Jerry Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I am glad to see the Presiding Officer in the Chair because I came to talk about a topic that he and I share a great concern and compassion about--the veterans of our States and our Nation. I first want to thank Senator John McCain, of Arizona. Many of my colleagues have spent a much longer time in the Senate than I have, and they have had the opportunity to work side by side with Senator McCain more often than I have, but I am honored today to join him in legislation that we introduced earlier this week. It is S. 2184, the Veterans Community Care and Access Act of 2017. I am honored to have the opportunity to work side by side with Senator McCain and other colleagues as we try to determine how best we can care for those who served our Nation. I wish to use this opportunity to pay tribute to the Senator from Arizona for his service to our Nation and what I know of his experience in Vietnam and his service to the Nation but what I also know of him in difficult circumstances in which he continues to work for the benefit and well-being of the people of our country. We both share--he is a veteran, not I--the ideals and beliefs that those who served our country deserve only the best from a grateful nation. I have been a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee since I came to Congress with that goal in mind, and I continue to serve in the Senate as a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I serve now as the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds the Department of Veterans Affairs. We have introduced the Veterans Community Care and Access Act because we want to call on the VA to do what it is they say they want to do. This bill fulfills priorities. The reason this bill comes to the Senate floor at this point in time is that the Veterans Choice Program was created at a time of crisis at the VA in which veterans were not being served and not being well served, and Congress responded with a program to allow veterans to access care in their communities. It is before us again because that program expires presumably this month, perhaps early in January. The bill expires when the funding for the Veterans Choice Program is used up, and that is a matter of days or weeks away. The effort, in part, is to reauthorize the Veterans Choice Program but, more importantly, to make certain that we revitalize, update, improve, alter, and transform the Department of Veterans Affairs. In my view, it would be a sad circumstance in which we reach the conclusion that we must simply reauthorize the Choice Program without using this opportunity to transform the VA into something better that can serve the needs of more veterans in a better way to fulfill the needs of those veterans. The legislation that Senator McCain and I have introduced does several things with regard to transforming the VA. It merges and modernizes the community care programs into one program. It provides greater access to care for veterans within the VA and within the community. In my view, this is not just about improving access or the quality of care in the community. It is about improving the opportunity of the VA to care for veterans within the VA. It establishes a framework for the VA to build a high-performing healthcare network. That network is designed to care for veterans where they can best receive the care, where they can receive the best quality care, and where they can geographically attain the care they need. In addition to that, it requires the VA to coordinate that care within that network across the system so that once a veteran is a patient of the VA, they are not forgotten, they are followed, and they, as an individual veteran, have a care coordinator within the Department of Veterans Affairs. Regarding reform legislation on this VA community care, Secretary Shulkin, the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, told me: ``We need more specificity.'' So we developed legislation that balances instruction and guidance from Congress with the VA's own proposal. Secretary Shulkin also told me that if too much is left to the regulation process, ``the VA will keep things the way they are now''-- that things will not change. This is a recognition of the bureaucracy that he manages, and it is a recognition of that bureaucracy's refusal to change. Refusal to change, unfortunately, is what got us to the 2014 scandal--exhibited, particularly, in Phoenix--which revealed nationwide system failures and resulted in the deaths of veterans. It is also evidenced by refusal to change, which is shown the number of times we have had a crisis in which the VA has run out of money to pay for the Choice Program and again comes to us at the 11th hour telling us they need help financially to keep the Choice Program going. It is a reason why today we can't tell you how much money is needed or when the current resources will expire. I don't want us to miss the opportunity to do something more than simply reauthorize the Choice Program. I want to use this opportunity to create a system that not only works for veterans but modernizes and transforms the VA into a 21st century healthcare system that will serve our veterans today and veterans for generations to come. This legislation reforms the VA healthcare system by connecting independent demand and capacity assessments to objective access and quality standards, which are used, then, to provide the veterans access to care in their community. The point here is that the VA remains the gatekeeper. The point, also, is that the criteria--the broad outline by which community care should be and must be provided--is determined by Congress, not by rules and regulations from within the bureaucracy of the Department. This legislation creates the tools the VA must use to reform healthcare, safeguards our veterans from inconsistent experiences, and leads to poor health outcomes. This effort was a collaboration, including a strong collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs, but also with the General Accounting Office, the Congressional Research Service, the Department of Defense, RAND, various healthcare industry experts across the country, as well as veterans services organizations. We worked closely with the entities that have investigated the VA. In the Appropriations subcommittee that I chair, we often have the IG or the GAO in front of us explaining one more time a flaw that occurred at the VA and what needs to be done to correct that flaw. We sought their input into how not to fix the consequences of a flaw but how to avoid a flaw. We want to fill in the gaps and develop solutions in advance of problems, and that requires real transformation within the VA. We need to get the VA's house in order so they can do what they want to do, what they are required to do, and what the Americans demand of them--care for our veterans. There is too much dysfunction still happening at the VA for Congress not to take a stronger and more measured approach to reforming the VA healthcare system. It is unacceptable, in my view, for us to rely on ``criteria the Secretary will develop'' because that translates into a VA bureaucracy determining veteran eligibility in that regulatory process. In large part, this legislation is derived, in my view from my experience as a Member of the Senate, in which not a day goes by that our office doesn't hear from veterans across Kansas and across the country. They bring to us the problems they have experienced, what all of us in the Senate would call casework. Somebody brings us a problem, and we work to solve it. The goal and my belief is that the outcome of this legislation reduces the amount of casework, which isn't about reducing our workload. It is about making certain that veterans don't have to come to their Congressman or Congresswoman and don't have to come to their U.S. Senator to get the services they are entitled to by law and by moral obligation. We don't learn from history. We need transformation. We need something more than just saying: Let's keep the current process in place for a while longer. Following World War II, GEN Omar Bradley was assigned the task of overhauling the VA for the millions of Americans who were returning home from World War II. He said some important things at that point in time. Bradley rightfully kept the needs of veterans at the forefront. He said: ``We are dealing with veterans, not procedures; with their problems, not ours.'' The goal and the outcome of good legislation will be to reduce and, hopefully, over time, to eliminate most of the problems our veterans experience in dealing with the VA and in accessing the healthcare they have been promised. The VA has done an admirable job in many, many instances, but way too many veterans fall through the cracks. I would estimate that our office receives 30 new cases every week, and most of them deal with the issue of healthcare, and many of those deal with the issue of community care. We can reform this system. We can make it better for the veteran. We can make it better for the provider and for those hospitals and clinics across Kansas and around the country that are willing to serve the VA if there is a process in place by which they get paid and they get paid at a rate with which they can afford to care for those veterans. What I would say is that, in most instances, it is so they don't lose more money in caring for those veterans. Just like at the conclusion of World War II, when General Bradley overhauled the VA, today's VA is in need of another major reform. Just as General Bradley did, we must keep the veterans' unique wants and needs in mind as we reshape and reform the delivery of healthcare. Veterans require and deserve the best our Nation has to offer. If the VA is serious about restoring the trust with veterans, then, the VA needs to be committed to creating a modern, functional healthcare system that increases access--both within the VA and within the community--for timely and quality care. We ought not miss this opportunity. We ought not shy away from legislation that helps to achieve that outcome. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I yield back our time.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, thank you very much. Today, I am here to speak on behalf of a good friend and an exceptional public servant, Chairman Ajit Pai of the Federal Communications Commission. I have admired his work throughout his service within the Commission, which dates back to 2007, when he was in the Office of General Counsel. Over time, he was promoted to become the Deputy General Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission. In 2012, by voice vote, he was confirmed by the Senate to serve as a Commissioner, and he has continued to embody integrity, honesty, and dedication in this role, something we would expect from a Kansan. As only the second Kansan ever to be nominated to serve on the Federal Communications Commission--the first being Bob Wells of Garden City, KS, who served from 1969 to 1971--Ajit Pai has proven himself to be a capable and talented leader and one of the smartest people whom I have ever met, especially when it comes to public policy. I have worked with him and his staff throughout my time on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee and have traveled with him throughout our home State. My getting to know him on a personal level has really been a delight, something that has been a highlight of my time while serving in the Senate. He is a native of Parsons, KS, which is a small town in the southeast corner of our State, and he brings with him an understanding of the challenges that face rural America. He understands the importance of access to high-speed broadband and wireless connectivity, and I believe that his roots as a small town Kansas kid make him exceptionally qualified to advocate for rural America. Ajit came to Wichita just this past week to explore ideas and explain policy opportunities to close the digital divide within local broadband providers that work in Kansas communities I serve. The lack of broadband connectivity in parts of rural Kansas has lasting economic, educational, and public health impacts, and Ajit Pai has prioritized incentive-based solutions like the Connect America Fund and Mobility Fund to close this divide in a fiscally responsible and competitively driven way. Outside of supporting high-speed broadband build-out to unserved or underserved areas, Ajit created the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee to promote broadband deployment across America, including removing regulatory burdens and barriers and improving permitting and the right-of-way process through regulatory reform. While in Kansas, he was also able to see the great work that was being done to implement the Next Generation 9-1-1 technology in our home State. As we know, improving these communications systems is absolutely necessary to ensure adequate emergency services to rural and urban Americans alike, and we see that today and over the last several months with the disasters and tragedies that have occurred in our country. Ajit has also proven himself to be a leader who is committed to free markets, clearly understanding that regulations should be balanced with pro-growth economic principles that do not unduly harm employers or stifle innovation. To this end, Ajit Pai announced his intentions to stand up a new Office of Economics and Data within the FCC to provide economic analysis of the policies and functions of the agency. We are looking for thoughtful, data-backed input to the agency that should lead to market-driven policy decisions the Commission can then hang their hat on. Critical issues before the FCC today require this type of expertise; things such as efficient and effective broadband deployment, quality spectrum management that schools and libraries desperately need, as well as hospitals that also desperately need this spectrum, and fostering innovation just in the general sense. If we want a growing economy with more jobs, better jobs, higher paying jobs, we need access to the latest technologies across the country. As the currently appointed Chair of the FCC, Ajit has improved openness and transparency within the Commission, eliminated onerous and duplicative regulations holding up that innovation, and has protected consumers from illegal and fraudulent robocalls. One recent decision under his leadership that has received so much attention from consumer advocates, industry representatives, and policy academics is the FCC order Restoring Internet Freedom Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Under Chairman Pai's leadership, the Commission has collected tens of millions of comments regarding the agency's proposal to roll back the 2015 open internet order and has extended the deadline so more interested parties can be heard. This input collection, coupled with fundamentally improving the rulemaking processes, has increased the Commission's culture of openness and transparency, something I certainly support and would continue to encourage. I believe the Federal Government must ensure a fair and open internet that is not blocked or slowed. I do not want outdated utility-style regulations to the internet that were established for telephone companies in the 1930s. Instead of leaving this important regulatory framework open to interpretation and change with every new administration, Congress--the U.S. Senate--and our Commerce Committee should and must craft bipartisan legislation that preserves the fair and open internet. Chairman Pai has taken thoughtful steps toward a long-term solution by seeking to eliminate the harmful 2015 regulations hindering broadband deployment and harming an innovative internet ecosystem. Ajit Pai has repeatedly proven himself to be a public servant of the highest caliber, with strong integrity and character. I am proud to recommend his swift confirmation to the Federal Communications Commission and call on my colleagues to support his nomination. Ajit Pai is an intelligent, articulate public servant who has the character and integrity that is required at the Federal Communications Commission. I support his nomination and ask my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL, Mr. President, as I noted last week, the nominee before us, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, has led a fascinating life with two defining features: hard work and success. He understands communications policy from just about every angle--no wonder, given his deep and impressive resume. He comprehends the needs of rural communities in states like mine, a product of his own rural upbringing. He has dedicated himself to issues like advocating for Americans' First Amendment rights and bringing-more openness and more accountability to the FCC, an agency that, too often, has earned a reputation for secrecy. Chairman Pai is just the kind of person we need over at the FCC. I was glad to see the Senate advance his nomination last week. I look forward to confirming him to a new term later this afternoon.

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, it is nice to see the ranking member of the Commerce Committee on the floor today. I appreciate that he and I share a particular view about the privatization of air traffic control. Today, we are going to presumably pass a 6-month extension for the Federal Aviation Administration. It was passed by the House earlier today, and once again we are in a position which, in my view, we shouldn't be in. We ought to be passing a long-term authorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. Last year, we did so. The Senate, with 95 votes, passed a 4-year FAA bill. It was the kind of meaningful, bipartisan accomplishment that is too rare in Congress today. I supported that bill, but unfortunately when it was sent to the House and it came time to meet that last year's deadline, we were ultimately forced to pass a short-term extension--which I opposed. Our ongoing efforts to pass a long-term bill, Republicans and Democrats in both Chambers of Congress, have found common ground and consensus among the entire aviation community on a wide range of important issues. I am talking about reforms to strengthen the Contract Power Program, one of the most and overwhelmingly popular and successful FAA programs. That matters a lot to the State of Kansas, and communities in the State of Nebraska as well, the home of the Presiding Officer in the Senate. I am talking about streamlining the aircraft certification process that allows the FAA to focus its valuable resources elsewhere while generating a positive impact on our economy and job security in the aviation manufacturing sector. Because, once again, Congress refuses to set aside the perpetually controversial proposal to privatize our Nation's air traffic control, we are left, again, with a short-term extension. It is another one of those take-it-or-leave-it moments that is occurring here at the eleventh hour in advance of September 30. We know in the Senate this proposal for privatization will never have the votes to pass. Yet we keep considering short-term extensions that are damaging to the aviation community, particularly the airports that need certainty in planning their infrastructure projects, and they will be, first and foremost, to improve the safety for our air travelers. A 6-month extension, in my view, is too short to provide the certainty that is needed. The grant process, at the Department of Transportation, will be ongoing, but no airport can plan based upon whether the FAA is going to be authorized 6 months from now. I have come to the floor numerous times before to talk about how Kansas is a special place when it comes to aviation. Kansas has built three out of every four general aviation aircraft since the Wright brothers first flew at Kitty Hawk. Today, over 40,000 Kansans earn a living in manufacturing, operating, and servicing our world's highest quality aircraft. These aviation businesses and their employees depend upon our ability to compete in a global marketplace, an ability which is significantly damaged when we are putting off passage of a long-term reauthorization bill not just once but year after year. While general aviation manufacturing is our State's largest industry, it is not just those manufacturers and their employees who understand the problems and ramifications with privatization of air traffic control. I have often said on the floor that I think at times I get categorized, as a Senator from Kansas, as a State that manufactures lots of airplanes and that my views are therefore solely related to the airplane manufacturing sector. I certainly bring that perspective to Congress, and I speak often and work often on behalf of the manufacturing of aircraft. But any of us who represent airports and communities that are not the largest in the country ought to oppose the privatization of air traffic control. This is not the traditional rural-versus-urban argument that occurs sometimes around here. This is not about little towns versus everybody else. This is about everyone except for the largest cities with the largest airports and the most travelers. So this is not about just Garden City, KS; or Manhattan, my hometown; or Hays, my former hometown. This is about Wichita and Topeka. This is about Kansas City. All but the absolutely largest airports would be damaged by the privatization of air traffic control. We have said this many times. It is important to the manufacturers, but it is also important to the survival of communities that I represent and that all of my colleagues represent across the country. Everywhere I go in Kansas, I am reminded that ATC privatization is a bad idea. The idea that we would allow a 13-member private board to make decisions about the future of airports and air transportation across the country is troublesome. Moreover, even the major providers of aircraft and avionics equipment that reside in Kansas--those businesses that create thousands of jobs in my State--are perhaps even more outspoken against privatization than anyone. These businesses know that privatization of the Nation's most complex air system is a solution without a problem that will ultimately create lots of problems, lots of unintended consequences. Americans expect leadership from their elected officials in Washington. At a time when partisan dysfunction puts up constant barriers in the legislative process, we should be doing everything we can to find common ground and pass legislation that will have immediate positive impacts on our economy. For so much of the FAA reauthorization last year and again this year, we found that common ground--except for this one divisive issue that we know ultimately will not become law. It impedes the opportunity to do what, without almost any exception, Members of the House and Senate have agreed to. True FAA reform will dramatically increase the ability of American aviation manufacturers and businesses to create jobs. This short-term extension represents yet another regrettably missed opportunity to do just that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, thank you. Prior to arriving in the U.S. Senate after the election of 2010, I was a Member of the House of Representatives, and I am one of the 30 percent of us in Congress today who were here in 2001 and approved the use of military force in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. I hate to say this at this moment because the vote is so closely pending, but I don't know what the right answer to this question is-- the one we face today. I firmly believe that it is the U.S. Senate and U.S. Congress's authority and constitutional responsibility to declare war. I worry that the resolution that is before us only eliminates the current resolutions, only eliminates the current authority. What is missing is the followup. I just heard my colleague from Connecticut indicate that he will work vigorously to see that we have the opportunity to vote for a resolution authorizing force, but in some ways we have the cart ahead of the horse. I will be the one who will always argue that it is our responsibility, it is Congress's responsibility to make these decisions as determined by the U.S. Constitution. It gives us that authority and that responsibility. The question in my mind is, Is it prudent to eliminate the authorization today before we have a new authorization in place? And I don't know the answer to that question. While I have heard my colleagues say we will work to accomplish that, having experienced the U.S. Senate now for the last 7 years, I worry that a 6-month opportunity will be forgone, those authorizations may not occur, and, at best, once again the U.S. Senate may be presented with a fait accompli, which is, here is a resolution authorizing force. We are out of time. The 6 months is gone. Take it or leave it. We will have a gun to our heads to approve, in an expeditious way, something that is not really what I would be supportive of. Once again, I will have the dilemma: Do I vote for some authorization of force even though it is not the one that is well thought out? If I thought we were going to do an authorization of force, I would have expected it to have occurred already. I commend Senator Corker, the chairman of the committee, and many of my colleagues who have worked to put an authorization--a resolution in place and voted it out of committee, but no vote has occurred on the U.S. Senate floor, and no vote has occurred in the U.S. House of Representatives. I don't know whether we are setting the stage for us to be once again in a position of ``Here it is; take it or leave it,'' or worse than that, I suppose, is leaving those who serve our country in a position of not knowing whether their Congress supports their efforts. It is not as if this is prospective; we already have troops on the ground in Afghanistan. I just returned from Afghanistan. That was my fourth visit there. I was there over the Labor Day weekend. I came to the conclusion that we belong in Afghanistan. I don't believe this is about rebuilding Afghanistan as much as it is about protecting Americans. There are 21 terrorist organizations at work in Afghanistan, out to kill citizens of the United States, attack us, and we have the Government of Afghanistan allowing us the opportunity to be engaged in a battle to defeat those terrorist organizations. The idea that we would walk away--in fact, I heard my colleagues earlier talk about how long we have been there. Does anybody talk about how long terrorism is going to be with us? So the idea that we should set a parameter for our timeframe, knowing that we are engaged in a great battle for the future of our Nation with terrorist organizations that want us dead, seems to be the wrong way to look at this issue. I don't know what the right timeframe is, and I am saddened that we are still there, but it is not a matter of time, it is a matter of accomplishment of the mission of ending terrorist attacks against the United States. Nine-eleven remains fresh in my mind. So the issue we face is, Does this resolution offered by the Senator from Kentucky put us in a position in which we finally do what we are supposed to do, which, in my view, is authorize, declare war--not necessarily an authorization of use of force, but whatever that mechanism of authorization is, does this resolution, this vote we will take today, does it put us in a position to take advantage of the circumstance in which Congress finally utilizes its authority and accepts its responsibility? I don't know the answer to that question. We are making progress in Afghanistan. The greatest evidence of that to me was my visit to Bagram, to the hospital, during which I learned that 84 percent of the patients at the hospital are Afghani, not Americans. I support the statement of strategy by the administration in regard to our efforts in Afghanistan and particularly the need to deal with Pakistan as a sanctuary. The last thing I would want to do, having just returned from visiting with troops, including many Kansans, is make a decision today that they are no longer supported by Congress. Going to war is something that, in my view, has been too easy in the United States, and we have had Presidential leadership for a long time that has downplayed the importance of war. We have been told that it will be easy, that oil revenues will pay for the war. It seems as if our political leadership in this country wants the American citizens to believe that we can go to war and that they will not suffer any consequence or participate in any way. Declaring war and the authorization of use of military force by Congress brings the American people into this, rather than downplaying the significance and sacrifice. It makes certain that others, not just our military men and women and their families, make a sacrifice, that we are all in this together, and would involve Congress making a decision that this endeavor, whatever it is, is worth the potential loss of life by Americans who serve in our military. These are difficult and challenging but important decisions, and I want to work with my colleagues to find the right solution--not just to walk away from a resolution but to make sure we have in place something that gives the authority to our troops to succeed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain be recognized prior to Senator Corker's speaking time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I modify my request and ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain and Senator Reed be recognized prior to Senator Corker's speaking time.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I have 5 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I come to speak about healthcare, and I begin by paying tribute to our colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, on his return earlier this week. I wish him the very best as he begins a process of cure, treatment, and a bright future in his life. I appreciate the remarks he indicated that were so heartfelt to his colleagues here in the Senate. We welcome him back and thank him for his service to the Senate, to the people of Arizona, to the people of America, but I also thank him most especially for his service in the U.S. military. Another great hero in my life and in our country's history is my predecessor in the Senate, Senator Bob Dole, who earlier this week celebrated his 94th birthday. Service to Kansans and all Americans exemplify Bob Dole's life. While I admire him for his time in the Senate, I respect him even more so for his service to our country during World War II and for his efforts ever since then to care for those who have come into harm's way as a result of their service. I often see him at the World War II Memorial when there is an Honor Flight from Kansas or across the country, and he is such a role model for so many people. Again, I admire him for his commitment to other veterans and to making certain that veterans receive the care and the gratitude that they deserve. Madam President, one of the most important ways we can demonstrate that we honor those who served our country is by making certain that we live up to our commitment--the commitment that was made to them--to provide the benefits that they deserve, including access to timely and quality healthcare. Unfortunately, today, we find ourselves in another crisis moment in regard to veterans' healthcare and, in particular, the Veterans Choice Program, which was designated to provide access to veterans who were in danger of an inability to access that care because the VA did not provide the service, could not provide it in a timely manner, or the service was so far from where the veteran lived that he was unable to obtain that service because of distance. So, in 2014, this Congress passed and the President then signed what has been labeled the Choice Act. It came about in the wake of a scandal, particularly in Phoenix but across the country, in which we saw fake waiting lists and the belief that there were veterans who died as a result of not obtaining the care that they were entitled to in the VA system. The Choice Program has helped thousands of veterans across the country, especially those in rural communities, where distance remains a problem. I have heard from many veterans in my State as to how important the Choice Program is to them. Instead of driving for 4 hours to see a physician at the VA, they can drive 4 minutes to see a physician in their hometowns. This Choice Program is set to expire on August 7 of this year. Just a few days from now, it is scheduled to come to an end. At the start of 2017, the VA estimated that there would be more than $1 billion remaining in the Choice account that the VA told us would last until January 2018. Rather than letting those funds expire, I joined Senator McCain, Senator Isakson, Senator Tester, and others in a Choice extension bill to remove that August 7 deadline and sunset the program until the funds expired, which, as I said, was believed to be in January of 2018. The President signed that bill on April 19, but less than 6 weeks later, we learned from the VA that the VA had made unfortunate miscalculations. As a result of poor budgeting and finance, the dollars for the Choice Program are not going to last until January and are soon to expire, just within the next few days. Demand for the Choice Program is up 30 or 40 percent, and it is clear by that increase in demand that veterans need Choice, that they like Choice, that it is working for them, and we now owe it to those veterans to make certain that the Choice Program continues and that the funds are available to accomplish that goal. With Choice, the funds that they had anticipated would last until January now will run out sometime in August--we think in the next couple of weeks. Those depleted funds will mean that Kansas veterans and veterans across the country who have been using the Choice Program will no longer be able to, and it means that those who could use the Choice Program into the future will be without that option. We run the real risk--the likelihood is almost a certainty--that the Choice Program will be discontinued in a matter of days. I chair the Appropriations Subcommittee that funds the Department of Veterans Affairs, and when I learned of the budget miscalculations, we immediately contacted the Secretary of the Department to get his understanding of the circumstance that we were in. We only learned of the shortfall after we learned that veterans at home were being denied access to the Choice Program. The Secretary had made a decision to reduce those veterans who are eligible. We asked him to withdraw that guidance to his regional officers across the country, and he did. However, when the Secretary then testified before our subcommittee, the subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, we learned that new guidance had been issued because of the fear of depleting those dollars. It again limited the access of veterans to the Choice Program. We now hear of veterans who are forced to drive hours to get appointments at VA facilities when, just 2 weeks ago, they were receiving that care in their hometowns and in their neighborhoods-- nearby opportunities that no longer exist. Dr. Shulkin of the VA recognized that their projections and budgeting were off and must be fixed. I hope that turns out to be the result and that we have a better ability at the Department of Veterans Affairs to make the calculations necessary for Congress and the Department to make wise decisions. The system has to be fixed, and it has to be fixed quickly. There is an immediate crisis. One of the things that now happens as a result of reduced use of Choice is that the networks that were created to support Choice--the third-party administrators of the Choice Program--because of a lack of volume, are no longer financially viable to stay in the business of being the network to connect the VA, the private sector, and the veterans in a way that cares for those veterans, gets them their appointments, and establishes the payment process by which the provider--the physician or the hospital--is paid. This is not just a circumstance in which the third-party administrators can leave the business and return if we get our work done here and the VA Choice Program is defunded. Those networks will disappear, and we will not be able to easily restart the Choice Program, so if we do not make a fix shortly--today, tomorrow, by the weekend--and pass legislation in a timely fashion, it is not as if we can come back in September and say: OK. Let's appropriate the money now, and Choice can restart. It will not happen. Choice will be gone. There are big consequences at play for the future of community care. The funding crisis and the inability to sustain Choice risk shutting down--shuttering--the entire networks, and it will diminish the faith that veterans and our providers were slowly beginning to have in the Choice Program. Early in the Choice Program, many veterans were discouraged because of the bureaucracy and paperwork associated with Choice. Providers then were not often paid in a timely fashion, and they became discouraged by the program. In recent months, that confidence in the program had returned as veterans were beginning to get their care at home, and providers were being paid for the services that they provided veterans. Now, if the third-party administrators--the network--go away, we will send one more message to veterans and to those who wish to serve them-- the healthcare community--that the program is not a viable or a valuable one. Fortunately, both the House and Senate have been working to fix this situation. Since June, my colleagues on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee have joined me in working to find a solution that protects access to community care for veterans. The Choice Program is funded by mandatory spending. We have also been working with the House as they have tried to develop a solution that maintains Choice and that is fiscally responsible. There has been a lot of back and forth, a lot of conversation, a lot of talk, and a lot of negotiations going on, and I support the efforts of our chairmen and ranking members of the Veterans' Affairs Committees, both in the House and Senate, who are trying to work on an agreement to come together for our Nation's veterans. I would hope and I expect that a bill will come from the House yet this week. My point to my colleagues here today is that we do not have the luxury of then trying to figure out something different to do than what the House sends us. We need to have our plan in place, and we need to have something that can pass both the House and Senate in the next 2 days. I want to motivate my colleagues to do what is right for veterans and set aside the differences that have prevented the necessary cooperation to see that we have one bill that can pass both the House and Senate and save Choice. I stood here in 2014 to implore my colleagues to support the passage of the Choice Act in the first place, and I stand here again today to implore my colleagues to come together and support the passage of this critical funding for the continuation of the Choice Program and community care for veterans. I am here to make certain that we end the delays and find a way to understand the differences and accept that we must act quickly on behalf of veterans. It has to happen immediately. We owe our veterans better than what we have been providing them. I am, once again, partnering with the Senator whom I honored in my opening comments--Senator McCain--and others to introduce legislation that will put funds back into the Choice Program and make sure that our veterans do not experience a lapse of care at home or a termination of the program. We are working hard with our colleagues across the aisle and in the House to determine the future of this program and what community care will look like. While we work to create that system that will serve future generations of veterans for years to come--how we make Choice better--we cannot allow the program to expire at this critical point in time. Taking care of veterans must be a priority above any one specific ``ask'' or ``must have'' in the funding. Not acting is not an option. Upon his return to the Senate, Senator McCain's words remind us of the importance of this task and many others before us. I am honored to work with him on this effort to save Choice and to serve our veterans. I ask my colleagues to help us save this important program that benefits rural and urban veterans, that makes care more timely, that provides care in the circumstances in which the VA does not have the capabilities, either in a timely or a quality fashion, to provide the services to veterans. This does not diminish the role or necessity of the Department of Veterans Affairs or their hospitals and clinics across the country. Veterans continue to use VA hospitals, and they continue to use our outpatient clinics, but we ought not allow for the elimination of the third opportunity for veterans' care--the Choice Program--that serves so many veterans in so many communities. Again, I thank Senator McCain for his leadership and his bipartisan work that originally created this program--this opportunity--with Senator Sanders. We seek bipartisanship to put veterans first and to put their healthcare access above everything else. I am urging my colleagues today to know that this issue exists, not to walk away from it, to make certain that we accomplish our goals, and that this critical funding be provided before we depart for the weekend. Preserving this important benefit honors our heroes--Senator Dole, Senator McCain, and the thousands of Americans who did not ask about whether it was Republicans who served the country or Democrats who served the country. They are those who believe that having served their country is what motivated them to see that their families were safe and secure and to see that America had a bright future. We ought not deny them that kind of service today. Madam President, I thank you for the opportunity to address the Senate.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I joined our colleagues today at lunch, and one of the conversations I had with one of my Democratic colleagues was how surprising, perhaps, but certainly how pleasing it was that today the Senate, in a bipartisan fashion, addressed some contentious issues related to sanctions in regard to Iran; issues related to sanctions in regard to Russia. Both of those issues, because of the political climate and because of past history, could be fraught with great opportunity for partisanship to be exhibited in full force. The conversation I had with my colleague was how surprising and, more importantly, how pleasing it was that didn't happen. I commend the Senate and its leadership for working together to resolve their potential differences and creating this opportunity for us to have a debate, a discussion, both on public policy--that I think is important to the security of the world--and the safety of Americans here in the United States. I am here, in part, to express my support for the Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act, the legislation we addressed today. It permits our government to target those individuals and institutions responsible for a foreign policy that puts American lives at risk and undermines the security, particularly in the Middle East, but really of the globe. The theocratic, autocratic regime's survival in Iran depends currently on the human rights abuses and political oppression. Eight years after the Green Movement's protests, the group's leaders remain under house arrest. Members of that movement were tortured. Still, today, Iranian Americans are unreasonably detained without hope for release in Iran. The Iranian regime's survival depends further on its control of its economy. When it was brokered, proponents of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action argued it would provide economic benefit to the Iranian people. So when President Obama negotiated--and this Congress, this Senate, failed to reject the JCPOA--one of the arguments about its benefits is that everyday Iranians would enjoy greater economic opportunity. Instead, a recent Reuters study shows businesses directly tied to the Supreme Leader and the IRGC are the main beneficiaries of those changes in our relationship with Iran. Despite renewed economic growth, Iran's unemployment rate is estimated to be as high as 12 percent, and that figure could be as high as almost 30 percent among Iranian youth. Survival of Khamenei's regime depends on stoking hatred of America as a way to whip up support. Iran uses small boats to swarm American Navy ships protecting the free navigation of the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf. This is disturbing for a number of reasons, but the importance of that Strait's role in global economy certainly is one of them. In addition, it is linked to scouting soft American targets for terrorism. So we continue to see bad behavior, threatening behavior by the Iranian government toward the United States and our global interest in the Strait of Hormuz and the suggestion that Iran is preparing and looking for opportunities for terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies in the Middle East. Last week, two Hezbollah operatives were arrested here in the United States. They were doing surveillance on targets in New York and on our embassies as well in Israel and Panama. Two terrorism specialists, Dan Byman of Georgetown and Scott Stewart of Stratfor, tweeted in reaction to this news that this could be a case of Iran sending us an ominous message; that Iran can play the terror card if it wants to. If that is indeed the signal Tehran is sending to us, it is important--it is imperative, in fact, that we send a message of our own that no civilized country resorts to planning to kill innocent civilians. The legislation we passed today informs that regime that the JCPOA does not provide impunity for Iran to make such plans. Iran threatens its neighbors with its ongoing ballistic missile development, which was not part of the JCPOA. Hezbollah is armed with tens of thousands of rockets, threatening Israel's security. This is the same group which has been instrumental in propping up the Assad regime in Syria and which is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. The head of the IRGC forces was seen on the Syria and Iraq border just this past weekend. We know Assad's regime would have not survived without Iran's continued financial and military support. Again, this legislation underscores the Senate's belief that the Iranian regime must not be allowed to continue conducting and destabilizing activities under the shield of the JCPOA. I was an opponent to the JCPOA, but today's actions are unrelated to undermining that agreement, which is now in place. They are designed to hold back further activities by the Iranian regime against America and its interests. It is really a requirement that Iran act within the nation-states' Code of Conduct--the normal behavior of a country around the globe. Previous administrations, in my view, failed to challenge Iran on way too many fronts. With this legislation, the Senate is intent on pushing back on Iran's adventurism in the Middle East and beyond. By imposing appropriate sanctions and requiring the Secretaries of State, Defense and Treasury, as well as Director of National Intelligence, to formulate a coherent strategy to counter Iran's influence in the region, we say to the regime that their activities will be countered every step of the way. This legislation plays a part in doing what Dan Byman, the professor--the terrorism expert--testified to our House counterparts last month. His words were to ``highlight the costs of Iran's adventurism to ordinary Iranians to raise domestic awareness of, and discontent with, the regime's foreign policy.'' There remains more that can be done to challenge Iran and constrict its resources. Many amendments were filed to strengthen this legislation that were not ultimately considered. One of those was mine. Last year, the Obama administration announced it would pay $1.7 billion to Iran in an effort to settle a longstanding financial dispute. Transferring cash to a leading state sponsor of terror was a bad idea when the Senate considered the 2015 nuclear agreement, and it remains a bad idea, a terrible idea today. The amendment I offered to today's legislation would limit the President's ability to transfer funds to Iran. This amendment directs that the U.S. Government puts justice for American victims of Iranian terrorism ahead of the payments to the Iranian's regime. No administration should transfer funds related to the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal without first requiring settlement of all damages already awarded in judgments made in the U.S. courts against Iran for their terrorism crimes against our own citizens. Paying our own citizens from that fund before any money is transferred to the Iranian regime makes sense, common sense, and it is surrounded by the sense of justice and right. While my amendment was not one of those considered by the Senate yet, we will be introducing this concept as freestanding legislation in the near future. I know sanctions alone will not change Iran's regime's behavior. Incidentally, we need our allies and friends to join us in this sanction effort. Yet we know the Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act remains an important bill to impose costs on the regime in Iran and, hopefully, to encourage more of the discontent we saw during the recent elections. Perhaps there will rise an equivalent to the 2009 Green Movement that offers Iranians one more opportunity to throw off the yoke of theocratic rule of tyranny and get the government they deserve--one that respects their rights and has the desire to coexist peacefully with its neighbors. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to address the Senate as in morning business.

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, 100 years ago today, Lions Clubs International was created in Chicago, IL, and today the Senate is considering adoption of this resolution, S. Res. 174, commemorating this tremendous occasion. One hundred years later, Lions Clubs International is the world's largest service club, with more than 1.4 million members who participate in more than 46,000 clubs across the globe. In my State of Kansas alone, we have more than 270 Lions Clubs, and I have been a member of Lions Clubs since I graduated from college, went to work, and got involved in the community. I have seen firsthand how Lions Clubs make a significant difference in the communities they are in, as well as their reach around the globe in addressing problems in their communities and humanitarian needs around the world. Lions are committed to caring for those less fortunate, from young to old, and they do so in a way that shows care and compassion. It is all about the right motivation. They care about people, and they make a difference. It is this selfless service and commitment to a greater good that is needed in our country today. In the face of serious challenges, I believe those who volunteer their time and their resources in community civic clubs, not-for- profits, schools and fundraisers, in churches and charities are the ones who have the greatest impact on people's lives. This kind of involvement at the local level has the potential to make meaningful and tangible differences in the lives of people around us, perhaps more so than even the best intentioned Federal programs that come from the Nation's Capital. I am of the view that we change the world one soul, one person at a time, and it happens in Lions Clubs and their efforts in their communities and globally every day. Over their 100 years of existence, the Lions Clubs have supported the blind, encouraged the young, provided relief to those struck by tragedy, and fought to eradicate disease. They have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to humanitarian work internationally and are committed to serving 100 million people around the globe. As we reflect upon all the good that has come from the last 100 years among Lions Clubs members, may our commitment to our neighbors, our communities, and our fellow men and women be strengthened and renewed. Today, Lions Clubs begin another century of service to others as they seek out ways to better our world. I offer my congratulations to Bob Corlew of Milton, TN, who is the international president, and I welcome Lions members from around the globe as they gather in Chicago later this month for their international convention. From 100 years ago in Chicago to this month, 100 years in which they celebrate their birth, the Lions Clubs motto is ``We serve.''

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I am here to visit about the topic of healthcare. I will be spending time in Kansas this week, and there probably will be no topic of conversation that will be greater than people's concerns about healthcare. I will tell you, as I have indicated to many of my colleagues, this is like no other issue I have ever dealt with as an elected official in how personal the consequences are of the decisions we make here. While I certainly admit there is plenty of politics and partisanship and too much back and forth that revolves around this concern about healthcare, what I do know is, the people who visit with me, in so many instances, are my friends, my neighbors, our kids' teachers, they are people I go to church with, and in many instances, as they have a conversation with me about what we are going to do in regard to healthcare, tears begin to stream down their cheeks as they worry about themselves but, more importantly, they worry about their family members, their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, and parents. This is a very personal issue. The concerns Kansans have about this and what we might do is sincere and real. I also know the Affordable Care Act--the law that is in existence today--is failing many Americans as well. In fact, just this week, yesterday, we learned the company Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City is exiting the market and will no longer provide a product in the Kansas City area of our State, which means, in most instances, individuals will no longer have an option in regard to the Affordable Care Act. What we have in place doesn't work, but I also know what has come from the House isn't the solution to this problem either. The work we have to do--you and I, Madam President, and our colleagues--is serious and one that has real and personal consequences for every American, and we must take our responsibilities seriously. I have indicated to my colleagues that neither the Affordable Care Act, which I voted against, nor what the House has passed, is anything I would vote for. I really wish we were doing something different than either one of those things. As I thought about my remarks today, I was about to say that I suppose I came too late to get my ideas adopted by Congress, but really I came to this issue early, and I think it was 2004, maybe 2006, in which, at least in my own mind, I penned on paper and worked on drafting legislation on what I called a 10-point plan to address the affordability and availability of healthcare. I can tell you that my ideas, which predate President Obama's, were nothing like the Affordable Care Act, and they really were nothing like the conversation we are having today. I wish we would be addressing the underlying reasons that healthcare costs so much rather than focusing so much attention on the issue of health insurance and its premiums. If we can drive the things out of healthcare that unnecessarily raise the price, the cost of access to healthcare, we can make a tremendous difference in healthcare premiums and the affordability of healthcare for all Americans, not just trying to figure out what kind of plan we can develop, what kind of insurance program, what kind of subsidy or tax credit we can provide, but we would be treating the underlying problem, not just the symptoms. I suppose, to give a little understanding of what I am talking about, in my view, the things we ought to consider are allowing more competition in the market, more free enterprise opportunities, allowing people to purchase insurance from coast to coast, expanding the support for community health centers. These centers are already in existence. They need to be more available in more places. We are a very rural State, and it is hard to find those community health centers, but they provide healthcare services to people who have no ability to pay and no insurance. We ought to be more supportive of community health centers, not less, providing, particularly, primary care for people in difficult circumstances. We also need to give small businesses and organizations the ability to organize and create larger pools so they can negotiate for better premiums. We need to utilize health savings accounts. We need to support medical research. If we can find a cure for cancer, the delay of the onset of Alzheimer's, we can save billions of dollars in our healthcare system as well as save lives and improve the quality of life of people who suffer from the diseases that are so prevalent. We need to address the issue of prescription drug costs. How do we make certain no drug company takes advantage of cornering the market or how do we make certain they don't utilize our current laws to extend the life of their patent, eliminating the chance for competition to come into play and the introduction of generic medicine that can save, again, consumers and patients lots of money. We need to promote preventive healthcare. Wellness, fitness, diet, and nutrition are the things that probably give us the biggest bang for our buck and don't necessarily need to be a government program, but people need to work at living healthier and healthier lives and prevent diseases from occurring in the first place. We need additional physicians and other healthcare providers--nurses and others--and we have not put the attention into developing programs to educate and train the next generation of medical providers. We need to make sure Medicare and Medicaid actually pay for the cost of the services they promised to pay for on behalf of low-income citizens as well as citizens who are seniors, instead of having the cost shifting that occurs as a result of the system we have today, in which Medicare doesn't pay or Medicaid doesn't pay sufficient amounts of money to actually pay for the services a patient receives under either one of those programs. Again, those are things that I think would be beneficial to every American, and it wouldn't be spending our time trying to figure out how we modify the insurance system, how we figure out about subsidies or tax credits for people within the system. Again, I don't come late to this issue, but it doesn't seem to be the direction we are going. Before my time expires, one of the items I wanted to particularly highlight is the value of medical research. I am proud this Congress passed an appropriations bill that includes an additional $2 billion for use in medical research for the National Institutes of Health, and perhaps something that we can even be additionally proud of is, we did that without spending more money. We simply--I shouldn't say ``simply.'' Nothing is easy about it. I am on the Appropriations subcommittee that is responsible for the funding of NIH. We reallocated money that was being spent someplace else in support of medical research. Again, if we find the cure for cancer, if we reduce the onset, the time in which people suffer from Alzheimer's, if we can find the cure for diabetes and other diseases, the lifesaving changes that are being made through that medical research and the costs that will accrue to our healthcare delivery system are hugely important. I particularly commend the Director of the National Institutes of Health for working so closely with Members of Congress and the American people in support of medical research. Dr. Francis Collins is a national resource. I am not a scientist. I don't understand all the concepts that are spoken about when we talk about medical research--a long shot from that. One of the things Dr. Collins, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, has been able to do is explain to me and to my colleagues and to others across the country the value of medical research without getting me lost in the details of the actual science. He is someone who can talk to a layperson about medical research and science in a way that captures me, captures my attention, but I don't get lost in the medical or technical or scientific words and jargon that so often scientists use in having the conversations. Dr. Collins has been so bipartisan in his approach. I smiled when I read the story. He indicated that when he was being chosen to be the Director of the National Institutes of Health, he called his mother back home and indicated to her: Mom, I am going to become the Director of the National Institutes of Health. She said: But we are Republicans. I don't want you working for government. Here is a man who has used his time not working for government, perhaps working in government, but working for the American people and really for worldwide solutions to problems we all face in our families. There is no American, there is no one in this Chamber whose family has not been affected by the diseases I described and the other long list of afflictions we have as human beings that NIH is not working to make a difference in their lives. We need to continue that support for the National Institutes of Health as we pursue appropriations bills into the future, and our ability to do that together is important and a source of satisfaction that can come. I have indicated, from time to time, that it is sometimes difficult to find the things in the jobs that we have as U.S. Senators where you get the sense of accomplishment. There are a lot of challenges in getting things done, but the idea that we have come together to support medical research and find lifesaving cures gives us something to take great satisfaction in and gives us hope that what we have been able to accomplish in this regard, as Republicans and Democrats but really as Americans, can be a role model as we try to find solutions to other problems. I hope that will be the case as we try to find solutions with regard to how do we care for the American people when it comes to their affordability and availability of healthcare. You and I, Madam President, come from States that are very rural. In any kind of healthcare solution that we find, we need to make certain we are increasing the chances that hospital doors remain open in rural communities across our States, and we need to make certain there are more physicians, not less, there are more healthcare providers, that nursing home and healthcare services are more available, and that pharmacy remains on Main Street. In fact, in the cases of our States, you could find ways, I suppose, that reduce the cost of healthcare only to discover that you no longer have a provider, no longer have a hospital or a physician or a pharmacy in your hometown. Sometimes when you talk about the affordability, you must quickly couple that with availability. Whatever its price is, if it is not in your community, if it is not in your county, if it is not in your region of the State, it doesn't necessarily matter what it costs. Our work is serious, and I look forward to working with you and my colleagues as we try to find solutions to make certain healthcare is something every American has access to. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the measure.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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

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.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. 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. Mr. President, I further 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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, May 18; 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, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Brand nomination, with the time until 12 noon equally divided in the usual form; further, that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the postcloture time on the Brand nomination expire at 12 noon tomorrow; finally, 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.