Jerry Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, December 6; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 34 postcloture; finally, that all time during adjournment and recess of the Senate count postcloture on the motion to concur.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, since my arrival in the U.S. Senate a few years ago, I have been a proponent and advocate and have attempted to champion an issue many in the Senate care about; that is, the desire to increase America's investment in medical research, increase the likelihood of outcomes that are desirable in improving every American's well-being, and end the pain and heartache that comes with diagnoses that often end in difficult lives and ultimately death. We have worked hard as a Senate on this issue. I serve on the Appropriations Committee with the Presiding Officer. I serve on the appropriations subcommittee that funds the National Institutes of Health, and from my vantage point, it is clear to me that we have made a significant investment in increasing the amount of dollars that taxpayers pay to try to find those cures for cancer, eliminate the onset of Alzheimer's, help with diabetes and mental health issues. Leadership has been busy for a number of months, and that hard work will culminate with a vote next week on the 21st Century Cures Act. It is an important component of this medical innovation I find so necessary for the benefit of Kansans, Americans, and for people who live around the globe. This Cures Act invests in the future of our country by providing a significant increase in Federal support for lifesaving biomedical research that will simply impact the life of every American--certainly every American family. These important investments range from increasing the funding at the National Institutes of Health, advancing the precision medicine initiative, funding important cancer research through the cancer Moonshot, and supporting the BRAIN Initiative to improve our understanding of diseases like Alzheimer's. There are also provisions that will accelerate the FDA approval and drug development process as well as fight opioid abuse and suicides. The subcommittee the Presiding Officer and I serve on in the Appropriations Committee, or the subcommittee that deals with agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, wants to give the FDA the tools necessary to accelerate the process by which lifesaving drugs and devices are available for Americans and citizens around the globe. Under the 21st Century Cures Act, the National Institutes of Health will receive a significant dollar investment increase over the next 10 years. We know that will drive research forward to develop a greater understanding of rare diseases. We often think about NIH as dealing with those major afflictions--cancer and Alzheimer's and diabetes--but many Americans unfortunately suffer from rare diseases, and we want to help find the treatments that are patient-centric that treat rare diseases as well. This funding will send a message that we acknowledge the benefits of NIH research in a strong bipartisan way. This funding will also work in tandem with those increases that we have provided at NIH through the normal annual appropriations process. We have always given NIH the ability to prioritize their research that could result in the biggest bang for the buck, the most lifesaving opportunities, but obviously the more resources NIH has, the more opportunities they have to find those cures and advancements in treatments. This effort also supports the best and brightest among us--those researchers and scientists. I want young Kansans to have a future, if they are interested in science and mathematics and engineering and research, and an opportunity to pursue those careers, hopefully in our State, but certainly in this country. We want the United States to continue to be at the forefront of medical research and within the realm of science and engineering as well. This is an economic engine for our Nation. It can be and is an economic engine for my State. The Cures Act accelerates those opportunities for young people and others across the country who want to devote their lives toward a noble cause of making life longer, greater longevity, but also with fewer challenges and afflictions that come to many people who encounter disease. The burdens of diseases like Alzheimer's, cancer, stroke, and mental illness can be lessened through research. A long time ago, well before the Affordable Care Act and ObamaCare, I sat down and put my thoughts on paper as to what we should do to try to reduce the cost of health care in this country. What can we do to reduce the price people have to pay to be insured? That list is long. In my view, the way to do this is incremental, but one of those increments is to invest in medical research. The amount of money that we can save if we can find the cure for cancer, if we can find the delay for the onset of Alzheimer's, is certainly in the billions of dollars, and the investment in medical research helps us to save health care dollars, therefore helping us to make health insurance more affordable for all Americans. It certainly is an investment in economics, it is an investment in the ability to save money, as well as what we know about saving lives and making treatments available to people who otherwise would have less life enjoyment as a result of disease. New scientific findings are what yields breakthroughs that enable us to confront the staggering challenges of disease and illness, and we can do that through the Cures Act and the efforts we have made over the last several years to make certain that NIH has additional resources. When it comes to cancer, half of all men and a third of all women in the United States will develop cancer in their lifetime. This bill includes the Cancer Moonshot provision for $1.8 billion of funding. It seeks to combat those statistics to reduce the chances that somebody encounters cancer in their lives and to reduce the costs associated with it. This research will focus on accelerating cancer research and make more therapies more available to more people, to a wider range of patients, and improve our ability to detect cancers at earlier stages of its development and, hopefully, prevent that disease altogether. So cancer is front and center with the Moonshot and the Cures Act. For the Food and Drug Administration, an agency that I have learned more about in the last couple of years and have taken a greater interest in, we need to have reforms that are included in the Cures Act that target speeding up the FDA's approval of new medicines and medical equipment. Pharmaceuticals have become a significant portion of how we treat disease. It used to be in the early days of my life, and certainly in my parents' lives, that you went to the doctor and you were examined and you may be admitted to the hospital. So often today you are examined, and you are given a prescription. It is a way now that we treat patients. We have today a wider variety of opportunities that pharmaceuticals provide, and we need to make certain that the FDA has the resources, has the right mentality, the mindset--is not a bureaucratic organization--that can advance the production of new drugs available to treat Americans with a wide array of options. This legislation brings a patient-focused view to drug development that will be so relevant in the process of bringing forward the things we need to cure and treat Americans. Opioids have been a topic of conversation of this Senate for a number of months--for the last several years, in fact--and, unfortunately, millions across the country struggle with an addiction to opioids. It is a heartbreaking reality. The Presiding Officer and I come from rural States. We wish we could say that our States are immune, that it is a problem for folks in the cities or suburbs or someplace else. But, unfortunately, opioids and other drug addictions are a significant component of the challenges we face at home. We include in the Cures bill additional dollars to address the addiction issue, including prevention and treatment, prescription drug monitoring programs, and efforts to reform our current system. It is important that this legislation pass as a followup to the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which I voted for earlier this year, to try to stop the spread of opioid abuse in communities across the country. I have started paying more attention to mental health issues at home as well, visiting our community mental health centers, visiting our State and mental health hospitals. We need to make certain that in our efforts to focus on health care, we have an appropriate prioritization of mental health as well. The 21st Century Cures Act takes steps forward in that regard in providing solutions for more than 11.5 million American adults who live with mental illness that is considered disabling. Important sections of the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act, which represents some of the most significant reforms to the mental health system in more than a decade, are included in the Cures Act. These efforts are aided by establishing a new Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Abuse at the Department of Health and Human Services, and we are hopeful that this person will help us coordinate direct funding and remove the regulatory barriers that hold back our abilities to find treatment and cures and care for people who suffer from mental illness. Suicides are a significant problem. The Presiding Officer and I serve on the Veterans' Committee together, where suicides by veterans are an ever-present problem. Twenty-two veterans a day commit suicide. Our efforts at focusing research and treatment in regard to mental health can help save the lives of those who sacrificed so much for us and comfort their families and avoid disasters and tragedies that occur way too often. There are a couple of provisions that were included in this legislation as it works its way through the Senate. I am supportive of many of those related to rural health care. For my time in Congress, I have been an active member of the rural health care caucus. I represent a State that has 127 hospitals in communities across our State. Those hospitals provide health care and jobs for people in rural America. Rural Kansans have paid into FICA and Social Security taxes and deserve to have the attention they need for treating individuals who choose to live in rural America, in keeping those hospital doors open, keeping physicians in our communities, and keeping the pharmacy open on Main Street. Those are things that matter greatly to me. Unfortunately, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, a component of the Department of Health and Human Services, often creates rules and regulations that make no sense in the places that the Presiding Officer and I come from. So I am supporting a couple of things in particular that are included in this bill. We had a regulation that came from CMS--the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services--generally called physician supervision. Its enforcement is delayed 1 year in the Cures Act. I am the sponsor of legislation to rid us of that regulation permanently, but it is a benefit for us to have it out of the system for another year as we work to find that permanent solution. But the idea that there must be a physician present in certain circumstances--it is difficult for us to have a physician on site in a room with a patient in every circumstance, and our mid-levels and others are important to us in rural communities in particular. That delay is something we have worked hard on, and I am pleased to see that we were successful in getting it included in this legislation. Many of those hospitals that I mentioned in Kansas--127 hospitals in our State, 80-plus--90 or so--are what are called critical access hospitals, which is a special designation that allows them a so-called cost-based reimbursement. When I was in the House of Representatives, I authored legislation that created an opportunity to expand the critical access hospital designation to hospitals that are slightly larger and that wouldn't otherwise meet the criteria, which is 25 beds or less. There is a demonstration project, a pilot program that has been operating in the country for the last 5 years, trying to determine what cost-based reimbursement would mean for hospitals that are slightly larger than 25 beds. That demonstration project is expiring. Fortunately, language in the Cures Act extends that community health demonstration project--something, again, we have worked hard to make certain happens. I am pleased that the lead sponsors of this legislation were amenable to our request to include these provisions. I would conclude by saying the United States has a responsibility to continue our leadership in providing medical breakthroughs that will help change the world, and certainly change people's lives, to develop those cures and treat diseases, and we must commit ourselves to significant support for research that is supported in legislation just like the 21st Century Cures Act. This legislation has the capacity to benefit millions of Americans suffering from chronic diseases. It can help our grandparents, our children, our lifelong best friends, and we can avoid the tragedy that comes with a diagnosis that often ends in death. People's lives depend upon the decisions we make, and this is a decision we can make that will benefit many Americans and their families. Our researchers must be able to rely on consistent, sustainable funding support from Congress; otherwise we will lose the best and brightest, and we will lose men and women who think maybe they want to be a researcher and find a cure for a disease, but because of their uncertainty as to whether or not their research might get funded or whether the funding is going to be there next year--they get it, but they are uncertain as to whether it will continue. We don't want to lose those bright minds and noble colleagues, people across our country who might enter into the profession of medical research to help find ways to meet the needs of Americans and their health care. NIH-supported research has raised life expectancy, improved the quality of life, and lowered overall health care costs. This legislation strengthens that circumstance and allows us to better remain globally competitive in the arena of medical research. The 21st Century Cures Act is a powerful statement by Congress, but, more important than being a statement, it is something that will actually make a difference in the future of the people that we care about. I commend the efforts by many Senators and Members of the House to make certain that this legislation arrives here in the Senate before there is a recess for the holidays. It will be a strong statement, but, more importantly, we expect significant results and the improvement of people's lives across the Nation and around the globe. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, it is my honor today to honor the life of a revered Kansan, U.S. District Court Judge Richard D. Rogers, who passed away on November 26 of this year at the age of 94. Richard Rogers was devoted to public service in every sense. He was a decorated veteran, having received the Distinguished Flying Cross for his service flying 33 combat missions as a bombardier in World War II. He served the town of Manhattan, KS, as both its mayor and city commissioner. He served as a State legislator in both chambers of the Kansas Legislature, rising to the title of President of the Senate. And in 1975, President Gerald Ford appointed Richard Rogers to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Kansas, a position he held for more than 40 years. Judge Rogers represented the very best of the greatest generation, unselfishly giving of himself and his time to improve the lives of those around him. A graduate of Wamego High School, Kansas State University, and later the University of Kansas School of Law, he took an active interest in his State, its people, and their many different walks of life. His understanding of Kansans carried over to the courtroom where colleagues say Judge Rogers served with great wisdom and fairness. Judge Rogers' contemporaries also remember him as a mentor and friend, someone often consulted for his breadth of knowledge, his geniality, and his humility until he stepped down from his position on the Federal bench on August 7, 2015. Richard Rogers was a pillar of the Manhattan and Topeka communities, and his integrity, service, and devotion to justice will be forever remembered by the people of Kansas.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I have the honor of serving with the chair on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and I want to speak tonight about a set of issues, a circumstance that we have found ourselves in. As you will recall, several years ago there was a national news story and our Nation was appalled to learn that Department of Veterans Affairs employees from across the country were creating secret waiting lists that stood between veterans and the care they deserved. Veterans died waiting for care because of deceptive practices at the VA. In the wake of that wrongdoing, I called for the resignation of the then- Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. At that time, I didn't think things could get worse at the Department, but I was wrong. In 2014, during the confirmation hearings for the current VA Secretary, Bob McDonald, he seemed to understand the urgency demanded by the American people and by their Congress to fix the problems at the Department of Veterans Affairs. In his testimony, he promised that ``the seriousness of this moment demands action . . . those employees that have violated the trust of the Nation and of veterans must be, and will be, held accountable.'' Now, more than 2 years later, with authorities granted by Congress and signed into law by the President, the Secretary seems to have forgotten that promise. Time and time again, the Secretary uses a talking point on accountability, stating ``the VA has terminated more than 4,095 employees'' since he arrived. The real number of terminations is three. Only three people have been discharged from the VA for their misconduct, and another 12 to 15 are ``potential removals or demotions.'' What the Secretary hasn't said is that thousands of those terminations were actually employees placed on paid leave, thereby racking up $23 million to pay the salaries of 2,500 VA employees who weren't actually working. The opportunity for the Secretary and for the VA to hold bad actors accountable has been squandered. The terrible part of this is that Americans have been misled. The accountability the VA created in the wake of the scandal about the fake waiting lists has generated further disappointment and scandal due to the mismanagement and manipulation. Instead of firing people, Americans are paying bad actors to do nothing or, worse yet, they have been transferred to other facilities to continue bad practices. The morale of the vast majority--a huge number--of hard-working people who work for the VA, many who are veterans themselves, has to be harmed as they care for veterans every day and suffer in this culture of corruption. In Kansas, my home State, we face one of the worst examples of a VA employee violating the trust of a veteran. Yet the VA seems to have no sense of urgency in holding this person accountable or committing to fixing the process that enabled this individual to do what he did. In 2015, we learned from newspaper reports--certainly not from the VA--that a physician assistant at the Leavenworth VA hospital, Mr. Mark Wisner, had been sexually abusing veteran patients. Shortly after that news broke, the Leavenworth county prosecutors charged this individual with multiple counts of sexual assault and abuse against numerous veterans. We learned, as the story unfolded, that he had targeted vulnerable veterans suffering from PTSD. He prescribed opioids that inhibited their thinking, and he used his position to deepen the wounds of war rather than healing them. I will share a quote from two Army veteran brothers who were patients and felt they had no choice but to continue seeking the care or lose the health care benefits they had earned. One of them said: ``The fear of losing what I had earned [in benefits] versus the fear of being sexually assaulted again, I don't know which one was more important.'' Imagine the desperation of a veteran trying to answer that question. Again, what is so troubling about this situation is that Mr. Wisner should never have been hired by the VA in the first place. As we add injury to insult for these veteran victims, he was not fired after he admitted the abuse. He was allowed to retire, and his voluntary retirement means he receives certain benefits that he might not otherwise received if he had actually been fired. According to publicly available documents, Mr. Wisner indicated on his application for licensure that he had been convicted of a crime, and further information indicates the crime and convictions were lewd in nature. Yet he was hired. It is infuriating--it is worse than infuriating--that a person with a criminal record, convicted of a lewd crime, was still hired to be at the frontlines of veteran patient care. When the VA was asked about his criminal record, they indicated that background checks are contingent upon ``the position's risk level'' and that physician assistant positions were considered ``low risk'' and didn't require an exhaustive background check. In my view, a practitioner in patient care should be held to the highest standards of excellence and should receive an exhaustive background check. How can a position in patient care be considered low risk at the VA? Fortunately, as I said, I serve with the Presiding Officer on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and I had the opportunity during one of our committee hearings last September--just a few months ago--to question Secretary McDonald about the background check process and why Mr. Wisner was hired with a known criminal background. The Secretary's response was ``there was nothing in his file that suggested that there was a risk.'' He also suggested that I had different information than he did--than he, the Secretary, did--which is hard to believe because the documentation I was reading from, the circumstances I was describing, came directly from his own Office of Inspector General. I have also sent the Secretary a letter with more than 20 questions about this situation, hoping I could receive substantive answers to those questions. More than 2 months passed until I received a response last week from the Under Secretary for Health. Actually, I was hoping to learn something from that response about the VA's commitment to fixing their hiring practices, not a canned answer regarding the VA's current process for background checks. Certainly, the 20 questions asked of the Secretary remain unanswered. They remain unanswered regarding why the VA's credentialing process failed to catch Mr. Wisner--a convict. Does the VA not consider lewd crimes or convictions in an applicant's file as a risk to veterans? The responses have been unacceptable. The lack of response has been unacceptable. Also unacceptable are the circumstances surrounding Mr. Wisner's separation from the VA. Instead of an immediate termination, unbelievably, he was permitted to retire with full benefits. When the VA police received a complaint about Mr. Wisner in May of 2014, they alerted the VA inspector general. Wisner was removed from patient care and placed on paid administrative leave while the IG conducted its investigation. Some days later, in an interview with the VA inspector general's special agent, Wisner admitted he ``crossed the professional line'' and that he engaged in ``unnecessary and inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature.'' Mr. Wisner made no attempt to hide his actions, stating that he ``knew what he was doing to these patients was wrong and that he had no self-control.'' Despite confessing to these horrible and illegal actions, Mr. Wisner continued to be an employee of the VA for 37 more days, giving him enough time to beat the VA to the punch and seeking and receiving retirement on June 28, 2014. One would think the moment a VA employee admits to violating or abusing a patient, a client, or a coworker would be the moment their paycheck would end and they would no longer be employed; that there would be zero tolerance for such egregious conduct. Grounds for immediate termination clearly existed from Wisner's own confessions. Yet he was able to gather all his personal documents and submit his retirement paperwork to the VA to guarantee his retirement benefits-- benefits, incidentally, that millions of veterans continue to wait for years and decades to receive. There are so many factors about this situation that are troublesome, upsetting, and disgusting, but most importantly our veterans themselves are distraught. The VA failed to protect them from a sexual predator. They were taken advantage of and they are hurting. One victim took his own life, troubled by what happened to him. Wisner's termination void of retirement benefits maybe would have brought a small measure of justice to the victims. Despite having more than enough justification and the authority to fire Wisner, the VA chose to do nothing, and that inaction sends a very strong and disappointing message not only to our veterans but to the VA employees who are looking to the VA to have their best interest and the best interest of patients they care for, our veterans, at heart. Our veterans are expecting the VA to live up to the ``I CARE'' values created by the Secretary. Secretary McDonald announced the I CARE Program, and I can tell you that veterans in Kansas would agree that the VA did not demonstrate integrity, commitment, advocacy, respect or excellence in these circumstances. When given the opportunity in a hearing and in writing, the VA's top executives are unable to put at rest not just my mind but the minds of veterans back home in Kansas. Veterans deserve a heartfelt, thorough examination, a thorough explanation of what went wrong and what is now being done to make certain that it never happens again. Our local VA folks in our State have done what they can do to reach out to veteran patients. The stories continue to grow. Veterans continue to come forward. However, this is a serious and significant incident. The serious and significant incidents require more than just outreach. They require more than just what can happen in Kansas. They require an engagement by the top leadership officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA's refusal to admit fault or commit to remedying this situation gives little confidence to Congress and, more importantly, to veterans who are being asked to trust the Department that failed to protect them. It appears the Secretary has forgotten his promise made over 2 years ago to uphold the ``seriousness of the moment,'' to hold those responsible for bad behavior accountable. There could be no more serious moment. There could be no more serious moment of recklessness by the VA than the abuse of a veteran by its own employees. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the 100th birthday of Ewing Marion Kauffman, an exceptionally successful Kansas City businessman who also cared deeply about the community he lived in. Mr. Kauffman was an entrepreneur working out of the basement of his modest Kansas City home when he founded Marion Laboratories in June of 1950. By 1965, he had grown his small pharmaceutical business into a publicly traded company and introduced an innovative profit-sharing model so that all of his associates would reap the financial benefits of his company's accomplishments. His lifelong focus on enabling others to succeed has benefitted generations of Kansans and all in the Kansas City community. By 1989, Marion Laboratories merged with Merrell Dow to form Marion Merrell Dow, which provided jobs for 3,400 associates. Marion Merrell Dow became the fifth largest drug company in the United States in terms of sales. Leading Mr. Kauffman to this success were two guiding philosophic principles: No. 1, share the rewards with those who produce and No. 2, treat others as you wish to be treated. His principles continue to serve as a model of professional culture to new businesses across a wide variety of industries, and oftentimes, these new businesses are started by former associates of Mr. Kauffman's company and its affiliates. Following Mr. Kauffman's success in business, he used his considerable resources to do good, establishing the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation in 1966. The foundation sought to address systemic issues within underserved communities around Kansas City--notably focused on improving the quality of education in the area and promoting and fostering entrepreneurship as a means of empowerment and opportunity for individuals. Mr. Kauffman's legacy addressing fundamental challenges in the local community through a research-based approach continues today through the innovative work of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. The foundation continues to focus on advancing education and entrepreneurship opportunities through strategic partnerships and inclusive dialogue among all pertinent private and public parties. In June, the foundation announced its 100 Acts of Generosity campaign to encourage the public to participate in community service efforts to honor Mr. Kauffman's legacy, while awarding a $1 million grant to the Kansas City Royals' Urban Youth Academy to serve 800 to 1,000 young people with free baseball and softball clinics and instruction. Mr. Kauffman also brought Major League Baseball back to his hometown, founding the Kansas City Royals in 1968. Under Kauffman's leadership, the organization sold more than 2 million tickets per season during 11 different seasons and won six division titles, two American League pennants, and the 1985 World Series Championship. Mr. Kauffman also developed innovative measures to ensure the Royals would remain in Kansas City long after his death in 1993. In reflection of Mr. Kauffman's philanthropic mission, I conclude my remarks with a statement by Mr. Kauffman himself: ``All of the money in the world cannot solve problems unless we work together. And, if we work together, there is no problem in the world that can stop us, as we seek to develop people to their highest and best potential.''

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, today I would like to honor the life of police captain Dave Melton, a law enforcement officer who served 17 years on the force of the Kansas City Police Department and was tragically killed on duty earlier this summer. On Tuesday, July 19, Captain Melton joined officers in pursuit of suspected participants of a driveby shooting. Shortly after law enforcement arrived, the driver of the suspects' vehicle was apprehended. While following one of the other suspects, Captain Melton came under fire and suffered multiple gunshots. Captain Melton was then taken to the University of Kansas Medical Center where he ultimately died from his wounds. Captain Melton was described by Kansas City, KS, Police Chief Terry Ziegler as someone who always chose to ``lead from the front.'' The brave sacrifices Captain Melton made to keep his community safe will not be forgotten. Captain Melton's history of service, both to Kansas and our country, extends beyond his 17 years with the Kansas City Police Department. In addition to 9 years with the Wyandotte County Sheriff's Department, Captain Melton served in the Kansas Army National Guard as a soldier for more than a decade and then as an officer from 1997-2012. During the course of a military career that included a 15-month tour of duty in Iraq and a 13-month tour in Afghanistan, Melton earned the Bronze Star and numerous other honors. Captain Melton's law enforcement colleagues remember him as an industrious and professional leader. Described as a goodhearted man who loved his family, Melton brought joy to those around him and helped those in need. Dave Melton is survived by his son, David, two daughters, Sarah Wilt and Elizabeth, and girlfriend, Zeta Bates, who is expecting a child. I join the Kansas City community and law enforcement offices around the country as we grieve the loss of this fallen hero and pray for the Melton family. These feelings are tragically familiar. On May 18, I spoke on the Senate floor to remember and honor the life of Kansas City Police Detective Brad Lancaster, who was also killed on duty while responding to a call. Following Lancaster's death, it was Captain Melton that took the initiative to honor Detective Lancaster by establishing protocols for the memorial services of those killed on duty. I stand with the Kansas City, Kansas Police Department as they work to mourn and recover from the loss of both of these men. Congress and community leaders must continue working to better protect the men and women who take great risk to protect the rest of us.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, all who knew Ben Craig know that his passing marks the loss of an exceptional family man, local leader, and community banker. Ben was a great neighbor and a shining example of a Kansan who improved the lives of all he knew. The youngest of five children, Ben was born in 1929 to Benjamin D. Craig, Sr., and Orpha (Cox) Craig. He grew up and went to school in Baxter Springs, where he was an avid baseball player and sports fan. During high school, he was the pitcher for the Baxter Whiz Kids, the local regional team. He attended the University of Kansas, and during his college years, he pursued his minor league baseball dreams playing with the New York Yankees and the St. Louis Browns. After the Korean war began in 1950, Ben enlisted in the Air Force and spent 18 months stationed in Tripoli, Libya. Following his deployment, he returned to the States and was stationed at Sewart Air Force Base near Nashville, TN. He was joined by his new bride, Evadean Talbot, who he married after returning home from Tripoli. In 1954, he was honorably discharged from the service as an E-5 tech sergeant. Ben's long career in business began after leaving the Air Force when he took a job with the Cassville, MO, chamber of commerce. He later worked with the Kansas City, KS, chamber before beginning a banking career that would span decades. Ben served as president of Metcalf Bank in Kansas City for 35 years and then as chairman of the board until 2007. When the bank was sold in 2007, Ben remained on the board of directors and served as chairman emeritus until his death. In addition to strengthening the Kansas City economy with his work in the banking community, where small businesses and families alike could depend on Ben for solid financial assistance and advice, Ben served in leadership positions in a number of local charities and service organizations. For 52 years, he had perfect attendance in the Overland Park Rotary Club, which is where I first met him. He also played a key role in establishing many of the Kansas City institutions we know today, such as Johnson County Community College, Shawnee Mission Medical Center, and the Overland Park Chamber of Commerce. Ben was preceded in death by his wife of 52 years, Evadean. He leaves behind his friend and companion of the last 10 years, Vivian Sirratt, along with his daughters, Denise Koonse (Charles), Kellee Hearst (Rex), granddaughters, Amanda Lubiewski (Michael), Kelsey Houchen (Andrew), and great-granddaughters, Abigail and Emily Lubiewski. Ben's dedication to public service and constant desire to find ways he could help others will benefit generations of Kansans to come. He had a kind heart and giving nature. Ben was a natural leader who freely gave his time to all he knew. I am thankful for my friendship with him. May he rest in peace.

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, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 14, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 14, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SR-428A of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Searching for Capital: How Venture Capitalists and Angel Investors Fund Entrepreneurs and Startup Companies.''

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, on July 14, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD- 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``ESSA Implementation: Perspectives from Education Stakeholders on Proposed Regulations.''

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2016, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Evaluating the Financial Risks of China.''

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 14, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 14, 2016, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Iran Nuclear Agreement: One Year Later.''

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 14, 2016, at 10 a.m.

Mr. MORAN

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

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, at the moment, we are considering the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, and I am disappointed by what we are about to do today, although at this point there appears to be no option. This extension fails to accomplish significant and important reforms in the aviation world, and it is something we were able to do, should have been able to do, and almost accomplished. As a result of our failure, I will oppose the reauthorization legislation we will vote on in just a few moments. Three weeks ago, I came to the Senate floor to express my concern with what was happening, and my plea and request to our House colleagues to act on the FAA reauthorization bill as the Senate sent it to them--the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2016, which in April passed the Senate by the unusual vote of 95 votes in favor--broadly supported. I serve on the Commerce Committee, and Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson worked hard with all of us on that committee to see that a wide variety of interests, a wide variety of opportunities were explored for us to make improvements in the world of aviation. The way it works is, we have a piece of legislation that is in effect and will soon expire, and we are up against a deadline for that extension, but we knew that. In fact, we went to work early. The Senate Commerce Committee began hearings a long time ago--months ago. We worked hard to find consensus, and we did. Our product came to the Senate floor not just with a simple reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration but with items that were so important to this country's economy, to those who utilize general aviation, to communities that care about their local airports, and to those--in my case in Kansas--who care about how many jobs we have and can continue to have and how many more we can create as a result of the manufacturing of aircraft in this country. So we did what we were supposed to do in the Senate. We worked together and found solutions. We found compromises, and we passed legislation overwhelmingly. Unfortunately, when it went to the House of Representatives, no action was taken in the House. As I said, the clock is ticking and the FAA will no longer continue to have legal authority to exist. Once again, as has happened in years gone by, we are left with a take-it-or- leave-it situation. We either take the House-passed extension or the FAA shuts down. There is no need for us to be in the position we are in today, and the extension we are going to vote on will be missing many important provisions included in the Senate-passed bill. My perspective on this certainly is as a Kansan, but it matters no matter what State you live in. Kansas is an aviation State. General aviation is our State's largest industry, and our largest city is Wichita, which is appropriately known as the air capital of the world. Kansas aviation workers have supplied three out of every four general aviation aircraft since the Wright brothers' first flight at Kitty Hawk, and today some 42,000 Kansans make a living manufacturing, operating, and servicing the world's highest quality aircraft. So what does the FAA reauthorization--the extension we are about to vote on--have to do with those jobs in Kansas? What does it have to do with jobs in this country? If we have a goal we ought to be working on together to achieve, it would be to create more opportunities for more Americans to have better jobs. We need--and we all know it--a strong manufacturing sector in this economy. Yet we will fail to take advantage of the opportunity to increase the chances of more manufacturing jobs, more general aviation jobs, more airplane manufacturing jobs in the United States--more jobs for Americans, better jobs for Americans, more secure jobs for Americans--because we aren't able to do today--the House was unwilling to include in the extension those things that increase the chances the aviation industry in our country can better compete with those in a global economy that are our competitors. What the manufacturing side of aviation needs, what aviation manufacturers in Kansas need is the ability to compete in a global marketplace so the industry remains our country's No. 1 net exporter. This requires significant reforms at the FAA, particularly in their certification process and improvements in the regulatory environment. These provisions that are so helpful were contained not just in the Senate-passed bill but also in the original House FAA bill that was approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee earlier in the spring. So here we have a situation in which the House Transportation Committee, the Senate Commerce Committee--in fact, the full Senate--approves things that matter greatly to our country and, most importantly, to its workers, and yet today we come to the Senate with a relatively simple extension that ignores those important reforms and improvements. These provisions that are not included in this extension would streamline aircraft certification, significantly improving efficiency, and better focus the FAA's valuable resources someplace else. These reforms would have had a positive impact upon our economy, on job security, and job creation. Both the House and Senate recognized the importance of this issue and advanced nearly identical certification reform language, but, as I said, for some reason that language no longer appears in this bill. In addition to certification, there were lots of other issues we agreed upon. Among the members of our committee and among Members of the Senate, overwhelmingly popular bipartisan provisions were included in this bill originally in the Senate but are not included now in this simple extension, including things such as strengthening our Contract Tower Program, which is so important, particularly to rural communities. Again, while I come from a State where we manufacture planes, I also represent a State in which general aviation, our pilots, and the airports which they utilize are important to communities across my State as we again try to compete in a global economy. The ability to bring a business customer to a small community that has a manufacturing plant is dependent upon airport and air services. The language from section 1204 of the Senate-passed bill would have significantly reformed the cost-benefit eligibility rules for contract towers--again, this is a way we provide air safety for communities that are small and have small airports--strengthening the program and providing certainty once and for all for the 253 contract towers that handle nearly one-third of our tower operations nationwide. It was a good idea. It was broadly supported--supported in the House in the Transportation Committee, supported in the Senate in the Commerce Committee and on the Senate floor--but not included in today's simple extension. Apparently, the reason these important reforms were excluded was so they could, at a later date, be used as a political bargaining chip. The House held these popular reforms hostage in an attempt to gain leverage and to later promote an effort to privatize our Nation's air traffic control system. By putting on hold these long overdue, noncontroversial certification reforms, the Contract Tower Program, and others, Congress is damaging the business aviation industry and the people who work therein. Not too long ago I spoke on this floor defending general aviation from the Obama administration's repeated attempts to end the accelerated depreciation schedule for general aviation aircraft. In my view, the proposal came as a clever political sound bite--the so-called corporate jet loophole--but in reality it would have meant thousands of jobs would be gone and the unemployment lines longer. The President's proposal would have accomplished nothing for the economy--not even a meaningful increase in tax revenues--and only would have hurt 1.2 million Americans who make their living building and servicing airplanes. This makes today all the more disappointing. It is one thing for me to come to the floor and complain about an Obama administration proposal, but today I come to the Senate floor to complain about a Republican-controlled House that was unable to take advantage of an opportunity to pass a strong, long-term reauthorization bill and instead leaves us with a simple, short-term extension. Of course, I believe fully that the leadership of my Commerce Committee--Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson--worked very hard at crafting this Senate-passed FAA bill. I am here in support of their efforts and express my disappointment that their efforts were not rewarded by the House of Representatives. I regret that because we did not have a willing partner in the House, we are left with a watered- down extension so we can further entertain other ideas at some other point in time while uncertainty continues. While that uncertainty continues, the rest of the world can advance their efforts, particularly in airplane manufacturing, while we wait for improvements, efficiencies, and modernization in our own. While we wait for Congress to do its work, the rest of the world moves on, with the potential of taking away jobs from the manufacturing sector here in the United States. Americans rightfully should expect, and do expect, leadership from their officials in Washington. At a time when this partisan dysfunction puts us in places in which we constantly find barriers in the legislative process, it sure seems to me to be a waste that this opportunity to pass meaningful bipartisan reforms and improvements that could have an immediate positive impact on our economy is foregone. We have enough other problems around here in the way this place works. Here we had, in my view, a chance to grasp victory for the American people, for its workers, and for our economy. We failed to do it, and in the process and as a result of that failure, the ability of American manufacturers to create jobs is diminished and Kansans are more at risk for their futures as a result of our failure to do our jobs. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for the opportunity to address my colleagues in the Senate, and I express my dissatisfaction and disappointment with the end product, recognizing the circumstance we now find ourselves in. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I am here to speak on the FAA reauthorization and several things and stories that have arisen in the last few days which are very discouraging to me and troublesome to a cause I care a lot about. I am an advocate for general aviation, and I was pleased the Senate was able to pass the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2016 by a vote of 95 to 3--95 to 3, this Senate approved legislation reauthorizing the FAA for the next 18 months. It is an unusual occurrence around here when anything passes 95 to 3. I also would indicate our committee voted--I am a member of the Commerce Committee--unanimously to report that bill to the Senate in a favorable recommendation, again demonstrating overwhelmingly bipartisan support in regard to this aviation legislation. Kansas is an aviation State. Wichita and South Central Kansas are known as the significant provider of airplanes--general aviation airplanes and parts. We have lots of subcontractors in that process. We are also a rural State. In fact, Wichita is known as the air capital of the world. In addition to the manufacturing sector, which is so important to our State's economy, so important to our ability to compete globally, we are a rural State, and airplanes and airports matter to us greatly. So while we care a lot about the manufacturing of general aviation airplanes, we also care a lot about airports and their ability to take care of flights coming in and out of small communities across our State and certainly across the country. That general aviation airport is a connection to the rest of the world, and it allows for medical expertise to be flown into a community in lifesaving efforts, but just on a more day-to-day basis, it allows for us to have access to customers, to suppliers, to clients because we have manufacturing and other businesses in rural communities across Kansas whose connection with their customer base and suppliers is through that airport. In the absence of general aviation manufacturing, our State suffers greatly, but in the absence of general aviation airports, our State would suffer greatly as well. What I am worried about is the House has not acted in any positive way on the passage of this bill, and the deadline of July 15 is rapidly approaching. If the House does not take up the Senate-passed version, what that would mean is the expectation--in fact, the stated circumstance is the House would pass a short-term extension of the current FAA legislation and leave the Senate bill hanging. Many of the folks in this Senate who have served longer than I have would recognize the history of this issue, where one extension after another was required because consensus was never developed, and the leadership was not provided to resolve the differences over the years on FAA reauthorization. The point I wish to make by being on the Senate floor and expressing my views to my colleagues is, do not allow us to get into this position again where we would have a series of extensions of the FAA legislation. We need the House to act on the Senate bill that is pending in their committee, that is pending on the House side, and differences need to be resolved. At the moment, the House has not passed an FAA reauthorization bill. Time is short. On July 15, the current law expires. My plea to my colleagues in the House, where I formerly served, is to take up the Senate bill, address the issues you want as Members of the House, representing your constituency, and send the bill back to us so we can conference this issue and have a more long-term reauthorization bill. Certainty matters. Certainty matters to the manufacturers in Kansas. Certainty matters to the airports and the pilots who utilize those airports. Do not allow us, once more, to be in this circumstance of an extension one time after another and the uncertainty that provides. It is my view that it would be a shame if the important reforms included in the bill the Senate approved in such an overwhelming fashion were held up by the House, in large part because of a significant controversial proposal to privatize the national air traffic control system. It sharply divides Congress. Everything I have read publicly and everything I have heard from my friends and colleagues, former colleagues in the House, is that there are not the necessary votes present to pass that provision in the House. From my own experience in the Senate, those votes don't exist in the Senate Commerce Committee and they do not exist on the Senate floor. So let's not tie up this bill over a proposal that does not have the votes to pass, and let's not lose the opportunity to take advantage of the reforms that were included in the Senate FAA reauthorization bill. We should not consider what would be called a clean extension of the FAA, when the authorization under our bill is the same length. The House is talking about sending us an 18-month extension. The Senate bill, as passed, is an 18-month extension. What would be missing are reforms we have worked so hard to include after significant amounts of testimony, after a number of hearings and conversations within the Commerce Committee to make certain we were doing good work. Don't let that opportunity pass us by. So my point in having this, in this case, monologue--hopefully a dialogue with my colleagues on the Senate floor--is, first of all, to make sure we stand firm. I am a Senator who would be opposed to a short-term, even 18-month extension, if it does not include the broad array of things the Senate has included in our bill. My message to my House colleagues and friends is this: Don't bog this process down in a way that makes it impossible for us to pass the reauthorization legislation to begin with. These are important issues that we ought not let be sidetracked by a proposal that remains dubious, and with great concern is considered by Members of Congress. As I said earlier, every indication that I know and see is that this proposal would not receive support in the Senate or even in the House. So my request once again to the House of Representatives is this: Please take up the Senate bill and work your will in that bill but send us something more than just a short-term extension that doesn't include the important and necessary reforms and improvements that the Senate- passed bill does. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to have a conversation about this topic. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MORAN

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