I am committed to doing so. We know we must provide the tools that law enforcement needs to build and strengthen the bonds of trust with those they serve and provide our best efforts to address the underlying challenges and the challenges of our society and of our country that face each and every community. We honor the service and sacrifice of our Nation's fallen law enforcement officers, not only for the sake of those who have departed but as a reminder to all of us that remain. May God bless our law enforcement officers and protect them from harm as they faithfully perform their duties each and every day. 65th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education Mr. President, on the of 65th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision on Brown v. Board of Education, I rise to pay tribute to the Topeka, KS, families, led by the Browns and all Kansans who took part in challenging the injustice of racial segregation. For 60 years, leading up to Brown, much of America adhered to the Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson that established the doctrine of ``separate but equal.'' However, when applied to school buildings and the education of our children, nothing about it was equal. In 1951, Linda Carol Brown was in the third grade and would walk six blocks to a bus stop that would take her to Monroe Elementary, more than a mile away from her home, despite the fact that Sumner Elementary was seven blocks from her home. Even after repeated applications for attendance at the neighborhood school, the Browns and other families were rejected. They were rejected because of the color of their skin. In that year, 13 parents, led by Linda's father Oliver, filed suit against the Topeka Board of Education on behalf of their 20 children. Combining other cases throughout the country, Thurgood Marshall argued on their behalf before the U.S. Supreme Court--the Court that he would later join as a Justice. On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court unanimously issued its landmark decision announcing that Plessy's ``separate but equal'' doctrine violated the Fourteenth Amendment. While full integration would take years to accomplish, the events set in motion by these determined parents were irreversible, and they are worthy of our respect and honor today. Nowhere was this truer than in the city where it all started. Before the case had even reached the Supreme Court, the Topeka Board of Education began integrating its primary schools. Kansas had its pre-Civil War bloodshed to determine whether the Territory would enter the Union as a free State or slave State, and Wichita was home to one of the first sit-ins to integrate drugstore lunch counters. But it is Brown v. Board of Education that is our State's greatest connection to the Nation's pursuit of racial justice. That these events happened in Kansas reflect the imperfect history of our State and of our Nation, but also the resolve of individual Kansans and national organizations like the NAACP to right wrongs and to make ``a more perfect union,'' as our Constitution contemplates. On this anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, we remember the legacy left behind by Linda Brown and her parents. Linda Brown just passed away last year, and we honor her, her family, and all those involved in the civil rights movement. This legacy is one that requires all Americans--each of us--to uphold the self-evident truth that all men and women are created equal. Let us remember the legacy of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, and in doing so, I ask every American to commit to racial justice and equal opportunity. Disaster Relief Mr. President, I rise to speak about the devastation I have seen as I toured flooded areas of Kansas, as well as parts of Missouri, Nebraska, and Iowa, and the need for Congress to pass a disaster bill to provide assistance to impacted agricultural producers. Kansas farmers and ranchers have endured several challenging years. Since 2013, net farm income has been cut in half due to low commodity prices. The flooding across Kansas and the Midwest has been one more setback in the long list of challenges facing our farmers and ranchers. In the days following the worst flooding, I visited areas of Kansas that were underwater. I saw farm ground that cannot be planted or put into use until significant time, effort, and resources are invested in restoring that land. Continued rainfall across the State and region has threatened to cause additional flooding in many areas as well as delayed planning for many farmers. It is important and it is necessary that Congress meet the challenge of providing assistance to those producers, many of whom lost everything. As negotiations continue on a disaster bill, I would like to highlight the importance of providing funds for the Emergency Conservation Program and amending the current disaster program to help cover the cost of lost stored grain. The Emergency Conservation Program was authorized to help producers restore land damaged from natural disasters, including floods. Kansans are, unfortunately, familiar with ECP as a result of assistance our State received to help rebuild fences following the devastating wildfires of 2017 and 2018. However, this program does not currently have sufficient funds to cover producers impacted by this year's floods. I asked Secretary Perdue about the ECP budget shortfall at a recent Ag Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, and as expected, he gave his full endorsement and support for Congress to provide funds for ECP in this disaster bill. Secretary Perdue recognizes that funds must be provided to ECP and other ag disaster programs to help producers restore damaged land and remove flood debris. Congress must also provide assistance to producers who lost stored grain due to floods. Oftentimes, the farmer's income or revenue is not money in the bank but instead grain stored in a bin waiting to be sold. With market uncertainty due to trade disputes, farmers have more grain in storage than usual, waiting for prices to increase. When that grain is wiped out by floods, it is similar to the family's savings account being drained of its cash. Currently, disaster programs are not equipped to help these producers who lost a year's worth of work and income when their stored grain was damaged or destroyed. Congress has the opportunity in the disaster bill to give USDA the authority to cover the loss of stored grain and to help these producers get back on their feet. While faced with these great challenges, farmers and ranchers continue to provide the food, fuel, and fiber to our Nation and the world. Agriculture is one of the most demanding ways of life. It is full of uncertainty, but it is also a very noble calling. It is imperative that Congress pass a disaster bill to help producers who lost goods to floods and other disasters and to make certain farmers and ranchers across the Nation know that we appreciate what they do to provide for our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in recess subject to the call of the chair. Thereupon, the Senate, at 2:15 p.m., recessed subject to the call of the Chair and reassembled at 2:41 p.m. when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the postcloture time on the Hartogensis nomination expire at 5 p.m. today. I further ask that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on this nomination.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I am here to take the opportunity to join my colleagues to speak in support of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. I thank Senator Sasse for his continued leadership on this issue. I supported the bill when Senator Sasse introduced it last Congress, and I was glad to see Senator McConnell, our leader, bring this bill to the floor for a vote. I am astonished--astonished--that we are debating whether it is appropriate to leave born children to die. Today, now, in the year of 2019, how can this be? Science demonstrates that human life begins at conception, and our understanding of neonatal development is increasing every day. I am a member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services. The National Institutes of Health is one of my top priorities for funding. At the NIH, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development has advanced our knowledge of pregnancy and development in the womb. Under this Institute, the Neonatal Research Network has pioneered research that has led to techniques that saved the lives of children in their earliest stages, when these children are at their most vulnerable. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that more than 10,000 babies are aborted each year after 20 weeks of conception, when science--science--tells us that an unborn child can feel pain inside the womb. That number will increase as a result of recent State-level efforts to end virtually any restriction on abortion when a child could viably live outside the womb. These efforts are extreme and fall far beyond the mainstream of American opinion. This legislation does nothing to limit prenatal abortion. While we must address that issue--the root causes of abortion and the ways to curb this heartbreaking trend--that is not the issue at hand today in this legislation. The question before us is this: When a child survives an abortion and is born, does the U.S. Senate believe the child can still be eliminated, or should the baby be protected and given all possible care to survive? This act requires healthcare practitioners to ``exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of a child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious healthcare practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.'' Any negligence in this regard is subject to criminal and civil punishment, which at present does not exist. Should anyone think this is some made-up issue--despite the Virginia Governor's shocking comments revealing an openness to infanticide and New York's expansion of abortion well beyond the age of viability that makes born-alive abortion survivors more likely--we have concrete evidence that this grotesque act happens. Notorious abortion provider Kermit Gosnell is serving life in prison for these very acts. Closing our eyes to what is obscene does not make it any less real. That it is allegedly ``rare'' doesn't make it any less real or abhorrent. One child purposefully deprived of healthcare and allowed to die is one too many. It is infanticide, which brings us to the crux of this issue. We need to think carefully about the long-term impacts to the definition of ``healthcare'' if Congress refuses to act positively on this measure. Do the guardrails of neonatal health succumb to the belief that infants don't really count as one of us? Our society is not one of the ancient Romans or the Aztecs. We don't sacrifice our children to please an unknown god. In the progress of human history, principles of the enlightenment--also known as the Age of Reason--declared self-evident truths that all humans are created equal and endowed with the unalienable right to life. Although undoubtedly we have our flaws, these enlightenment principles enshrined in our founding documents remain true to who we are as a nation and who we are as human beings. We recoil when we hear of children who are harmed in any manner. Yet today we are faced with a reality where the ability to terminate an unborn child's life when it is viable outside of the womb is something that is not only tolerated but is passionately defended by the left. That is bad enough, but to see legislation ensuring that the medical care of born children gets blocked is incomprehensible. The immutable march of progress in human history has met a roadblock today in the U.S. Senate. The Age of Reason seems to have escaped us. Tonight, the Senate had an opportunity to send a message showing who we are as leaders and as a society as a whole--one that protects the weak and the voiceless instead of one that permits their destruction. I regret and I am saddened that the Senate failed this fundamental test. I am eager to do more to protect innocent life, including the unborn, but the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act provided us an opportunity to affirm the most basic need for healthcare for a vulnerable child who has already beaten the odds to survive. Let's hope we have another opportunity to give these children the chance at life they so deserve. I thank you. I yield the floor.