Jerry Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, we have seen across many sectors of our economy the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences. It has dramatically shifted the supply and demand for lots of products in unexpected ways. I am on the floor today to speak about the price of lumber and the impact the soaring costs are having on homebuilders and on home buyers. Nationwide, construction for new homes is up 37 percent over the last year and up 87 percent in the Midwest region, where I come from. Rising demand for new home construction, as well as an upturn in do-it- yourself home projects during the pandemic, have rapidly driven up the cost of lumber. As a result, since last April, overall lumber prices are up over 300 percent. Lumber and wood products account for roughly 15 percent of the construction costs for a single-family home. We all work to see that that single-family home is something that is available to Americans. It is the American dream. But lumber accounts for the second largest overall cost of building a new home, only behind the cost of the land the home sits on. These increases have resulted in a $36,000 increase in the price of a typical single-family home and a $13,000 increase in the market value of a multifamily unit. The reality is that record-high lumber prices are putting the American dream of home ownership out of reach for hundreds of thousands of potential home buyers and disproportionately harming middle- and low-income families across our Nation. At a time when residential homebuilding is booming, it is essential that homebuilders and consumers have access to the materials they need at competitive prices. Historically, Canada has been the largest foreign supplier of softwood lumber in the United States. These imports are vital to support the ongoing housing boom but have been declining. These imports have been declining over the past 4 years. In April 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced countervailing duties averaging 20 percent on softwood lumber products from certain Canadian producers. In December of 2020, the average tariff was reduced to 9 percent. While a reduction in tariffs for some Canadian producers is a step in the right direction, the complete elimination of these tariffs is necessary to provide additional relief for rising lumber prices. At a recent Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, I raised this topic with U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai and urged her to engage with her Canadian counterpart to reach a long-term agreement on softwood lumber trade. It is American home buyers, not Canadian lumber producers, who end up paying the cost of these trade restrictions. In addition to working to resolve this trade dispute, we should also work to boost the domestic production of the types of lumber used in home construction. Additional lumber can and should be sustainably harvested from public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Adding to the existing lumber supply and ensuring that domestic sawmills are operating at full capacity will help soften lumber prices. It is important for Kansans to have the opportunity and economic means to own their own homes. Unfortunately, the current lumber prices are making that dream unattainable for way too many families. Resolving the longstanding trade dispute with Canada on softwood lumber and better managing our public lands to increase lumber production will both help alleviate the problems facing homebuilders and home buyers. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who worked diligently to enhance the legislation that we are considering on the floor here this morning. I commend them for the work they put into this effort. I have an amendment that has been included in a vote we are going to take here momentarily, a NO HATE amendment, and I would like to speak for just a few minutes about this topic. I will limit my remarks to speaking in support of the amendment's language, which simply seeks to collect better data on hate crimes under existing statutes. We know that crimes committed against specific groups increased in recent years. Anti-Semitic attacks hit a record high in 2019. There are gaps in our knowledge of how prevalent these crimes truly are. The language included in this amendment, based upon the NO HATE Act introduced by Senator Blumenthal, has bipartisan support in this Chamber and for its companion in the House. It would establish incentives for State and local law enforcement to submit credible and complete hate crime reports, create grants for State-run crime hotlines, require the Department of Justice to collect and analyze data on hate crimes, and allow judges to require community service or educational programs for individuals convicted under existing statutes. I would also take a moment to express my gratitude to Senator Rick Scott for working to help improve the text, and that improvement, in fact, is also found in this agreement. Kansans have personally been touched by incidents during my time in the Senate. In 2014, a neo-Nazi killed three at the Jewish Community Center of Greater Kansas City and a Jewish retirement home, both in Overland Park. In late 2016, the FBI thwarted a bomb plot against an apartment complex housing Somali immigrants in Garden City, and the following year, a man shot two Indian immigrants, killing one, at a restaurant in Olathe, KS, after shouting, ``Get out of my country.'' These were high-profile, well-publicized incidents of hate. It is important that the incidents that do not gain broad attention are nevertheless recorded properly so that the Department of Justice can properly analyze the data. A bipartisan group of attorneys general for 35 States and territories, including Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, have endorsed the NO HATE Act. It is also backed by Major Cities Chiefs Associations and the National District Attorneys Association. No statutes are expanded by this amendment, nor are there any mandates. Instead, it will allow for State and local entities to voluntarily seek grants to better provide data on specific crimes in their jurisdictions and to give judges flexibility in sentencing violent offenders. I condemn the recent attacks on Asian Americans, and assaults on minorities are an assault of our Nation's creed of ``e pluribus unum''--out of many, one. That is what our country is--out of many, one. The crimes Senator Blumenthal and I seek more information on tear at the fabric of our Nation. But out of many crimes, it is time we speak as one to condemn the perpetrators and their ideology, to support the communities that live in fear despite that all of us--all of us--are made in God's own image. Committed to unifying principles, our diversity is our country's strength. We continue to strive to make a more perfect union. This amendment is but a small step in that direction. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, legislation called the Judiciary Act of 2021 was introduced last week that would immediately expand the Supreme Court to 13 Justices. If this is serious in its intent, it is foolish. There is no need to expand the Court in order to meet the demands of its workload. After the peaking in 2006, when President George W. Bush was in office, the number of cases on the docket has now plummeted. In 2019, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon appointed by President Clinton, told NPR that there is no need to expand the Court, saying: ``Nine seems to be a good number.'' With that established, this is a transparent ploy for power that would undermine trust in the fair application of law and delegitimize the highest Court in the land. If this is really a serious policy piece of legislation, we certainly wouldn't change the number of Supreme Court Justices immediately. If it weren't just politics, we certainly wouldn't change the Justices before another election. In fact, Senator Joe Biden, on this Senate floor, called FDR's attempt to pack the Court ``a power grab,'' and as a Presidential candidate this last year, he refused to endorse expanding the number of Justices. Earlier this month, Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, said the Court's authority depends on ``a trust that the Court is guided by legal principles, not politics.'' He continued by saying, ``Structural alteration motivated by the perception of political influence can only feed that latter perception, further eroding that trust.'' If the public sees any judge and Supreme Court Justices as politicians in robes, the public's confidence in the courts and in the rule of law itself can only be diminished, diminishing the Court's power, including its power to act as a check on other branches of government. Last August, Gallup found that 58 percent of Americans approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing. In fact, the Supreme Court's approval ratings have actually increased in the last several years. Polling from February of this year finds that 35 percent of Americans approve of the job that we in Congress are doing, and that is up from 15 percent not many days ago. I raise this data to demonstrate that the Supreme Court is an institution which a majority of Americans continues to place its trust in. That is a significant circumstance in today's polarized world, but a majority of Americans still believes it can trust the Supreme Court. If we in Congress inject ourselves into the size of the Court's composition, Justice Breyer is exactly right, in that the trust the American people have that the rulings will be delivered on a fair reading of the law will be further undermined. On the Republican side of the aisle, we have seen our share of defeats in recent years, and not once when the Republican Party controlled Congress and had the White House were there efforts to expand the Supreme Court. Can you imagine how the left or the media would react if President Trump had attempted to expand the Court to 13 Justices and add 4 Republican-nominated Justices during his tenure? We have not attempted to expand the Court because the Supreme Court should not serve as another legislative body. That is our job--a job we need to do much better than we do today so that more than one-third of the American people can place their confidence in us as we pass laws. We have had the same number of Supreme Court Justices for more than 150 years. Perhaps the Judiciary Act of 2021 is less an effort to expand the Supreme Court than it is an effort to intimidate sitting Justices to deliver rulings favorable to the ideology of my colleagues who are proposing the legislation. From guns to abortion, to religious liberties, to other hot-button issues, my colleagues are threatening the Justices either to deliver favorable rulings or to not take up divisive cases at all. If this is what my colleagues seek to accomplish, I am confident that the independence and integrity of our Justices will prevail. Indeed, this must prevail to preserve the American people's confidence in the institution of the courts, in the judicial system, in the Supreme Court. I am disappointed because, rather than working with each other across the aisle--across this aisle right here--to pass legislation, the Democrats are more interested in pursuing a larger Supreme Court and more interested in eliminating the filibuster to pass their agenda--to stack the Court to prevent their legislation from being struck down as unconstitutional. Process matters around here. We have to get to the point at which we utilize the process to get a fair and just result, wherein all people's voices are heard, wherein all Members of the Senate have the opportunity to express their views and have an opportunity for that to be voted on, but we don't skew the process to get a desired outcome. We all need to do our jobs to convince our colleagues that we are right in our positions, that our legislation is meritorious. We don't and we shouldn't change the process to get our way. The checks and balances of our Constitution work. They have worked for a long time. They are important to this country. When we talk about how divisive things are on the Senate floor and in this country today, the solution to that is not to change the rules in the middle of the game. It is to abide by the rules that protect our freedoms and liberties. I implore my colleagues to have the same faith in these constitutional guardrails as I do, to have the same faith in the independence and fairness of the Supreme Court that a majority of Americans has, and to believe that we can work together, that you and I can work together on behalf of the Americans we serve, the Americans we represent, without resorting to acts that will damage us all today and for generations to come. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I rise today to honor the life and memory of Austin Sorensen Klein, a son, younger brother, and friend gone too soon. Austin's loved ones remember him as a young man full of energy, talent, and passion for trying and conquering new things. Austin loved to sing. He was known throughout the Overland Park community as a vocal talent. After winning the 2015 KC Superstar competition, he went on to pursue music through the men's glee club at the University of Notre Dame and then the a cappella group at the University of Texas-Austin. Anyone who knew Austin and heard him sing will remember his sonorous voice and how his joy for music was contagious. Austin was a kind, intelligent, patient young man who loved to learn and loved even more to make people laugh. He was a reader and, in many ways, a budding philosopher. Austin enjoyed traveling with his close family; they hiked the Black Hills and Yellowstone, toured Disney World and Washington, DC, and explored Europe, Australia, and New Zealand together. I know his parents Greg and Sue, who are dear friends to me and Senator Thune, and his brothers Kevin and Keith will treasure these memories forever. Our community hurts with them as they navigate life without their beloved son and brother. After a brief but remarkable life, Austin passed away on March 3, 2021. I want to extend my sincerest condolences to the Klein family and Austin's friends who mourn as they miss and remember Austin's voice, his laugh, and the joy he brought to everyone he knew. May we all learn from Austin's example to live every day to the fullest, hold close those who are dear to us, and do the things we love most.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I oppose the confirmation of California Attorney General Becerra to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Our future HHS Secretary will be at the helm of rebuilding our country toward normalcy and preparing to address the weaknesses in our healthcare infrastructure, brought to light by the pandemic. It will be no small task, and its handling will have an impact on America for years to come. It will require a leader at HHS who has the trust of the public and the requisite healthcare experience. Unfortunately, those two factors are missing from the nomination of Attorney General Becerra. In recovering from a once-in-a-century public health emergency, Americans need to have the confidence that our HHS Secretary understands the intricacies of healthcare policy and has an eye to the future as we improve upon our prepandemic vulnerabilities, protecting future generations from experiencing similar pandemic situations. While Attorney General Becerra served on a healthcare-focused subcommittee as a U.S. Representative, he has no further experience in public health or medicine. He also lacks the executive experience that would be useful in running a complex executive branch Department like HHS, which is involved in the nationwide vaccine rollout and now the regulatory implementation of the recent $1.9 trillion package. The American people need to trust that their HHS Secretary will work for them, regardless of disagreements over ideology. Like a President, Cabinet officials work for the entire country, and broad public trust is essential. As Mr. Becerra was serving in his current role in California as attorney general, the Trump administration was making significant regulatory changes to protect the sanctity of life. Attorney General Becerra then spent much of his time attempting to overturn or ignore those changes. Most recently, Attorney General Becerra actively defended a California law requiring abortion coverage in insurance plans offered by churches. The Office of Civil Rights at HHS ruled on January 24, 2020, that the State's abortion mandate violated Federal law, but Attorney General Becerra refused to comply. Ideological or moral disagreements should not be met with legal challenges. Americans need to know that their government is working to find a common ground that will protect all strongly held personal and religious beliefs, including the belief in the sanctity of life. Thoughtful healthcare policy matters to Kansans and Americans now more than ever. We need a leader at HHS who is eager to serve all of the country, even in the face of disagreements--one who has the necessary healthcare expertise to be successful in this position and will be an asset to our country in this time of rebuilding. I oppose this confirmation and urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, today the Senate Judiciary Committee is considering a grave threat to the right of conscience. The House recently passed the Equality Act, which would demolish religious liberty protections, ironically making Americans of certain beliefs decidedly unequal under the law. In other words, for something called religious protections, the Equality Act would diminish the capability to be considered equal under the law. It is not an accident of careless drafting that permits this outcome. The language is both so expansive and so explicit that it must be intentional and it must be intentionally hostile to people who hold such beliefs. The language expands the definition of public accommodations to include prohibiting discrimination by ``any establishment that provides a good, service, or program, including a . . . food bank, service or care center, [or] shelter,'' and any organization receiving Federal funding. Religiously affiliated entities seeking to put their beliefs into action outside their church, mosque, or synagogue must comply. The authors know such an expansive definition infringes on the constitutional rights of religious liberty. That is because this legislation would explicitly--explicitly--deny recourse to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, a bill that was passed with overwhelmingly bipartisan majorities in both Chambers of Congress before being signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993. This denial cuts off two legal paths for people of conscience. One, an individual or institution cannot sue the Federal Government to prevent enforcement of this act without statutory--explicit statutory-- authority of RFRA. And, two, the individual institution that is sued for discrimination under this bill cannot rely on RFRA as a defense It is not an exaggeration to say that the five lines related to RFRA in this bill represent one of the most dramatic assaults against religious faith and conscience that I have seen in my time in Congress. The effects will be damaging to communities in Kansas and across the country. If passed, people of faith must decide whether to adhere to their deeply held beliefs or to the law. This law effectively says it is better to have fewer doctors in rural Kansas, which desperately needs them, than it is to have doctors of moral conviction; that it is better to shutter social services administered by faith-based groups that fill gaps in our safety net than to allow them to remain true to their mission; or that it is better to force the closure of religious schools in urban areas, which so often provide a path out of poverty, than to allow them to remain open and teach principles of faith. In response to the Obama contraception mandate a decade ago, I warned: ``If the government can compel an individual or group to violate one's conscience, then there is no limit to government power.'' That remains true now, nearly 10 years later, and remains true into the future. I will oppose the use of such government power to infringe on matters of religious belief and conscience, and I stand in opposition to the Equality Act. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, on Monday, March 15, the community of Ashland, KS, celebrated the career of someone who dedicated nearly 45 years to the Stockgrowers State Bank. Walter Frank York has called Ashland home since the day he was born. His parents, Russell and Marjorie, brought him up in a modest home on a farmer's income during the 1950s and 1960s. Frank, as he came to be called by his family and friends, went on to study finance at Kansas State University, but the Vietnam war draft up-ended his plans before graduation. Frank ultimately did not serve due to a back injury incurred while playing football for Ashland High, but the draft experience took him to Eagle County, CO, where he used his education to assist his sister with a new business that she was operating in Vail Village near the well- known ski resort. While taking on this challenge in Colorado, he finished his degree at CU Boulder, despite his long-lasting love for the K-State Wildcats. After earning his degree, his route led back home when he applied for a vacant position at a bank in Ashland. His first day at Stockgrowers State Bank was March 15, 1976. Working as a loans officer, Frank added a sense of small-town care for each of his customers over the years. After all, he would frequently see his customers at church, at the grocery store, and at Friday night sporting events in Ashland and surrounding communities in southwest Kansas. In 2007, he earned the title of executive vice president after years of loyally helping customers. One recent highlight from his career was being awarded as a recipient of the Pioneer Award in early 2020, which is given annually by the Kansas Ag Bankers division of the Kansas Bankers Association. When he achieved the award, one customer of his remarked to the Kansas Ag Bankers: ``Frank just makes it simple to do business and helps keep me connected to the Ashland community.'' In return, Frank likes to share that his clients and colleagues became ``family'' to him. Being surrounded by good people in an enjoyable community helped keep Frank at Stockgrowers for the entirety of his banking career. I would be remiss if I did not speak of community involvement while sharing about Frank York. Whether it was being involved in his children's Boy Scouts troop, coaching local youth baseball programs in the summer, announcing football games for Ashland High, broadcasting SPIAA League high school basketball tournaments, or serving on the board of organizations near and far in Kansas, Frank has done it all. He currently serves on the board for KJIL Great Plains Christian Radio, in addition to the Kansas Leadership Center's board, and serves as president of the alumni board for his K-State chapter of Delta Upsilon fraternity. I have had the joy of getting to know Frank on a more personal level in this past decade, as his son Tyler joined my staff after earning his degree at K-State. Frank lives in the same farmhouse that his grandfather built in 1912, just a few miles outside of Ashland. Farming and ranching has been a side passion and a hobby for him since he returned home for a career at Stockgrowers. It is something that he intends to continue for years ahead, thanks to the local volunteer firefighters that spared the York farmstead from destruction in March 2017 as wildfires burned close to 80 percent of Clark County. He considers himself blessed to have been of the more fortunate residents of the area. While I have appreciated his friendship over the years, Frank was an invaluable resource to me in the aftermath of the Starbuck Fire. Along with many others from Clark County, he informed me on ways we could help direct the USDA and other governmental agencies to coordinate in providing assistance to those that were severely affected. The announcement of retirement from Frank came in mid-2020. His emotional final day at Stockgrowers State Bank was on December 31, 2020. Due to the challenges that the pandemic brought to communities of all sizes, a celebration of his retirement, unfortunately, had to be postponed. However, I couldn't think of a better date to celebrate the career of Frank York than the 45th anniversary of his first day of employment at Stockgrowers State Bank. While the difficulties of the pandemic will still prevent many well-wishers from making it to Ashland to personally offer their congratulations, I know that the amount of lives that have been positively affected by Frank are plenty and stretch far beyond Ashland. His family--including wife, Sue, and children Joshua, Tyler, Emily, Adam, and Jennifer--should all be extremely proud of Frank's career. I offer my sincere congratulations to someone I am proud to call my friend, Frank York.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I am here this afternoon to speak in opposition to H.R. 1, the so-called For the People Act. Every American--no American should be fooled by the wholesome title of H.R. 1. H.R. 1 is an affront to the U.S. Constitution, and the drastic impact this legislation would have on federalizing elections, restricting free speech, and accelerating the divide in this country-- that divide between left and right, rural and urban, red States and blue States--would be terribly damaging to our Nation. We often hear that elections have consequences. In November, Americans voted for a Congress that is nearly a 50-50 split between the parties in the House and precisely a 50-50 split in the Senate. If elections have consequences, then the consequence American voters may have had in mind was to encourage Congress to put aside partisan differences and to work together to do its job on their behalf. Americans did not vote to give one party free rein to implement an unprecedented power grab, to nationalize elections, and to strip power from States and localities from now into perpetuity, forever. I am a conservative, and I believe in the primacy of individual liberties and in a Federal Government that exercises restraint. I believe that State and local units of government are inherently more responsive to the wishes of our citizens. Article I, section 4 of the Constitution states that ``Time, Places and Manner'' of congressional elections ``shall be prescribed [by the States].'' My adherence to the Constitution thus instructs deference to State governments to oversee their own elections, as they always have and always should. There are so many problematic and, frankly, unconstitutional aspects of this legislation, particularly as it pertains to the micromanagement of local elections by the Federal Government. With regard to the bill's intent to Federalize State elections, I draw your attention to page 44, section 1004. Democrats, in sponsoring and pursuing passage of this legislation, seek to eliminate voter identification laws. Voter identification laws have a lot of merit. It is required that you be a U.S. citizen to cast a vote in the United States. American people generally have common sense, and the Gallup poll indicates that 80 percent of Americans support voter ID laws. When you explain to Americans what voter ID really is, they do support it. Yet, under this legislation, voters showing up to the polls without an ID could simply sign a statement claiming they are who they say they are. If you want to dispel the notion that voter fraud occurs in our elections, this is not the place, this is not the way to accomplish that. I don't want our laws to discourage people from voting, but I want people to be legal who do vote. On page 166, this bill requires that ballots be counted outside a voter's precinct, removing a local government's ability to verify voter rolls. That authority would instead go to a bureaucrat in Washington. The requirement to allow third parties, including those politically affiliated, to pick up and deliver absentee ballots, known as ballot harvesting, further erodes confidence in elections. Such a requirement is directly at odds with recommendations from a 2005 bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform led by former President Jimmy Carter, which recommended that States prohibit this practice due to an increased likelihood of fraud. H.R. 1 doesn't even keep the bipartisan nature of the Federal Election Commission in place. It alters its structure deliberately to make it work on behalf of the party in power. One last point on local elections. This bill allows for in-person voting 15 days before an election. This is the typical, the classic unfunded mandate. I talked to local election officials about this provision specifically, and it would kill their budgets, maintaining rent and staff for weeks on end in rural counties across Kansas where, realistically, you might get fewer than a handful of people to show up on a day that far before the election. There are plenty of other ways to vote in advance when necessary. This would create real-world consequences, real consequences in rural America and in rural Kansas. A one-size solution from Washington, DC, does not solve all problems and, in fact, in many instances creates more problems. While this provision alone probably wouldn't have contributed to voter fraud, this bill does so by prohibiting officials from reviewing voter eligibility or barring local officials from removing ineligible voters from the voter rolls. It is imperative that we restore America's faith in our elections, and that is why I am a supporter of S. 13, legislation led by our own Senator, Tim Scott of South Carolina, to establish a bipartisan advisory committee to make recommendations that will improve the security, integrity, and administration of Federal elections. This is a measured approach that will help us regain the trust of American voters. H.R. 1 goes as far to the other end of the spectrum as is imaginable. It drastically changes the rules of our election, implementing every leftwing policy idea pertaining to Federal elections--ideas that are evidently so good, they must be made mandatory. If they were good, they might find their way into existence across the country because they are good, not because the Federal Government requires them. This legislation would sow immense doubts among voters about the integrity and administration of our elections--something we further do not need. It would corrode our entire system of elections, and for what purpose? Because, simply put, I think Democrats believe passing H.R. 1 would render rural voters, red State voters, impotent and therefore help them win elections. At a time when our country is so divided, when we should be working together, for example, to end the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, to get America vaccinated, and get our economy back on track, this is a very damaging policy to our Republic, and it is contained within the 800 pages of H.R. 1. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle take time to read and understand this bill and see and determine for themselves what it truly is. I am interested in making sure that all people have the opportunity to vote. All people who are legally eligible to vote, I want them to vote. But we ought to not skew our elections to see that those we want to vote are the only ones who are eligible to do so and that those who are not eligible to vote are able to do so. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1154 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, amendment No. 1154 is on community care funding within the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA has estimated that it needs $13.4 billion for medical care. This bill provides $14.4 billion in care, but it currently limits how much money can be spent within that care for community care. So we generally have all the care within the VA, but sometimes people are referred out to the community, sometimes there is telehealth, and sometimes the care actually occurs in a VA facility. This would eliminate that cap of $4.4 billion and replace it with spending up to $5 billion on community care, the amount that it is expected the VA will need. Again, this amendment removes this arbitrary funding barrier, and it also includes additional dollars for maintenance at our VA medical centers. I retain the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, while the Senator from Delaware stole my thunder, I believe this amendment can pass by voice vote, and I would add the request that all of the amendments that follow this follow the same precedent. Vote on Amendment No. 1342

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, the MISSION Act allows for the veteran and the VA to make the decision where the care should occur. Vote on Amendment No. 1154

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate equally divided.

Mr. MORAN. I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes of debate equally divided.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment 1342 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. MORAN. My colleagues, I arise here at the request of many veterans service organizations and veterans across the country who have called for a long time for us to protect our military and veteran students and close the 90-10 loophole. What was once a partisan discussion is becoming a bipartisan discussion, and while the American Rescue Plan closes the 90-10 loophole, we need to make sure we do it in the right way, make these changes in the correct way, and we need to ensure we put the policy back in the perspective of not politics but the right answer. I am thankful to my colleagues Senators Carper, Cassidy, and Lankford for putting politics aside and working on this amendment with me. I also want to thank Chairman Murray and Ranking Member Burr and their staffs, as well as the veteran groups and the stakeholders, for their help in crafting this amendment. By providing a 6-month delay before the start of a negotiated rulemaking process, Congress now has time to work together with our veterans service organizations and the higher education community on a bipartisan plan to deliver reasonable and needed protections for veterans and taxpayers alike. I ask my colleagues to join us in support of our bipartisan amendment and continue to work with us on a path forward this Congress. I yield to the Senator from Delaware

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I would like to speak in support of confirming Denis McDonough to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Mr. McDonough has demonstrated his dedication to public service over the last 25 years and has assured me that he will bring that same dedication to the Department of Veterans Affairs in its mission to serve our veterans. He has experience leading and implementing policy across the Federal Government and has earned a reputation for being able to make government work better. Although he is not a veteran, he has made his case that he is personally devoted to serving veterans and seeing them achieve success, and it is my belief that he is sincere in that assertion. Mr. McDonough testified that he appreciates the clear roles of Congress in passing law and of the executive branch in executing them. He has committed to me and to our committee that he will faithfully implement critical VA reforms in line with congressional intent, and I intend to hold him accountable for the decisions and actions he makes as Secretary. We have made significant progress with the VA to provide permanent veterans' choice in access to care, mental health and suicide prevention, employee accountability, and improved benefits for veterans, their dependents, and survivors. We cannot backtrack on this progress, and the next VA Secretary must be ready on day one to continue building on this success. I will support Mr. McDonough's confirmation and hold him to his commitment to work with our committee and with our veteran stakeholders to deliver the improved benefits and services Congress has legislated.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I want to visit this evening on the Senate floor and take this opportunity to recognize a public servant, a leader, our former Secretary of the Army, the Honorable Ryan D. McCarthy. Secretary McCarthy led our Nation's Army from September 30, 2019, to January 20, 2021, and during that time, he made it a more modern, agile, and lethal fighting force. We have worked together on a number of projects for Kansans and those who serve or have served our Nation during his tenure as Secretary, Acting Secretary, and Under Secretary of the Army, and I have grown to consider him a good, solid friend. One of my most memorable experiences in the Senate was visiting the 1st Infantry Division soldiers in Germany and Poland--soldiers who come from Fort Riley, KS--with the Secretary, followed by our trip to Afghanistan to meet with troops on the frontlines in the global War on Terror. Those visits marked the beginning of our friendship, and since then, I have appreciated his guidance and his support during his visits to Kansas and our many discussions here in our Nation's Capital. In 2019, Secretary McCarthy joined me in Kansas to visit Seitz Elementary School, which serves the families of the Big Red One soldiers on Fort Riley. Secretary McCarthy was instrumental in helping to find funding for this school in 2011 when he was the Special Assistant to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Kansan. I was pleased he joined me in Kansas to visit the school--and its students--that he helped create in 2019. We also met with Fort Riley leadership and then traveled to Wichita to visit defense manufacturing and academic leaders to discuss the future of Army procurement. These personal touch points with soldiers and with the Army community were some of the reasons why Secretary McCarthy was universally respected within the Army family. While I will always appreciate our personal engagements with soldiers, I will also remember our efforts to support soldiers and veterans when they step off the battlefield or separate from military service. This past Veterans Day, we coauthored an editorial that discussed our parallel efforts to support the mental health and well-being of soldiers and veterans. Reports show Americans across the country are feeling isolated and alone in today's socially distanced environment, including our Nation's service men and women and veteran populations. Between my efforts as chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee to implement the Commander John Scott Hannon Veterans Mental Health Care Improvement Act and Secretary McCarthy's effort to build interpersonal connections between soldiers, we are working to give soldiers and veterans the tools they need to overcome mental health challenges they face. As Secretary McCarthy transitions out of the watchful eye of public life, I rise this evening to express my appreciation for his leadership, his character, and his moral compass. He never let politics or convenience influence his decisions, and that has significantly benefited soldiers, Army civilians, veterans, and Kansans across the Nation. As the chairman and now ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I will always strive to help veterans find success after service. Secretary McCarthy, I have no doubts that you will find success and happiness after your dedicated service to our country. I thank your family for their support of your public service. I know that you and your family will find a quality life with purpose and meaning as you enter the next phase. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I rise out of respect and in memory of Gove County Sheriff Allan Weber, who served his community faithfully over the last two decades. Allan was born and raised on his family's farm near Park, KS, and he went on to marry Connie, his high school sweetheart. The couple has three children--Andrea, Brandon, and Cory. To those who know Allan, it was always clear that his family meant everything to him. His many grandchildren were his pride and joy. In 1996, he ran for Gove County sheriff and served his community faithfully for over two decades since first elected. Gove County is out in Western Kansas. It is flat. It is the prairie. It is windy. It is hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It is farmers and ranchers. It is often a struggle to earn a living in Gove County. I know the county well. Despite those challenges, it is made up of people who work hard, care for each other, and try to make good lives for themselves and their families. In rural areas like Gove County, the sheriff oftentimes wears multiple hats, and Sheriff Weber was no different. In addition to serving as sheriff, he was also the public information officer and the emergency operations center community liaison. Kansans also never fail to step up to help their neighbors in hard times, and Allan did the same. After the tragic death of a neighboring county's sheriff, he stepped up to serve as the interim sheriff in Sheridan County, making him the first person ever to serve two counties as sheriff at the same time--a first in Kansas's history. He saw his brothers and sisters in blue as an extended part of his family, and he held them in the highest regard. His colleague in law enforcement, Sheriff Tim Morse of Jackson County, which is on the other side of the State, wrote this: Kansas has lost a great sheriff. Gove County Sheriff Allan Weber has spent the last couple of months fighting COVID-19 in a Denver hospital. Today, Sheriff Weber was escorted back to Gove County by Colorado and Kansas Highway Patrols along with countless Kansas Sheriffs and law enforcement officers for one last time . . . Sheriff Weber was an honorable man who was respected by all. He will be greatly missed. He respected those in blue, and those in blue respected him. He was a dedicated public servant both in his home community and at the State level. He served the Kansas Sheriffs' Association on its board and as its president. I talked to the Kansas Sheriffs' Association today, and they wanted me to recognize Sheriff Weber's professionalism and his dedication and that he served as president of the Association for two consecutive terms, which is a rare circumstance and speaks to his effectiveness in the role and the admiration that his colleagues held for him. His community also loved and respected him. They came together to welcome him home one last time with an honor parade down Highway 212, in Quinter, this past Saturday night, with hundreds of cars and people lined up to recognize his service and sacrifice over a lifetime. Connie, his wife, said: It was such a beautiful homecoming. I know he was bursting with pride and love. After the November election, when he woke up in the intensive care unit, I told him he was sheriff for the next 4 years, and he gave me a small smile and nodded his head. He loved the Gove County community's mind and was always ready to give the ultimate sacrifice if he had to. There were times that his heart broke doing his job, but he did what was right. He lived life day-to-day and enjoyed it and everyone. He worked hard and loved gently. He will be missed by many. The outpouring of love, support, and shared memories on their Quinter Community Facebook page has been constant and speaks to the interconnectedness of a small community. I should tell you that the population of Gove County is about 2,612, and the county seat of Gove has a population of 70. It is in places like Quinter, like Gove, and like Gove County where the sheriff is known by everyone, and the sheriff is interwoven into the life of the community and the county. So many of his friends and family have remarked on Allan's contagious smile, how ornery he was, but, most importantly, as to the selfless way he served people. Those of us in public service ought to look to Allan as a role model in that selfless service of others. Sheriff Allan Weber embodied so many values in Kansas--faith, family, fellowship, service, and good old-fashioned hard work. He will be missed by many. Robba and I extend our deepest sympathies to his family--both his loved ones, which includes one of my staff members, Chelsey Ladd, his cousin, and his brothers and sisters in blue. May God bless Allan Weber. May we praise him for the life he lived, and may we look to him as a role model to try to do what he has done. I offer my condolences and respect, on behalf of the U.S. Senate, to the family of Sheriff Allan Weber. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following nominations: Executive Calendar Nos. 867 and 868.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 803, submitted earlier today.