Jerry Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, many of us this afternoon had the opportunity to see a screening of the HBO documentary ``For Whom the Bell Tolls,'' a tribute to Senator McCain. It is clearly a tribute, but it is also the story of his life and an expose of his sacrifice for his country. It is a moving story of Senator McCain's life and an inspiration to me and, I assume, to my colleagues for the commitment that he has made to always try to do right--putting his country above self. I have had the honor of working with Senator McCain for the last several years in regard to legislation trying to improve the circumstances that our Nation's veterans face as they access healthcare within the Department of Veterans Affairs. Senator McCain and I introduced legislation to accomplish a number of things related to this, particularly the Veterans Choice Program. Choice was passed back about 2014, at a time in which the VA was in a crisis and a time in which the veterans they were created to serve were harmed by decisions made at the Department of Veterans Affairs. The problems were highlighted in Senator McCain's home city of Phoenix at the Phoenix VA, in which a number of veterans may have died as a result of the inability to access healthcare in a timely fashion. The solution to the problems exhibited in other places across the country--which included false waiting lists, in which the VA had determined a list that was not real but demonstrated that veterans who had no idea they had an appointment to see someone at the VA had an appointment, to camouflage the failures and the slowness of the Department of Veterans Affairs--resulted in a unanimous decision by the Senate to create a program called Choice. Choice creates the opportunity for a veteran, under certain circumstances, to access healthcare in their home community at the veteran's discretion. This program, in my view, has significant potential to alter the opportunities that a veteran has to be cared for. Those who served our country deserve the very best, and we want to make certain that happens both inside the VA and with a program that allows veterans to choose healthcare outside the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Veterans Choice Program has expired since 2014. We have reauthorized it in a number of instances. I think three, perhaps four times. It needed funding, and we reauthorized the funding. Choice was a limited program in which for the veteran to qualify to receive Choice care in the community at their discretion and at their option was determined by whether or not that veteran lived within 40 miles of a VA facility or whether the VA could provide the services within 30 days of the time the veteran needed that care. The committee here in the Senate has worked for a long time trying to reauthorize the Veterans Choice Program. It has been my position, with Senator McCain, that just to reauthorize Choice would be a significant error on our part and that in the authorization process, we should make community care work better for veterans. I judge whether or not the VA is providing the care and services that our veterans need by what you would call casework--what we do on behalf of our constituents who have a challenge or a problem with a Federal agency or department. Our casework regarding veterans who are attempting to access care in the community has been exponential. I checked the other day. At the moment, we have 80 cases for veterans in Kansas--not all related to this particular program but 80 veterans who contacted me and my staff and said: I need your help. Since I have been a Senator, that number is 2,650 veterans who have contacted me or my staff saying: I need your help. So when it came time for the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee to begin the legislative process of determining how to alter the program, how to reform it, and, particularly, how to extend the program, I wanted to make certain that my input was based upon what veterans were telling me about how the program did and didn't work. Our committee passed a bill out of the Veterans' Affairs Committee months ago. That bill was passed by our committee on a vote of 14 to 1. I was the one opponent. I say that for my colleagues today--some of whom have asked my view, some of whom I hope were interested in my view, and even those who may not care. I want them to know that the bill now in front of the Senate--and the majority leader just filed the proceedings for us to have a cloture vote next week on this legislation--is legislation I support. It does do something more than just extend Choice. It creates opportunities for that program to work much better. Most importantly to me was the issue of who decides whether or not a veteran has the option of choosing community care. The legislation that we will consider next week allows for the Department of Veterans Affairs--in a sense, the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs--to remain the gatekeeper. The VA has the opportunity to make the decision about who gets to have community care, but different than today, when the only criteria is 40 miles or 30 days. We create access standards in this legislation that the VA must abide by in determining whether or not a veteran can have care in the community, and that is a significant difference. We had all kinds of challenges with the 40 miles and 30 days. We changed the definition of what a facility was in order to get the VA to allow individuals to have access to care at home. People may recall that the VA wanted to count the 40 miles as the crow flies. In addition to other challenges that the VA put in front of veterans, we have eliminated those and created a standard by which the VA must abide. So while the gatekeeper remains the Department of Veterans Affairs, it is not in the total discretion of the Department of Veterans Affairs. They must abide by criteria, and if the veteran believes he or she is denied care in the community, that veteran has the opportunity to appeal based upon a number of standards, including best medical interest of the veteran. We are changing a program in which the VA made decisions that often denied veterans the access to care in their community that veteran asked for, and we are saying: You now asked the VA for permission. The VA has to make a decision to grant or deny that permission, but they can't do it solely at the discretion of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. They must abide by criteria. That is a significant improvement. Secondly, if you feel like you have received the wrong decision, you can appeal that decision. Today--and we have plenty of examples of this in Kansas--when a veteran is denied community care by the Department of Veterans Affairs, their only appeal is to their Senator or their Member of Congress, in which we then have a new case to once again try to work our way through the Department of Veterans Affairs: Why did you deny this veteran his or her choice to have community care? This bill is a significant improvement. It satisfies the concerns I had; my view that early on, we were mostly just trying to extend Choice as it was--as it is, and now this replaces it with really a circumstance in which veterans have rights, have standards the Department of Veterans Affairs must comply with. In addition to the issues of who can access care, who is the gatekeeper, and determining the standards, this bill merges and modernizes all community care programs and puts them all in one category at the Department of Veterans Affairs instead of multiple programs. It simplifies it. We have had too many instances in which, if you didn't access care under one program, you might be able to apply for another. This changes the circumstances that so many of my veterans have complained to me about, in which they get an authorization from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and they are allowed to see a physician in their home community, but then when they need lab work or an x ray--something that should be related to that visit--they have to go back to the Department of Veterans Affairs to get additional consent. This is more in the line of necessary procedures that should follow: one authorization that includes the things that are medically necessary for that appointment with the physician or that admission to a hospital. It just makes sense that these other things would be necessary if that physician whom the VA referred you to believes them to be necessary. It establishes a framework for the VA to build a high-performing healthcare network, and it implements new coordination so the veteran and the VA work together to determine what is in the best interest of that veteran. It is something I have cared about a lot. We required that in the original Choice Act; that the healthcare provider be paid Medicare rates. Those of us who come from rural States recognize there are various rates under Medicare, and for our smallest hospitals, they are entitled to cost-based reimbursement. That is not happening under the current legislation, the law today. This legislation corrects the problem, keeping the circumstance more likely in which our hospitals and doctors would be financially able to see a veteran and provide that care. This is not privatizing the VA. The VA serves a valuable and useful role. Many veterans choose to have care at the Department of Veterans Affairs, at their hospitals, and at their clinics. Again, it is the veterans' choice where he or she wants to go. For those of us who come from rural places, the distances in which a veteran must travel, in many instances, have eliminated the ability for that veteran to ever access care from the VA. The VA has programs that are important to veterans--traumatic brain injury, amputation, things that may not ever be as available or as desirable in the community. This legislation is supported by every veterans service organization I know of. We have come to the point in which it is time for us to pass this legislation. Memorial Day is approaching. The President has asked this legislation be approved prior to Memorial Day. We think it is appropriate to honor those who served our country at this point in May, where Memorial Day is around the corner, to provide the care they are asking for. The other aspect of why it is important for us to move on the legislation now is that the funding for Choice and community care has diminished. I serve on the Appropriations Committee that funds the Department of Veterans Affairs, and it is necessary for us to get the money in place. The VA is already rationing care for those veterans who use Choice today, and this legislation puts the necessary dollars in place for Choice to continue in its new reformed and improved status. It would be a shame for us to miss this opportunity. It would be wrong for our veterans. It would diminish the number of people who access care at the Department of Veterans Affairs and do so at a time in which the needs are great for those who have served our Nation. Again, referring to my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, we would honor him if we answer this call to do our duty to see that our veterans are cared for, that promises are kept. I appreciate the response that was given when the bill was suggested to be named in honor of Senator McCain. Both the House chairman and the House committee, along with Senator Isakson, the chairman here, and Senator Tester, the ranking member, have agreed to do that. This legislation is now known as the McCain Mission Act. Our colleague, for whom there are so many reasons to pay honor and tribute to, would receive another honor for his service to our Nation but of equal importance, his service to other veterans. For so many reasons, it is time for us to act, to pass the McCain Mission Act, and do so with the promptness that has followed long deliberations to try to get it right. In my view, too often the U.S. Senate, the Congress, politics, and government, in general, just put a bandaid on to get by. This legislation is significantly different than doing something to get by. It would improve the quality of life for those who serve our Nation. We should honor them, as we honor Senator McCain, prior to Memorial Day, at the end of next week. I thank you for the opportunity to address the Senate.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, thank you very much. I come to the floor again today to visit a moment about S.J. Res. 57. It disapproves the CFPB guidance on indirect auto lending. This is a piece of legislation I introduced, and I appreciate the strong and valuable assistance I have had from the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey, and certainly the chairman of the Banking Committee, the Senator from Idaho, and other colleagues. I want to talk just a moment about process, the use of a CRA, and the fact that the CFPB utilized what they called guidance as compared to a rulemaking process. I want to make certain that my colleagues understand that Agencies and Departments still would be encouraged to put out guidance to ensure appropriate compliance with the law. This CRA resolution ought not have a chilling effect on guidance because guidance is a useful tool. It can be helpful to those who are being regulated, but it needs to be issued for traditional purposes--guidelines for complying with Federal law. One of the CFPB's errors in issuing this guidance in this instance was that they proceeded down the path of an aggressive enforcement action in search of market-tipping settlements. If enforcement action is desired on the part of the agency, then a full rulemaking process ought to be conducted, and that is what the CFPB did not do. The CFPB used the guidance as an enforcement weapon instead of guidance in its more traditional and helpful purpose. It is important that we in Congress reorient the guidance process back to its intended form by ensuring that the CFPB cannot replicate its mistakes with regard to indirect auto lending. The authors of the Congressional Review Act that we are operating under on this resolution, Senators Nickles, Reid, and Stevens, in the Congressional Record of April 1996, said: ``The authors are concerned that some agencies have attempted to circumvent notice-and-comment requirements by trying to give legal effect to general statements of policy, `guidelines,' and agency policy and procedure manuals.'' Even in 1996, my previous colleagues were concerned about what actually transpired at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Clearly, the CRA was passed in 1996 with the understanding that agency guidance had been used inappropriately. It is important for Congress to reassert its role in policymaking from the executive branch. All Members of Congress ought to be committed to conducting oversight over the rest of the Federal Government. Failure on the part of Congress to hold Federal agencies to account when they stray from their statutory and congressionally intended jurisdiction means we will get de facto legislation being originated in the executive branch. This effort is about making certain that the form and function of the Federal Government is accountable to the American people. Kansans hold me to account for the actions I take in Washington, DC, on their behalf. In turn, they expect me to hold other components of their government to account. Congress is the link between the American people and the Federal Government. I will continue to use the position that Kansans have entrusted to me to make certain I am representing their interest in Washington, DC, and can do so only by working with my Senate colleagues to oversee and correct mistakes made by other branches of the government. Today, we will do that with the adoption of S.J. Res. 57. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I am here to lend my support to a measure that I have had the honor of working on with the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey, and I have worked side by side with the chairman of the Banking Committee--of which I am a member--the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo. I very much appreciate the leadership that both of those individuals and my other colleagues have provided over a long period of time on this issue. Dodd-Frank was passed as a result of the concerns that many had across the country and here in the Congress regarding the financial challenges that our Nation faced resulting from mortgages that were sold. It really was a Wall Street crisis that, in so many ways, became challenging for Main Street, with Main Street having the consequence of having the difficulties presented to them based upon what happened on Wall Street, and in so many instances, consumers ended up paying the price. But as we tried to correct the problem when Dodd-Frank was passed, it got way beyond the culprits--those who were culpable for creating the financial crisis in our Nation--and began to penalize those who had nothing to do with them. One of the creatures of the passage of Dodd-Frank was the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and one of the aspects of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was their effort to regulate indirect auto lending. I think the chairman, the Senator from Idaho, did a great job of explaining this resolution. Today, we have the authority to reject the decision that was made by the Consumer Financial Protect Bureau, and I hope my colleagues will join me in doing so. I have introduced this resolution to accomplish that. Senator Toomey has made clear by his efforts that this guidance that was issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is subject to a CRA, and that is our mission today--to accomplish the passage of that CRA. While the chairman was speaking, I jotted down perhaps four or five points that I would like to make to my colleagues. One is that those who lend money to someone buying an automobile had nothing to do with the financial collapse that occurred as a result of the mortgage crisis in 2007 and 2008. I think Republicans probably made a mistake--I could take out the political word ``probably.'' Republicans made a mistake in saying ``We are going to repeal Dodd-Frank,'' and Democrats responded by saying ``You are never going to touch Dodd-Frank.'' As a result, since 2008, we have been unable to correct, in a bipartisan way, the problems that many of us saw with Dodd-Frank. There are those who say ``We are going to get rid of the entire thing,'' and those who say ``You can't touch it.'' Therefore, the consumers--the citizens of this country-- have struggled and been damaged by the consequences of Dodd-Frank. Today we are dealing with a specific provision, and that is the indirect automobile lending--a circumstance in which financing is arranged by someone who sells an automobile in their business to make the deal work for the consumer who wants to buy the automobile. I would outline these five points: First of all, this ought to be a relatively easy decision because automobile dealers are specifically excluded from the provisions of Dodd-Frank. So, in my view, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau had to work its magic to try to find a way to regulate the financing of automobiles that were arranged for by the automobile dealer in contravention to the law which says that automobile dealers are not covered by it. I was not in the Senate at the time this amendment was offered. It was offered here in the U.S. Senate by my predecessor, Senator Brownback, and adopted as a provision in Dodd-Frank. It is very specific. I just read the language of the exemption, the exclusion, before I came on the Senate floor. Again, it says that automobile dealers are excluded from the provisions of Dodd-Frank. Yet the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found a way to get around direct law and, in that sense, the intent of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives when they passed Dodd-Frank. So just on its face, we ought to decide that the CRA is worth supporting because we are really reaffirming the decision that was made when Dodd-Frank was passed. Second, the process the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau used-- they didn't draft a rule and go through the rulemaking process, and they didn't put anything out for comment by the industry that would be affected or by the consumers who may pay more as a result of the passage or the enactment of this guidance. But they created something that regulatory bodies often do and tried to provide--the word is ``guidance.'' What they say they are doing is providing direction, without passing a rule, to those who might be affected by the rule, but as a result of just using guidance, no input was solicited, no input therefore could be given, and the Administrative Procedure Act was avoided. I remember the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was in front of the Banking Committee when he was asked: How can this be? His answer was simply: This is guidance, and the Administrative Procedure Act doesn't apply. Yet, as we have seen, the GAO has recently concluded that this is the same outcome, the same result as rulemaking would be and therefore subject to the CRA. What that highlights for me is, in two instances already, the CFPB finagled and created a way to get to an outcome they wanted without following, in this case, the Administrative Procedure Act and, secondly, in violation of the statutory prohibition against having anything to do with automobile dealers. So for those two reasons, we ought to be opposed to the guidance that was directed to the automobile dealers and those who lend money at the direction of those automobile dealers. The third item I would raise is what this guidance is designed to do is to prevent discrimination. What they claimed they were doing was to make certain that interest rates do not differ based upon a person's race. If that were the desired outcome, I would have no qualms. But because you can't ask a person's race, there is no way to know. So what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau did was to create a computer program, an algorithm, in which they guessed what a person's race was based upon their last name--how it sounds--and, secondly, on their ZIP Code. Never was the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau able to provide the evidence that anyone had been discriminated against, only that if you use a computer program and run a bunch of numbers through it, the algorithm, based upon what a person's name sounds like--which I guess, in my mind, is discrimination in and of itself--and, secondly, the ZIP Code--perhaps the same thing could be said about that-- determine what race a person is or was. So the methods by which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau determined discrimination were flawed. In fact, a bipartisan report indicated that 41 percent of the determinations were inaccurate, so not quite half of every time the algorithm guessed what the race of a borrower was, it was wrong. Yet that apparently was sufficient for the CFPB to believe they had a basis to determine whether someone was discriminated against. I can't imagine that many Americans would find it comforting to know that only a computer program determines what somebody believes their race is, again, based upon a hypothetical and not upon actual facts. Again, the method by which the guidance was used to determine discrimination was significantly flawed and a process in which I can't believe many Americans would find comfort. What I would say, finally, is that elimination of the guidance-- passage of the CRA today--would not do anything to change the prohibition against discrimination. It is not that if the CRA is adopted that discrimination now becomes legal; in fact, we all can agree that discrimination has no place in our society or in our economy. But the absence of this CFPB guidance does not make discrimination legal. It does not amend or modify the Equal Credit Opportunity Act nor does it change regulation B, which allows for enforcement of that act. What we are trying to do is correct the mistakes by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Dodd-Frank, which says that you can't deal with automobile dealers, correct the problems that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by using an algorithm to determine discrimination, and at the same time, not do anything to change the prohibition, the illegality of discriminating against a person based upon that person's race. Also, I think we can easily make the case that this kind of guidance, this effort by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, causes damage to the consumer, who therefore will not get the benefit of an appropriate rate of interest because of the fear of this guidance, which then, ultimately, results in just a standard interest rate for everyone. Today we have the opportunity to correct a problem that was created in contravention of a law that used a flawed method to determine whether a person was discriminated against and to improve the circumstances that consumers face at a time in which every dime matters, so we should see improvement in the opportunities for people to borrow money and to buy an automobile for the benefit of themselves and their families. I hope that my colleagues will join me, as they did on the motion to proceed, and that this CRA will be adopted over the next day or so. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I would like to take a few moments of the Senate's time this evening to recognize servicemembers who take time away from core missions serving our Nation to support Members of Congress to facilitate a healthy and balanced exchange with the Department of Defense. We work in an environment in which we are surrounded by these dedicated individuals in our Armed Forces. They educate us, prepare us, and do their very best to make sure the members of this body can strive to do their work in the most effective way possible. The vast majority of their efforts go without proper acknowledgement. I speak today to ensure that we recognize one of the hardest working and dedicated individuals among them, LTC Charcillea Schaefer. As an American soldier, she has dedicated her life to serving our country, and for the past 3 years, she has successfully supported me and other Members of Congress. I have been able to work with Charcy by virtue of the U.S. Army Congressional Fellowship Program. Through this program, she was assigned to the U.S. Army's congressional budget liaison office, where she worked alongside Senate appropriators and Army leaders in the Pentagon. Charcy directly improved the relationships between Members of Congress, their staffs, and Army leaders with her ability to build trust and gain confidence among those who relied on her. Her accurate and timely responses to the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies had a significant impact on the subcommittee's ability to establish priorities and craft appropriations legislation that better serves our military, their families, and our veterans. Charcy was skilled in translating the military construction needs of the Army such as military hospitals, barracks, and clean energy initiatives. She also helped Members understand the impact new construction and facility upgrades would have in direct support of combatant commands and their missions. Charcy was influential in assisting the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies support one of our Nation's most sacred and cherished treasures, the Arlington National Cemetery. Charcy is trustworthy and dependable, she made a difference, and I am grateful for her support. On behalf of Kansans and the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, I offer sincere gratitude to Charcillea Schaefer of Centreville, VA. Charcy, ma'am, thank you for a job well done. I wish you nothing but the best in your future endeavors and service to our Nation.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, thank you for your remarks on the floor earlier this afternoon. I rise to have the Senate consider and to have a conversation about S. 140, a package of three bills that will have positive benefits on Indian Country. Two bills in the package--the Senator from Arizona was talking about one of them. Two bills in this package, S. 140, the White Mountain Apache Water Rights Quantification Act, sponsored by Senators Flake and McCain, and S. 249, a bill to provide that the Pueblo of Santa Clara may lease for 99 years certain restricted land, sponsored by Senators Udall and Heinrich of New Mexico, have already received unanimous consent from the Senate. The third bill in the package, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, was attached as a message from the House to S. 140 in January. I am the sponsor of this legislation in the Senate, which should be noncontroversial in a chamber where Members of the Senate profess to be supportive of Tribal sovereignty. This concept has been around since 2005, and I became interested in this topic and introduced legislation in 2013--now 5 years ago. I suppose all of us, from time to time, may introduce legislation that is a messaging point or a talking point. In this and in most every other case, when I introduce legislation I work hard to see that it becomes law. I work in a bipartisan way to bring Republicans and Democrats together and for rural and urban Members of the Senate to work together. This is an example of that. There is nothing about this legislation that is a messaging to Tribes or to others. It is not an introduction of a piece of legislation designed to make a point. It is a piece of legislation designed to become law. This bill has passed the House and is now pending here in the Senate today. I hope to use this opportunity to convey to my colleagues that this legislation is not a radical proposition but rather a restoration of the sovereign status of Tribal governments. Indeed, by moving forward with this legislation, we can enshrine the status quo that existed for 70 years after the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, until the National Labor Relations Board stripped Tribes of their government status under the NLRA. By making explicit that Tribal governments are distinct and sovereign and capable of making their own decisions, we will correct a decade-old error made by the NLRB. (Mr. YOUNG assumed the Chair.) The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act is simple and narrow. It amends the NLRA to exempt tribally owned entities operated on tribally owned lands--no more, no less. Businesses owned by individual Tribal members or operations off Tribal lands still remain subject to the scrutiny of the NLRB. Many of those who have expressed opposition to this bill will say: I support Tribal sovereignty--but. If you have to qualify your support for Tribal sovereignty in order to protect your own interests instead of the Tribes, then, no, you really don't support Tribal sovereignty. Tribal sovereignty is something we believe in. Tribes of Native Americans--those who inhabited this country before our ancestors arrived--were granted sovereignty over their own businesses decades or generations ago. Senators have voiced on the Senate floor that this is not about sovereignty but about an attack on labor. That is simply not true. One accusation is that this bill is truly an attack on labor because it doesn't provide exemptions from other Federal legislation. If my colleagues are objecting to this bill because of its narrow scope, then will they support making it broader? I think the answer to that is clearly no. If they are serious about that, then let's have a conversation. I am not new to Tribal issues. My introduction to this topic began when I was elected to the Kansas State Senate a long time ago now. I was a freshman member. I happened to have a law degree and was assigned by the leadership of the State senate to conduct negotiations and to chair a committee on Indian gaming in Kansas. I spent the next 2 years in front of a Federal district judge, negotiating an agreement under IGRA for Indian gaming in Kansas. Other examples of our efforts include the passage of general welfare exclusion legislation with Senator Heitkamp of North Dakota that passed this Senate and became law several years ago now. Again, it was trying to make clear that Tribal decisions made on behalf of Tribal members are much better decisions than those made by Congress but especially by those made by agencies and bureaucracies--in that case, the IRS; today, the National Labor Relations Board. We have also worked on other issues related to Tribal interests, including a Carcieri fix and the ability to bring land into trust-- issues that are important to Tribes across the country. My point is, this is another piece of legislation in a series that the Senate has pursued in which we are doing right by those who preceded us as our ancestors settled in America. I don't think that the critics of this bill want Tribal governments exempt from the other statutes either. No, the objection isn't about the sovereignty granted by this legislation. It is not that it doesn't go far enough; it is what it does grant sovereignty for. I would ask my colleagues: If the Senate denied Tribal sovereignty in this instance, what Tribal rights are going to be targeted next? The point is, if you are for sovereignty, you are for sovereignty in all circumstances, and you don't have the ability to choose. It is based upon a legal and moral obligation that we have to Tribes here in the United States. Others have criticized this legislation. They have said that non- Tribal members cannot vote for Tribal governments, and therefore this is different from States. Again, this legislation puts Tribes in the same position, under NLRB, as States and other local units of government--but that is not true either. A person living in the District of Columbia, who works in Virginia, is subject to Virginia labor laws without having a say in forming those laws. In 2013, there was an issue of Tribal sovereignty on the U.S. Senate floor. It was broader than that. It was VAWA--the Violence Against Women Act. I supported its reauthorization, which included new authorities for Tribal governments to protect Native American women when they are harmed by non-Indians. With VAWA's passage, Congress placed our trust in Tribes to exact justice in the circumstance of domestic violence and violence against women. The point here is that we rightly determined that Tribes should have the ability to punish Indian and non-Indian violent offenders, but today it is being argued that we can't trust them to treat Indian and non-Indian employees justly. I remember the allegations against my colleagues who voted against VAWA were that they were not supportive of Tribal sovereignty. Those who oppose this bill today are subject to exactly the same criticism. There is also an assumption being made that employees of tribally owned entities are being treated poorly or will be treated poorly if this legislation passes. The majority of Tribes are located in rural areas, where the labor pool is often inadequate. It is to the Tribes' advantage to treat their employees fairly in order to retain them. As a matter of fact, many Tribes have the highest wages and provide the best benefits in their region. Tribal jobs are coveted because prospective employees know what they stand to gain by their employment. The idea that Tribal government enterprise workers should be treated as commercial rather than governmental workers doesn't hold up. A Tribal casino worker is no less of a government employee than an employee of a State-owned-and-operated enterprise that includes liquor stores, ski resorts, and, yes, casinos. In 2015, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee held legislative hearings on the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act--the legislation we are considering today--and testifying before the Committee was Robert Welch, chairman of the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians in California. Despite being a unionized Tribe--employees of the tribally owned facilities are union members--Chairman Welch testified in support of this bill. Many Tribes welcome labor unions. That is fine. The point is, it is their decision. The Tribal decision is where this issue rests. The point of this legislation is it is up to the Tribes to decide, not the NLRB. More than 160 Tribes and Tribal organizations support this legislation and have worked hard to see its passage. They support it because the principle of Tribal sovereignty is critical to their well- being. The vote I seek today is not a partisan ploy. I have worked to pass this legislation without a recorded vote. I have taken to the floor to do live UC requests on a number of occasions but have been met with objections. I have worked to get this legislation included in appropriations bills, but it was always forced out at the last minute. In recent bipartisan legislation, Republican leadership, Chairman Hoeven, and I were open to attaching both NAHASDA and TLSA, but TLSA's inclusion was deemed unacceptable. This is not about making anybody cast a difficult vote. We have tried to do this in a way that eliminates that option, that necessity. We had two victories lined up for Indian Country--NAHASDA and TLSA--and we got nowhere because of opposition to Tribal sovereignty. That brings us to where we are today on the Senate floor. It requires a Senate vote that will take place in a little more than half an hour. It is important to note that Tribal sovereignty enjoys bipartisan support. Nearly two dozen Democrats, including Members of the House Democratic leadership, supported this legislation in January when it passed the House, and we have strong bipartisan backing in the Senate as well. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs reported this out by voice vote last summer. Democratic colleagues of mine have spoken in favor of it. The late Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii wrote in 2009: ``Congress should affirm the original construction of NLRA by expressly including Indian tribes in the definition of employer.'' Senator Daniel Inouye continues to be held in high regard in the U.S. Senate for his work in the U.S. Senate, for his service to his Nation, and for his firm commitment to Tribes and to Native Hawaiians. Again, Senator Inouye, who is no longer with us, said: ``Congress should affirm the original construction of the NLRA by expressly including Indian tribes in the definition of employer.'' What this bipartisan consensus demonstrates is that this is not about labor. This is about the ability of Tribal governments to be treated equally as other levels of government and to provide vital services to their people without fear of work stoppages. Jefferson Keel, president of the National Congress of American Indians, wrote in February: Tribes make an array of public services available to their tribal citizens and other local residents: law enforcement, fire and EMS departments, schools and hospitals, and natural resource management. These are things Tribes do on a daily basis for Tribal members and for residents. All tribal governments play critical roles in ensuring the safety, health, and stability of tribal and surrounding communities. He goes on to write that in 1935, Congress ``did not want the kind of labor strife and work stoppages that could paralyze federal, state and local governments, jeopardizing public health and safety in the process.'' Eighty years later, why it is that every other form of government in this country is treated one way and Tribes another? That, my colleagues, is not right. Why do Tribes have to accept others determining their workplace rules but not their counterparts? Why is it that the well-being of Native Americans on reservations, who rely on these services, might be placed at risk? But most importantly, why would we deny sovereignty when Tribes are entitled to it? Senator Udall, my friend and colleague from New Mexico, who serves as our committee's vice chair, the ranking member, understands the importance of self-governance. He recently said: ``Decisions made by Tribes for Tribes produce the best outcomes for their unique communities.'' Is there a U.S. Senator who doesn't believe that decisions made at home are better because we are all unique? We have unique circumstances in every State across the country and in every community. Local folks can make better decisions about what makes sense in their local community. We know that for our constituents; we should know that for Tribal members. Again, Senator Udall said: ``Decisions made by Tribes for Tribes produce the best outcomes for their unique circumstances.'' What we will be voting on shortly is really a question of whether the Members of this Chamber--U.S. Senators who swore to uphold the Constitution and fill their responsibilities--believe that Tribal governments, elected by their members, possess the right to make informed decisions on behalf of those they represent. I say they do, and I hope that most of my colleagues--in fact, I hope all of my colleagues agree with that sentiment. We have been working at this legislation for 5 years now. Decisions will be made 30 minutes from now that will have a huge consequence, perhaps not on me, perhaps not on many of my constituents but on Tribal leaders and the individual Tribal members who elected them to make decisions on their behalf. We would be offended if people intruded on our abilities to make decisions for our constituents, and Tribal leaders are no different. This is important legislation. It is not political. It is about making the right decision for the right reason so that good outcomes can benefit all Americans--all who live here in the United States--and I ask my colleagues to seriously consider and, ultimately, vote for this bill, S. 140, which includes the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, judges and litigants in our State of Kansas have been anxious to have the vacant positions in our State filled. One of those two vacancies in district judgeships is the longest open vacancy in the country, and today we accomplished the filling of one of those positions with the confirmation of John Broomes. I rise to express my pleasure to my colleagues and to Mr. Broomes--my pleasure for his willingness to be considered for this position, to be nominated by the President, and now to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate--and to express my pleasure to my colleagues for seeing his qualifications and experience and capabilities and making that confirmation happen just a few moments ago. He is a highly qualified individual, he is a well-respected attorney, and he has the intellect and legal mind and legal experience to receive this lifetime appointment as a Federal judge. I take these lifetime appointments very seriously, and I want to make certain that, as a Kansas Senator and as a U.S. Senator, I am doing my part to put highly qualified and soundly principled judges in place to serve Kansas and the country. John Broomes meets these qualifications. In my conversations with him over the last year, he expressed a judicial philosophy that is dedicated to the interpretation of the law as written, recognition that no person is above the law, and treatment for all litigants in a fair and legal fashion. I appreciate Mr. Broomes' naval service to our country. His willingness to serve is a mark of his character and his love for our Nation. I want to highlight a note from a distinguished professor at Washburn Law School in Topeka, KS. He indicated in his letter that he found Mr. Broomes to be ``the most gifted legal mind he has ever encountered. Equally important, he is an honest and principled person and among the very best lawyers I know.'' Dr. David Pierce, a law school professor, is a highly regarded member of the faculty and chairman of the Washburn business and transactional law program, and his confirmation of my view of John Broomes is very fulfilling to me. It gives me great confidence that we have made a wise decision today. Mr. Broomes served as a law clerk to U.S. Magistrate Judge Donald Bostwick and U.S. District Court Judge Monti Belot, and their reputation and experience add to Mr. Broomes' qualifications. I met Mr. Broomes' family, and I was so impressed with him as a father. I was impressed with his wife and their children. He has a reputation as a solid, decent, and conscientious person and a man with a conscience. He also has a reputation for expertly managing cases and solving complex litigation. He has been a valuable attorney to the Hinkle law firm, a highly regarded law firm in Wichita, KS. That firm is known for employing associates and having partners who meet the qualifications that we would want in a judge. He focuses on business and natural resources law, and that knowledge of those kinds of cases will be very valuable to litigation that is heard in my State. Mr. Broomes was unanimously confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee in December, and I appreciate the support my colleagues have demonstrated on his confirmation today. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dustin Ellsberry, an intern in Senator Sullivan's office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for his kind remarks, and I join my colleagues in expressing our gratitude for his efforts to make certain we are here today. What a long time it has been to get us to this point. This is important legislation, and we ought not suggest that because there is such bipartisan support, that this is a minor accomplishment. We come together, it seems, on the small things around here, but on the big things, it seems awfully impossible for us to bridge the gap. Therefore, to suggest that what we are doing here today is nothing important would be a total mistake,would be a fabrication of the facts. If we are successful in passing this legislation and the House accepting it in a form that is acceptable to the Senate and having it signed by the President, this legislation will make a significant and tremendous difference in America and especially on Main Street, in farms and small businesses across the country. A significant component of what I am about in my work in the Senate is trying to make certain that my colleagues from places that are not rural understand the rural nature of much of America and understand how we do business and how things get done. As has been indicated by many of my colleagues, in smalltown America, nothing gets done without the support of your local financial institution. We earn a living in much of Kansas by small businesses--by farms and ranches--and in the absence of access to credit, the ability for us to continue to earn a living in smalltown America disappears. It was a sad day when the Banking Committee--now 3 years or so ago-- passed Dodd-Frank reform legislation but did so with only Republican votes. The sadness is that we were unable to find common ground and make a difference in a piece of legislation that was passed in years gone by. We were unable to make the improvements that were necessary, the changes, the alterations that could make Dodd-Frank work for rural America, that could limit its scope to Wall Street, not Main Street. I think when Dodd-Frank was passed and many of us voted against it, Republicans were saying: We are going to repeal Dodd-Frank. That caused many Democrats to say: We are not going to let you touch Dodd-Frank. So we have been at an impasse when Republicans and Democrats alike know that this legislation, Dodd-Frank, is causing serious harm to places across the country. But we have gone to our corners. We have argued for full repeal, and you have argued that we are not going to touch it. This is a good day in which we have decided that it is neither one of those extremes. It is the idea that we can find the solutions to problems that exist as a result of legislation that Congress approved. This legislation is important, and it matters. It is important because it demonstrates that the Senate can function in its proper form, that we can accomplish good, commonsense things. It is also important because it will alter the landscape in the future for communities across Kansas and around the country. In rural America, we need access to credit. It is too often that access to credit is only available from that smalltown lender--that local bank, that credit union--and they know the community and know their borrowers. Earlier, one of my colleagues talked about relationship banking. It is the banking system that many of us grew up with, and it is the banking system that still works for us in smalltown America. In the absence of the reforms included in this legislation, the ability of many of my banks in Kansas to make home loans will continue to be absent. For the years that I have been on the Banking Committee, I have questioned the examiners, the FDIC, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the State banking commissioners: What are you doing to make certain that the regulations don't put out of business the smalltown lenders who are so important to the communities that I represent? It seems that we have gotten lipservice: We have a committee. We have a commission. We study these things. When you ask ``What rule or regulation have you eliminated?'' there is never an answer that outlines that that has happened. Today, we are altering the opportunity for the regulators to continue to overregulate financial institutions that are only important to the communities they serve, and if they have financial challenges, it does not create a threat to the rest of our banking system or to our country's economy and fiscal condition. Relationship banking matters. Today we have a regulatory environment in which bankers are fearful of making a home loan to a citizen within their community. If somebody wants to buy a home or build a home, they are told by their local bank: We can't afford the cost associated with the regulations for making these loans. We can't afford the risk that if we make a technical error, the financial consequences to our bank will be so great, we will be out of the home loan business. Who would ever expect to go to their hometown bank and discover they don't make home loans? And it is not because there is not the opportunity to make a loan that will be repaid--the bank will make money, and the borrower will get the benefit of the loan--it is because, upon a mistake, the regulations are so onerous and so expensive that the business decision is made not that this person is not creditworthy but that the risk associated with the regulations is so great that they can't make the loan. We need more banks, more financial institutions making home loans in more communities so that more people in rural American can access the American dream. If we create a banking system in which the rules and regulations dictate that every ``t'' must be crossed and every ``i'' must be dotted, and it is like you have a computer program and plug in the numbers and make a decision whether that local banker can make a loan, rural America will no longer be here. For much of the time I have served in Congress and tried to explain rural America to my colleagues, I have indicated that in communities that I represent, it is often true that economic development can be the difference between whether or not there is a grocery store in town. Most people in Washington, DC, don't understand the nature of that small town. Is there a hardware store? Can the newspaper continue to print newspapers and sell enough advertising and subscriptions to make ends meet? When you lose your grocery store, you begin to lose your home town. What I have learned over time is that if only that local financial institution is making a loan, are we going to have a grocery store in our town? That local relationship lender knows their community, knows their borrowers, and knows whether they have the character to repay the loan. I saw this happen recently, and we are experiencing this in Kansas again this month. Wildfires are consuming acres of land across rural Kansas. Our grasslands are burning. A year ago this month, nearly 80 percent of Clark County, KS, was consumed in a wildfire. It is a ranching community. Ashland, the county seat, has a population of 900. That is rural. That is the biggest town in the county. As a result of those fires, thousands of head of cattle were killed in the fire or had to be euthanized. As you would think, there was a terrible economic consequence to the community. You would wonder, how do we recover? One of the things you would think about is, well, I can go to my bank and borrow money to keep my farm or my cattle operation in business. But those cattlemen no longer had any collateral. There was no collateral. You could not tell your banker: I pledge my cattle to repay the loan. If I don't repay the loan, you get my cattle. The fire consumed their opportunity to rebuild. The Presiding Officer is a member of the Agriculture Committee. He will be asked about the safety net that is in a farm bill, and that is important to us. But the safety net that many farmers and ranchers have in Kansas is the relationship they have with their banker, who makes a decision. It is not based upon a computer program or that every ``t'' is crossed and every ``i'' is dotted. That banker makes a decision based upon the character and the relationship and the history. Many of our banks in Kansas are owned by families. They have been in the family for generations. The same is true of our farms and ranches. That relationship allows a banker to make a loan even when there is no cattle due to the result of a natural disaster. The collateral is gone, but the banker knows the family. He knows the history and knows whether this potential borrower has character. They know that if he or she makes a promise to repay, that he or she will. All too often, those decisions have been taken away from those relationship lenders and reside here in Washington, DC, with a myriad of regulators who are telling our bankers through their examiners, through the examination process, this is a loan you can't make or this is a loan we will write for you. Today, we make another step in the process toward returning the ability for smalltown America--its businesses, its farmers, and its ranchers--to have a future. This is important legislation that will make a significant difference in the future of communities and the people who live in rural America and in rural Kansas. This is not about taking care of bankers. It is not about taking care of credit unions. It is about taking care of the people they serve, their borrowers, and that means a bright future for the rest of rural America, for the other people who live in the communities, because access to credit determines whether there is a grocery store in town or whether a farmer or a rancher can borrow money to keep their business going, to keep their farm or ranch going. This is a good day, and I commend my colleagues. It is a good day for the Senate, to see us working together, Republicans and Democrats, to reach a result that will make a difference. It is a good day for America. It is a good day for rural America. It is an opportunity for us to correct when we went too far following the financial collapse of 2008. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I appreciate my colleagues, especially the chairman, the Senator from Idaho, for his tremendous efforts in bringing us together and getting us to this point.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, this week, the National Congress of American Indians is holding its Executive Council Winter Session here in the Nation's Capital, and Tribes and Tribal leaders throughout the Nation are here to meet and to confer and advocate on policies that are important to them and to their Tribal members. I welcome them to Washington, DC, and I encourage them to make known to us as Members of the Senate things that are important to them as Tribal leaders and things that matter directly to their Tribal members. One of the priorities that I know exist is the issue of Tribal sovereignty. Throughout the conversations you have with Tribal leaders, there is the importance of maintaining the sovereignty of their Tribe. Tonight, I want to highlight for my colleagues S. 140, a package of Tribal bills that includes the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, which I introduced here in the Senate some time ago. By moving forward on this legislation, and with its passage, we would return to the days where the law was as it existed for 70 years after the passage of the National Labor Relations Act. That was true for 70 years until the National Labor Relations Board stripped the Tribes of their governmental status under NLRA. Passage of this legislation would correct this decade-old error made by the NRLB. The National Labor Relations Act was passed in 1935. It exempted public sector employees of Federal, State, and local governments. Although it was not explicitly included, Tribal governments had their sovereign status respected by the NLRB for the next 70 years. This approach caused no problems and was what was expected. Yet, in 2004, the National Labor Relations Board abruptly reversed its treatment of Tribal governments to enact right-to-work laws. Tribes have struggled to find economic success and provide for their people, and many of them still do, but the NLRB has now intruded on the gains that have been made. The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act that was introduced, and will be before the Senate before long, is pretty straightforward. It is straightforward. It amends the National Labor Relations Act to exempt Tribal-owned entities operated on Tribal-owned lands--no more, no less. Businesses owned by individual Tribal members or any operations off the Tribal lands still remain subject to the scrutiny of the National Labor Relations Board. In 2013, the U.S. Senate voted on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. It included new authorities for Tribal governments to protect Native American women, including when harmed by non-Indians. With VAWA's passage, Congress placed our trust in Tribes to exact justice. We rightly determined that Tribes should have the ability to punish Indian and non-Indian offenders, but today it is being argued we cannot trust Tribes or Tribal members to justly treat Indian and non- Indian employees. Many Tribes have the highest wages and provide the best benefits in their region. Tribal jobs are coveted because prospective employees know they are good jobs. In 2015, the Indian Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, held a legislative hearing on TLSA, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. Testifying that day, among others, was Robert Welch, chairman of the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians in California. That Tribe is a unionized Tribe, but Chairman Welch testified in support of the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. Many Tribes do welcome labor unions, and that is all fine. The point here is, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act says it is up to Tribes to decide, not the NLRB. More than 160 Tribes and Tribal organizations support this legislation. In my view, the vote I seek shouldn't be seen as anything partisan. I have worked to pass this legislation without a recorded vote. I have taken it to the floor to do a live UC request but was met with objections. I have worked to get it included in appropriations bills, and yet, at the last minute, it was always forced to be withdrawn, which brings us close to a floor vote on this legislation. Nearly two dozen Democrats, Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, including a Member from the Democratic leadership, supported this legislation in January, as it passed the House of Representatives in a strong bipartisan way. We also have strong bipartisan backing of this legislation in the U.S. Senate. In fact, the Indian Affairs Committee reported this legislation out by a voice vote last summer. My point is, the bill is not about labor. This is about the ability of Tribal governments to provide vital services without intrusion. That was the point of the NLRA exemption. Jefferson Keel, who is the President of the National Congress of American Indians, wrote this week: Tribes make an array of public services available to their tribal citizens and other local residents: law enforcement, fire and EMS departments, schools and hospitals, and natural resource management. All tribal governments play critical roles in ensuring the safety, health, and stability of tribal and surrounding communities. That is why cities and counties--local units of government, governmental entities--are excluded from NLRB, and that is why Tribes should also be excluded. Eighty years later, why is it that every other form of government in this country is treated one way and Tribes are treated a different way? Why do Tribes have to accept this Federal intrusion? The answer is, they should not. This is a matter of sovereignty, and they should be treated just like every other governmental entity under this law. Members of this Chamber should believe that Tribal governments, elected by their members, possess the right to make informed decisions on behalf of those they represent. I say they do. If their Tribal members believe they have made errors, then they, too, are subject to elections, just like we are. I rise this evening to encourage my colleagues to reach that same conclusion; that sovereignty is an important component of the way we should treat Native Americans and that Tribes should have the ability to manage their affairs on Tribal lands with Tribal businesses. I urge my colleagues to vote that way when this legislation reaches the Senate floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to join so many of my colleagues to speak in support of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. I thank Senator Graham for his continued leadership on this issue. I supported this bill when Senator Graham introduced it last Congress, and I am pleased Leader McConnell has brought this to a vote. Regulating abortion after 20 weeks of conception--when a child can feel pain--is a prudent measure that reflects the basic decency of our humanity and brings us in line with most of the Western world. Science demonstrates that human life begins at conception, and our understanding of neonatal development is increasing by the day. As a member of the Labor-HHS subcommittee on Appropriations, I have championed funding for the National Institute of Health. At the NIH, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development has advanced our knowledge of pregnancy and development in the womb. Under this institute, the Neonatal Research Network has pioneered research that has led to techniques that save the lives of children in their earliest stages, when these children are at their most vulnerable. Such research tells us children who are 20 weeks old--those this bill will protect--experience what a newborn will: reacting to noise, sucking their thumbs, and, as this bill's title indicates, feeling pain. The research has led to advancements in medical care for premature babies, and 23 percent of those delivered 20 weeks after fertilization can now survive long term outside of the womb. This percentage will surely increase as advances in neonatal care continue. Despite what we know, the United States is one of only seven countries in the world, among nations such as China and Vietnam, that permits elective abortion after 20 weeks. As a result, the Congressional Budget Office estimates more than 10,000 babies are aborted each year after 20 weeks of conception. What we can't lose sight of as a society is that, when we are talking about abortion, we are talking about the end of the most defenseless of human lives. This is true at all stages of pregnancy, regardless of whether it is early in the pregnancy or in the late stages, when children are more developed and more capable of surviving outside of the womb. So often we turn to scientific evidence and research to support the need for new policies. In this case, the research shows that these children have a chance to survive, a chance to grow. They can feel; they can move. We cannot ignore these reactions and feelings, which are indicative of human life and with them comes the need for legal protections--protections we would not hesitate to provide for those living outside the womb. Indeed, we have laws that treat animals more humanely than unborn children. This vote gives the Senate an opportunity to send a message showing who we are as leaders and as a society as a whole, one that protects the weak and the voiceless, instead of one that permits their destruction. One in five children who are born at this 20-week stage are capable of surviving with suitable care. Rather than be discarded, they are to be given every opportunity to fight for the life that we protect for them. It is what we instinctively do as parents and as human beings. We recoil when we hear of children who are harmed in any manner; yet the ability to terminate an unborn child's life when it is viable outside of the womb is something that is not only tolerated, but passionately defended. If there was anything else claiming the lives of 10,000 children each year, all 100 of us in the Senate would be standing up demanding action to address the matter. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a sensible measure that protects the lives of women and children in accord with judicial rulings. It has been passed by the House of Representatives, it has the support of a majority of Americans--men and women alike--and I call on my colleagues to support passage of this life-affirming legislation.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I want to take a moment this evening to congratulate one of the most effective advocates for American agriculture in our Nation's Capital. We are often helped by those who have lots of knowledge. In the coming days, Mary Kay Thatcher will be retiring from the American Farm Bureau, where she is widely recognized as one of the most knowledgeable experts on farm policy, conservation, crop insurance, ag data, and so many other issues that affect farmers and ranchers and rural America. Mary Kay represents the best of Washington, DC. She is smart, passionate, and authentic. Again, we often need help from those who have expertise to help us make the right decisions, and she is absolutely one of those people. A great thing about Mary Kay Thatcher is that she hasn't forgotten her rural roots. It is evidenced by her clear convictions and steadfast support for American farmers and ranchers. Too many people come to the beltway and they forget why they are here--but not Mary Kay. Throughout her career of more than 30 years, she has never lost sight of what ought to be the mission of each of ours--to use our positions, our talents, and our abilities to help others. For Mary Kay Thatcher, her career has been all about helping America's farmers and ranchers, standing up for the food and fiber producers of our Nation. Let me tell you that she is one of the best at it. Not only is Mary Kay one of the most articulate ag lobbyists I know, she is one of the most articulate people I know. Her ability to break down an issue and make it understandable for everyone--for Senators and our staffs, including those who don't have ag backgrounds--makes her one of the most effective advocates for agriculture. There are fewer and fewer people in the U.S. Senate and Congress who understand agriculture or who come from farming backgrounds, and that ability to connect with them is so important. I have always appreciated the advice and counsel that Mary Kay has provided me when working on the farm bill or other pieces of ag legislation. I have also always noticed and appreciated how much time she has spent in educating staff, including those in my office. I believe a big part of Mary Kay's legacy will be the generations of young people who will be better prepared to continue the fight for American agriculture because Mary Kay has taken the time and made the effort to mentor and to teach them. Her passion for agriculture comes naturally. She grew up on an Iowa farm and continues to own and manage that farm today, and that helps guide her work here in the Nation's Capital. She has worked at the American Farm Bureau for over 30 years, but in ag circles, it is not necessarily the number of years that people talk about but the number of farm bills. They refer to how many farm bills a person has survived. By my count, Mary Kay has been part of writing at least seven farm bills in addition to many other key pieces of ag legislation. I know I am adding my voice to lots of others who will talk about how great of a person she is and what an advocate she is, but I do want to add my accolades because they are so well-deserved. I thank Mary Kay Thatcher for all of her work on behalf of American agriculture, including the Kansas Farm Bureau and its members, and on behalf of all of agriculture in our State. Her efforts have benefited Kansas and improved our country. She will be missed at the American Farm Bureau, but I know she will find other ways to advocate for agriculture. I hope that for many years to come, we will remain friends and work together on behalf of American farmers and ranchers. Congratulations and best wishes. Thank you--said with great respect and with gratitude. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, when we complete our work today on the FISA issue, we will be consumed by the issue of a continuing resolution and the need for continued appropriations to keep government functions available to the American people. I come with a suggestion that I think is based not on politics but upon commonsense and perhaps just the good business aspect of getting our work done. My suggestion to our colleagues is that we do not shut down government. I think the outcome of that is not good, and I can list the reasons. I have had constituents from time to time tell me ``shut her down. It wouldn't matter to me,'' but I can list the circumstances in which it really does matter to everyday folks in Kansas and across the country. At the same time, we should force ourselves to do work that we seemingly are unwilling or unable to complete. There is a whole list of things that are pending, and they have been pending for a long time. The Presiding Officer and I serve on the Appropriations Committee, and one of the positions that I think we share is the desire to see that the appropriations process works. That means that we would do a budget. The Budget Committee would do a budget, and the Senate and the House would approve the budget. We would do 12 appropriations bills that fill in the budget space. We would be able to prioritize spending. We could increase, reduce, or eliminate spending. Then, we could again send a message to agencies, departments, and cabinets that we have the ability to determine how much money they have to spend and, therefore, have the opportunity to influence decisions that are made that affect the American people through the bureaucracy and through the administration in such significant ways. So the goal here is to keep government functioning--no shutdown--but also to have the discipline necessary to put an appropriations process in place to get us out of a CR. Immigration, from DACA to border security, is certainly a topic of conversation in Congress, and negotiations are apparently ongoing and it is an issue that needs to be resolved. If we are going to make fixes to our immigration system, now is better than later. If border security is important, now is better than later to improve border security. If certainty in people's lives is important, now is better than later. Many of us have a concern that we are not adequately funding the defense side. We face many threats, from China in the Pacific to Russia and its intrusion, from cyber issues that affect our national security to terrorism and the Middle East. If additional money is necessary for our intelligence capabilities and for our national defense, now is better than later. What may happen here is that we will pass a continuing resolution that takes us weeks into the future and we will operate under a continuing resolution, or, if that is not possible, nothing may pass for several days and the so-called government shutdown would occur. Here is what I would ask us to do. Let us do a continuing resolution for a day or so at a time, keeping government open, which puts the pressure on negotiations to occur to resolve the variety of issues that are out there today that, in all likelihood, will be attached to a final resolution. The question is, Do we do it now? Do we force those negotiations to occur and a resolution of those issues to happen? Do we force that today by being in a continuing resolution that is a very short period of time? Or do we give ourselves another month to allow the conversations to continue, and, in all likelihood, if history is any indication, a month from now we will be saying: Well, we need another CR while we continue. The issues are important that are before us, and Congress has the habit of delaying resolutions of issues until the moment of crisis arrives. My point is this: Keep the pressure on us today. Do not let us walk away from here now without keeping government open, but do not let us leave the Senate and the Congress until we have resolved the issues in front of us. Those issues include healthcare, immigration, funding for national defense, domestic spending, and issues related to disaster--the Senator who presides today is from Florida--whether or not we do disaster assistance, which is a need as a result of the hurricanes that have caused tremendous damage in Texas and Florida and Puerto Rico. If we need that disaster relief--if it is needed--it is needed now, not later. I have raised this topic. I have had this conversation with many of my colleagues. I encourage us to continue to resolve our differences today--they will not be easier tomorrow--and make certain that we have an opportunity for us to then deal with the important issues that are still ahead of us. Outside of any agreement that might be reached in the next several days, we need to deal with issues that are important-- what I would describe as issues that we will be dealing with that are normally important to us in May and June. But May and June will be occupied by the things we should have resolved now. So that in May and June, we will do the things we could have done today, and we will not be taking care of the July issues. Common sense tells me that we can find a solution to the problems if we work at it, but if we allow ourselves to escape from the process today or tomorrow--if we return home--we will be back in the same position next week and the week after that and the week after, which we are in today. It is just a simple plea that the Senate exhibit some common sense, some good business practices. Let's resolve our differences now, and then let's take on the next issues that are so important to the country. I yield the floor I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, we had a very special day in the Capitol this afternoon, and I am grateful that we as a nation were able to honor Senator Robert Dole by presenting him with the Congressional Gold Medal. It is the highest civilian honor the United States can bestow. Senator Dole joins a list of very esteemed Americans going back to 1776, with President George Washington as the first recipient of this award. The Gold Medal shows our highest expression of national appreciation for distinguished achievements and contributions, and Senator Dole is such a deserving recipient of this award. It was a real honor and pleasure for me to be there to see this take place. Senator Dole is known, obviously, as a former Member of the Senate, a majority leader, and a Presidential candidate, but I would put at the top of my list of the attributes that I admire and respect Senator Dole's service in our military. Senator Dole joined the Army shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He was 21 years old and left Russell, KS, and ended up on a battlefield in the hills and mountains of Italy. He suffered for 9 hours after being hit by a Nazi bullet that did tremendous damage to his body and to his life. But that wasn't the end, as it could be for some people--even if people continued to live after these traumatic injuries. This was a recovery process that began that day for Senator Dole. I once heard a story about Bob Dole's commitment to our country, and it stuck with me. There are lots of Dole stories, particularly in Kansas. Bob Dole used his injuries to learn about caring--not for himself but for others. His service in World War II--again, what I greatly admire and esteem--also resulted in his effort to raise money, with no taxpayer dollars involved, to build the World War II Memorial that is now on the National Mall. Senator Dole took that task on and made certain that happened for his soldiers and fellow colleagues who served in World War II. He went out and raised money across the country. He was out in Hollywood, CA, and he was visiting with one of those people who have lots of money. Senator Dole asked for that person's support for this project, and he was told by that wealthy person that he was not interested. ``I have other priorities.'' Senator Dole responded to that mogul: ``When I was 22, I had other priorities, too. I went to war.'' That is the Bob Dole who every day since then has gone to battle on behalf of Americans, other Kansans, and people across our country. His service in many ways began with his military service but has continued every day since his days in the 10th Mountain Division. During his nearly 36 years on Capitol Hill, Senator Dole became known as the leader who worked relentlessly to forge alliances and to pass significant legislation. Today, he serves as a role model for those of us involved in this legislative process. We ought to be fully engaged in the kind of public service that Senator Dole represented. Senator Dole has used his experiences to be a champion every day for those individuals with disabilities and for veterans. Coming from Kansas, he had an appreciation for those who were in need of food. Senator Dole grew up in the Depression and knew tough times, but it became a goal for him to see that people who were hungry were fed. It is one of the reasons I continue to chair and work in the Senate Hunger Caucus. Kansas is a place where we raise a lot of food but recognize there are a lot of people who are still hungry. We have a role that we can play, and Senator Dole provided the leadership to accomplish that. I now occupy this desk. It is kind of an amazing development, but this is the desk that Senator Dole had on the Senate floor during his time here, and this desk allows me to be reminded of the type of public service that too often we think is a thing of the past. It doesn't have to be a thing of the past; it could be a thing of the present. And each of us can use that role model to make certain that in our day, we do the things necessary to bring people together and to find solutions to common problems. There probably is no one living from Kansas more admired and respected than Senator Bob Dole. For three decades, he was our Congressman and our Senator. He grew up just down the road in Russell, KS, just a few miles from my hometown. I have seen what continues today to be the love and respect of Kansans--particularly those from small towns and particularly those from his hometown of Russell--and their regard for him. We ought to work every day to honor his legacy. I think there is something about growing up in smalltown America. There are differences of opinions in small towns. There are Republicans and Democrats in communities across Kansas, and there are people who go to this church and that church, but when you are in a small town, you have no choice but to figure out how to get along and how to solve problems and how to work together. Bob Dole brought that Kansas common sense and good will and desire to have achievements instead of a fight to the U.S. Senate. I honor Senator Dole for his military service and for his public service as an elected official of our government. I thank him for his efforts on behalf of veterans, on behalf of people with disabilities, and on behalf of people who are hungry. I ask my colleagues, in honoring Senator Dole by presenting him a medal today, that that is not all we do; that we honor his work by doing ours better. I have been with Senator Dole at the World War II Memorial. When Honor Flights come to Washington, DC, he is there. He is there almost every time a Kansas group comes to the World War II Memorial, but he is there when almost any group of World War II veterans come to visit the World War II Memorial. I have watched the way they respond to him, and the mutual respect between him and fellow veterans is inspiring and unparalleled. I am a firm believer that we change the world one person at a time and one soul at a time, and Bob Dole has been making that difference-- changing lives for 94 years. Thank you, Senator Dole, for your distinguished service to our country and especially to our home State of Kansas. The world is a better place because you are in it, and we hope you take great satisfaction by knowing that your colleagues in Congress today honor you with the Congressional Gold Medal because it reflects the truth of what a high-quality person of character you are. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, on Tuesday of this week, I regained my previous held seat on the Senate Banking Committee, a committee I served on from 2011 until the beginning of this Congress. While this committee sometimes flies under the radar for many Americans, the oversight it conducts and the issues it considers under its substantial jurisdiction are of great consequence to America and to the American people. The owners and employees of banking institutions have experienced success when their communities experience success. What I am saying is, how we lend money matters to every kind of person every day. So what we have experienced across Kansas, in many instances, is difficulty and really hard times. I want to talk about community. Community financial institutions are of great importance to the folks I represent in Kansas. What I want to do, in part, with my opportunity to serve on the Banking Committee is to make sure those financial institutions have a regulatory environment in which they can benefit their communities and benefit the citizens who live there. Communities in Kansas are losing their hometown banks to consolidation and sales, and some of these banks that are moving in that direction have been family owned for generations. In order to better understand why these lenders are consolidating or selling, I have sought out the nature of this decline by speaking with financial leaders from across the country. The overwhelming response I received is that the costs associated with complying with new Federal regulations are simply too much to absorb in their business model. In the aftermath of our country's significant financial downturn, a new regulatory framework was put in place to rein in those bad actors and punish bad behavior that led us down that path in 2007 and 2008. We have had more than 7 years to determine what the effects are of this new regulatory environment--Dodd-Frank--and what it has meant to our community banks and our community financial institutions. The most glaring aspect of these new regulations is the disproportionate burden placed upon those smaller institutions seeking to comply with their new responsibilities. Rather than extending credit to best fit the needs of their customers, banks are exiting entire lines of business because the penalties for making a mistake far outweigh the economic benefits derived from extending a loan. I experienced this damaging news and reality during the Senate Banking Committee's consideration of legislation to reform the secondary mortgage markets in 2014. I was attempting to solicit feedback from Kansas lenders of the financial impact some of these proposed changes would have on their communities, and what I learned, unfortunately, was this: ``Jerry, we don't make home loans anymore.'' When pressed for a reason, they responded it just didn't make business sense for them to do that any longer due to the increased Federal regulators' crackdown on mortgage lending. As a member of the Senate who cares deeply about rural America and the special way of life we enjoy in Kansas, this is a very damaging occurrence. If a community banker determines they can no longer extend credit to what would have otherwise been a creditworthy borrower because of the fear of making a mistake and the repercussions that follow, then they decide not to make the loan at all and not even to be in the business. What community would expect their financial institutions in their community to refuse to make a home loan? It is the American dream. While community banks had been consolidating for a number of years due to shifting demographics and market conditions, we cannot nor should we attempt to discount the role the post-Dodd-Frank regulatory environment has played in the acceleration of the harming of our community banking structure. I am not opposed to regulations, and neither are the community bankers working to serve their communities, but there has to be prioritization on the part of Congress to create an environment where local lenders can succeed because the success of these institutions means the success of their communities and the people who live there. During the fall of 2015, I worked alongside a number of committee colleagues--both Republicans and Democrats--to see if we could bridge the divide and bring relief to our community lenders across the country. While these efforts did not then produce a result, these discussions demonstrated that the issues facing the financial service world need not be partisan, and they sowed the seeds for what has now resulted in legislation moving its way through the legislative process today. I am happy to support S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act recently reported out of the Banking Committee on a bipartisan vote. Many of the provisions in this bill originated in legislation I have promoted since I came to the Senate, first as the Communities First Act, and most recently as the CLEAR Relief Act. While this legislation will not solve every issue that needs to be solved, it is meaningful progress that will make a difference. It is Congress's responsibility to ensure that economic growth is not needlessly impeded, and it is our duty to ensure that economic opportunities flourish and that Americans have access to the tools necessary to pursue the American dream. The Banking Committee can and will play an important role in providing these tools, and I feel fortunate to have the opportunity to lend the voice of Kansans to that effort. I look forward to working with the chairman, Mike Crapo, the Senator from Idaho, and the ranking member, Sherrod Brown from Ohio, as we work together to make sure good things happen in Kansas and across the country. Again, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Banking Committee and on the Senate floor to see that all Americans have the opportunity to have access to credit so we can continue to pursue growing economic opportunities for all Americans to keep the American dream alive and well. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN

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

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

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I was fortunate enough this week to attend the American Farm Bureau Federation's annual convention in Nashville, where I had the opportunity to headline a discussion of the farm bill, along with my colleague from Kansas on the Senate Ag Committee and the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Conaway, who is leading on the House Agriculture Committee, during the President's commodity meeting. The American Farm Bureau hosted other farm groups and commodity organizations from across the country to talk about the next farm bill and to try to bring consensus as to what agriculture is looking for in farm policy. In my opportunity to visit with people at the Farm Bureau's annual meeting, in my remarks, I paid particular attention to the farm bill. It is a farm safety net. When we talk about a farm bill, I suppose we ought to highlight that only a small portion of the farm bill is actually related to farm programs. There are a number of titles to the farm bill, and most of the money in a farm bill is spent on nutrition programs and mostly SNAP, but there are other important components of a farm bill--rural development and conservation. In addition to that topic, which I have been on the Senate floor speaking about before, are food aid and support for those who are experiencing famine around the globe. My opportunity to be with farmers and ranchers from across the country gave me an opportunity to not only speak about my views as to what a farm bill should contain but, more importantly, for me to hear what they had to say that was important to them. Farm Bureau members from across the country made it clear to me, first of all, that they would like to see Congress--Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate--and the administration work together in a bipartisan fashion to get a farm bill done and, prior to that, to get a disaster relief bill completed, which I hope we will do yet this month on the Senate floor--both the disaster bill that needs to get to the President's desk as soon as possible and also a farm bill that needs to be completed in a timely fashion. The current farm bill under which we are operating expires in 2018. Of the things I want to highlight that I heard from Farm Bureau members while I was there is certainly the importance of crop insurance and the value it provides, particularly for those of us who live and farm and work in places where the weather is not often our friend, as well as just the challenges the current farm bill is creating in Kansas. Particularly, the safety net programs PLC and ARC don't work as well as they should or could. Part of that has to do with timeliness, and part is the inability and the difficulty in farmers having to choose between two programs and to predict for a long period--the life of the farm bill--which makes the most sense to them economically. Whether they are going to have high prices, low prices, good weather, or bad weather is a hard thing to know in the life of a farm bill. Again, because of the issues we have with the current farm bill, timeliness is important because those provisions that are less than satisfactory today will be extended if we aren't successful in completing a farm bill this year. While the topic of conversation generally revolved around the farm bill, I want to indicate to my colleagues that so much of what I heard was about trade, particularly about NAFTA. The reality is, 98 to 99 percent of the mouths to feed are outside of the United States. Farmers and ranchers earn their livings by feeding a hungry world, and exports matter to us. There was a lot of concern expressed to me and among the farmers and ranchers who were gathered there about the potential of the withdrawal by the United States from NAFTA. Kansas is a good example. Our largest importer--the place to which we export the most agricultural commodities--is Mexico. It is not just about commodities. In addition to the commodities, there are manufacturing jobs related to food and food products. There are 36,000 jobs that generate more than $5.7 billion in economic activity, and approximately 14 percent of all jobs and 10 percent of all manufacturing jobs are tied to the food and agricultural sectors. So, when we talk about trade and exports, we are not just talking about shipping a ton of wheat or a carload of wheat to another country; we are also talking about all of the jobs here in the United States. It is not just in growing commodities and not just in raising cattle but all of the jobs that come from taking those commodities, turning them into food, and exporting the food to other countries as well. I have had this conversation with people within the administration and with my colleagues in the U.S. Senate. I do believe the tax bill we passed will improve the economy and that farmers, lots of other business men and women, manufacturers, and others will experience greater economic opportunity as a result of the passage of the tax bill. I would highlight that the tax rates are a lot less important if we don't have income. If something would happen in which we would not be exporting--for example, if there would be a withdrawal from NAFTA-- the outcome could be that the tax rates would become semi-irrelevant because the income levels of farmers and ranchers and those who would have jobs in the food sector would be significantly diminished. Less income means tax rates don't matter as much as they otherwise would. Things are really difficult in agriculture today. Commodity prices are at low prices historically. The challenges are great. Weather, as I said earlier when speaking about crop insurance, is not always our friend. Across Kansas, the plea is for rain or snowfall or moisture. It is dry statewide. The challenges the producers in my State but really those across the country face are low commodity prices and weather, which are significant. What that means is, we need every additional market. We cannot afford to lose any market to which we sell those commodities. More markets mean higher prices, and more demand means higher prices. Today, we need every penny we can gain on a bushel of corn or wheat or soybeans or grain sorghum. We need to make certain we don't lose markets but that we gain markets. I commend the President for traveling to Nashville and speaking and meeting with the American Farm Bureau. I believe it has been 30-plus years since a President attended a Farm Bureau annual convention. I know, in my own experience both in the House and the Senate, reporters have often asked me to analyze what I have heard or haven't heard in a President's State of the Union Address. It has always been my practice to listen to a State of the Union Address and hear whether a President speaks about agriculture, about farmers, about ranchers, about rural America. Here we had a President who traveled to Nashville and spent time with those farmers and ranchers of America, and I am pleased the President did so. I continue to encourage the administration to remain mindful of the role agricultural trade plays in our economy. I would indicate that our withdrawal from NAFTA is a high-risk strategy--a negotiating tactic, perhaps. It is true we have the highest quality of agriculture products available in the world, but other countries are very interested in taking our markets, and any indication that our markets are not going to continue gives countries like Argentina, Brazil, and others the opportunity to make the case that they will be stable suppliers. The things we raise in the United States they can sell and provide in those countries as well. My point is, we don't have a corner on the market, and any suggestion that we are not a stable supplier or that the trading relationship is going to diminish or disappear between two countries means that others are eagerly seeking to take those markets away from us. Given the impact on our Nation's economy, I urge those conference attendees, those people I visited with in Nashville, to continue to convey to all of those policymakers the importance of trade and the importance of trade agreements. The administration has a desire to develop bilateral as compared to multilateral trade agreements, and I encourage those negotiations to be ongoing today. We don't have any time to waste when it comes to finding new markets and trading relationships with other countries. Again, I appreciate the President traveling to Nashville and spending time with farmers and ranchers, and I appreciate the agenda he outlined in regard to regulatory relief, as well as the issue of broadband, on which the President spent a significant amount of time, providing technology to a part of the country that has, in many instances, been lacking or woefully inadequate. But the bottom line is that rural America needs income. We can do lots of things to improve the quality of life in rural America, but in the absence of farmer success, in the absence of a farmer and rancher earning a living, the ability to attract our children or others to come back to the farm and the ability to retain our young people in the community to work on a farm diminishes greatly. One of the questions I received was from a young lady studying in Texas, and this was her question: What are you doing to make certain that young people have a chance to be farmers? While my answer was less than perfect--it is a hard one to answer--it is an important question. The reality is that the chances of young people having the opportunity in agriculture to earn a living is totally dependent upon the economic success of those individuals in agriculture today and what the future holds. We can find a few programs that might encourage young people to be able to enter agriculture as a profession and as a career, but the reality is that it will only work when they are earning a good living, and that comes, once again, from the safety nets, including crop insurance, which will be included in a farm bill as it works its way through Congress this year, but also in the opportunity to see that every market around the globe is available to the U.S. farmer and rancher so that he and she will earn a living and so that they will increase the chances that their sons and daughters have the opportunity to work side by side with them into the future. I especially want to thank a few people from the American Farm Bureau Federation for allowing me to attend and inviting me to attend and to speak--certainly, President Zippy Duvall, the president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, from Georgia; Dale Moore, a Kansan who is at the American Farm Bureau Federation; and Mary Kay Thatcher, their long- time government affairs person. All of those individuals at the American Farm Bureau Federation do their job so well, but I especially want to acknowledge the friendship and support of those three individuals. I am reminded that no matter where we go, farmers and ranchers have a lot in common. In addition to their economic importance to communities across Kansas and around rural America, it is farmers and ranchers that still today provide a sense of what is right in America--an understanding of right and wrong, an understanding of the value of life, integrity, character, and values. It is something that is important not just to rural America but to our entire United States of America. So thank you to the farmers who visited with me. Thank you to the farmers who gave me the opportunity to speak with them and listened to me. Please know that I am happy and will continue to roll up my sleeves to work with my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats--the Senator from Kansas, the chairman of the Ag Committee; and the Senator from Michigan, the ranking member, Ms. Stabenow. Let's get a good farm bill done. Let's get it done on time, and let's all work together to make sure economic activity is alive and well and trade flourishes between the United States and the rest of the world. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about business that is important to Kansas and important to the country but especially important to the providers of healthcare for children, the children, and their families who receive that coverage and care; that is, the Medicaid CHIP program. It was established in 1997. I call to the attention of my colleagues the importance of us acting in the next several days in regard to the reauthorization extension of the CHIP program. It has helped provide coverage to children of low- income families in my State and those individuals who would otherwise be left without any insurance and most likely, in every case, the funds necessary to cover healthcare costs for the well-being of those young men and women. This program is funded through a multiyear authorization that requires Congress to take action each time the program reaches the end of that authorization. The end of that authorization occurred on September 30, now several months ago. While I have been assured in my State that there are sufficient funds to get us through the end of the year, I am concerned. In fact, the belief is, we may have enough funds to pay for our insurance program through March. That certainly is probably not the case across the United States, and we need to act within a few short days. I hope this is an issue that is addressed, as the continuing resolution that funds the Federal Government expires on December 22. As we respond to that circumstance, we ought to respond to the expiration of the CHIP program that occurred on September 30. Waiting to reauthorize that program has already created an unnecessary burden, but if we waited any longer, it would create even more unnecessary burdens for families of more than 9 million children who are currently receiving healthcare through that program. Temporary funding measures have kept the program solvent since the program expired, but now is the time to act, to provide some certainty and make sure the funds continue to be available. In Kansas, it would leave about 79,000 children without coverage or other good options. Many of our Nation's best children's hospitals serve a great deal of patients through that CHIP program. We are fortunate in our area to have Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, and those hospitals and other providers rely upon the CHIP program to pay their bills as well. With all the costs associated with healthcare and with the inability of people to pay, the burden then falls upon hospitals and others to figure out how they survive. In Kansas, almost every hospital--127 of them in our State--continues to hang on by a thread, and some may not survive. This is another opportunity for us to strengthen and provide certainty that a mechanism will be in place so that when they provide care to children of Medicaid families, they will be reimbursed. That benefits all of us in our healthcare delivery system and provides more stability and more certainty in these challenging times for healthcare providers across Kansas. I am happy the House of Representatives has passed reauthorization. They did their bill. It is now time for the Senate to act. The Finance Committee has taken its action, but this bill is still pending on the floor of the U.S. Senate. During this Christmas season, this holiday time, parents should not have to wonder what they will do in the absence of this insurance program that allows their children to receive routine care and, in many instances, lifesaving care. Continuing to delay action on this bill is not in the best interest of the American people. It would be nice, it would be appreciated by Americans to see the U.S. Senate work on a program that has broad bipartisan support but still, for some reason, can't get it across the finish line. That finish line, I suppose, was September 30, but I would say that finish line is now the end of the year, and specifically December 22, with the CR expiring at that point in time. It is time for Congress to take action in that regard. My plea on the Senate floor this morning is for the U.S. Senate to take legislative action and reauthorize this program, provide certainty, and care for our country's children who are, without this program, in significant jeopardy of having an absence of healthcare. I appreciate the opportunity to address the U.S. Senate. I yield back. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN

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