Jerry Moran

Mr. MORAN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I am once again on the Senate floor in a series of conversations we have had with my colleagues about the importance of my amendment I would like pending to this national defense authorization bill. I am discouraged and disappointed that over the weekend no resolution on a variety of issues has been reached, and therefore there would be objection once again if I offered this amendment. What I am attempting to do and what we have talked about so many times here on the floor and in the hallways of Congress is that Kansans generally are opposed to the closing of Guantanamo Bay as a detention facility and particularly opposed to bringing these detainees to the United States and especially opposed to bringing the detainees to Fort Leavenworth, KS. Unfortunately, this bill includes an amendment offered in committee that allows for the design and planning and construction of a facility, and my amendment is the simple removal of those provisions from this legislation. It is clear to me that throughout the entire time of the administration of this President, this administration has been unable to provide any cohesive, comprehensive, legally justifiable closure and relocation plan. Yet this plan authorizes the planning and design. So I rise to once again express my dissatisfaction and anger with the Senate for its inability to do its job. Whether or not my amendment would prevail at the moment is not the issue; it is whether or not there can even be a vote on what I consider to be a very important issue to Kansas and to the country. I appreciate the efforts by the chairman of the committee, who has assured me that he supports this amendment, and through no fault of his own, we are unable to take a vote to demonstrate that support in the Senate. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, in a moment I am going to ask unanimous consent to address an amendment of mine to the national defense authorization bill, amendment No. 4066. There is legislation I have introduced with a number of my colleagues that then is reflected perhaps identically in the amendment I hope we will consider this evening. This amendment is related to the National Labor Relations Act, which was enacted in 1935. That legislation exempted Federal, State, and local governments but did not explicitly mention Native American governments from the purview of the National Labor Relations Act. Despite that not being mentioned for 70 years, the NLRB honored the sovereign status of tribes accorded to them by the U.S. Constitution. In fact, there is a good argument that the reason tribal governments were not listed in the Labor Relations Act was because the Constitution made clear the sovereign nation of tribes. So for 70 years, they were not affected by the NRLB. Unfortunately, in my view, beginning in 2004, the NLRB reversed its treatment of tribes and legally challenged the right of tribes to enact so-called right-to-work laws. The amendment I have offered to this bill is pretty straightforward. The National Labor Relations Act is amended to provide that any enterprise or institution owned and operated by an Indian tribe and located on tribal lands is not subject to the NLRA. This narrow amendment protects tribal sovereignty and gives tribal governments the ability to make the best decisions for their people. The amendment seeks to treat tribal governments no differently from other levels of government, just like we treat cities and counties across the country. Sovereignty is an important aspect of tribal relations with their tribal members. It is something tribes take very seriously, and in my view, it is something Members of the Senate should take very seriously, in part because it is the right policy, and perhaps even more importantly, it is the right moral position to have. And of equal value, it is what the Constitution of the United States says. The legislation on which this amendment is based was passed by the House of Representatives in a bipartisan vote. Even our former colleague, the late Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, wrote in 2009 that ``Congress should affirm the original construction of the NLRA by expressly including Indian tribes in the definition of employer.'' This amendment presents Congress with an opportunity to reaffirm the constitutional recognition of tribes and the rights accorded to them under the supreme law of our land. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment, amendment No. 4066; that there be 10 minutes of debate, equally divided; and that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote in relation to the amendment with no second-degree amendment in order prior to the vote.

Mr. MORAN. I regret the objection from the Senator from Ohio and indicate that we will continue our efforts to see that this issue is addressed and the sovereignty of tribes across the Nation is protected. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, thank you very much, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here on the Senate floor today with my colleagues. I, too, have an amendment to strike section 1023 of this bill, the national defense authorization bill, S. 2943. This is amendment No. 4068. We will seek unanimous consent for this amendment to be considered, but what it does is strike section 1023, which provides for the design and planning related to construction of a facility in the United States to house detainees. This is part of the constant effort by some to close Guantanamo Bay and bring the detainees to the United States. In my view, it is essential for the United States to maintain the ability to hold terrorists, both those who were captured in 2002, as well as those whom we may find on the battlefields of terrorism with ISIS today. Since 2008, the effort has been to close Guantanamo Bay with the objective of bringing those detainees to the United States. This Congress, this Senate has spoken time and time again both in the predecessors' legislation to this bill we are considering today, NDAA of past years, as well as the appropriations process in which we prohibit those detainees from being brought to the United States and housed in a facility in the United States. In fact, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense have, on numerous occasions, confirmed that the President has no legal authority to close Gitmo or to transfer detainees to the United States. For some reason, the national defense authorization bill, as it came out of the committee, provides for the planning and designing related to construction of a facility here. This amendment strikes that language, and it reaffirms what we have said before. In fact, in last year's national defense authorization bill, we said there had to be a plan provided by the administration that outlines, in significant criteria and detail, what would be involved in bringing those detainees to the United States. I am opposed to that in the first place. I am opposed to that in the second place. I would add that plan that we keep looking for, it has yet to be, in any specificity, granted to us to see in Congress. Mr. President, I would ask my colleagues to allow, at the appropriate time, that this bill be made in order for consideration for a vote by the Senate as an amendment to this bill.

Mr. MORAN

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

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

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, Kansans work hard to make a difference in our communities, our State, and our Nation. Two of those who exemplify this are Jack and Georgetta Taylor who, for the past 48 years, have called Liberal, KS, home. The Taylors are true ambassadors for southwest Kansas. During visits to Liberal for the annual Pancake Day or a Kansas Listening Tour stop, they would make certain Robba and I had seen every new business, restaurant, and development. Their pride for Liberal is contagious and makes all under their spell want to call it home. Every time I have visited Liberal, the Taylors were there to make me feel welcome and appreciated. Jack and Georgetta are also the type of individuals who will drop everything to help others. In fact, a few years ago during Pancake Day, Jack literally gave the shoes off his feet so members of my staff could fully experience the race. Through their involvement in a myriad of community organizations including the chamber, the Baker Arts Center, and the Booster Club, the Taylors have been important leaders in the Liberal community. They also worked to make certain our Nation's veterans living in Kansas are cared for through constant communication to recruit a fulltime physician to the local community-based outpatient clinic. Jack has been a relentless advocate for expanding and improving U.S. Highway 54, one of the most heavily trafficked two-lane highways in the United States. A self-described troublemaker, Jack always approaches tough issues with a charming smile and humorous narratives. His friendly demeanor, work ethic, and patience epitomize Kansans' approach to resolving tough issues. While improving their community has always been a top priority, as they approach 63 years of marriage next month, it is obvious they have always put family first. Relocating to Lawrence will allow them to spend time with their kids and grandkids; yet they will be close enough to visit and cherish the friendships and memories made in southwest Kansas. By investing their time and talents in the community where they lived, the Taylors made a difference one life at a time. They taught through their actions that satisfaction in life comes from what you do for others rather than what you do for yourself, which is the legacy we want to leave behind for the next generation. While impossible to replace, the Taylors worked tirelessly to bring another generation of leaders to Liberal and southwest Kansas. Good things continue happening in our State because of individuals like Jack and Georgetta, and I wish them the very best as they move to Lawrence to spend precious time with their family.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak for just a few moments about the Memorial for Fallen Educators in conjunction with the National Teachers Hall of Fame located on the campus of Emporia State University in Emporia, KS. When someone asks the question, ``Other than your family, name a person who has made a difference in your life,'' the answer has never been my Senator, my Congressman. More often the response is a teacher. That answer speaks volumes about the influence of an educator on the lives of young people. Teachers fulfill a variety of roles by encouraging our children, instilling values, and challenging them. Too often we take this profession for granted, and the people who make education possible are teachers. Each one of us remembers a teacher. We remember in the first grade or second grade when they helped us sound out the big words or guided our hands as we struggled to make out the shapes of letters. We remember the middle school teacher or the gym teacher who taught us how to spike the volleyball or sink the winning hoop while playing in the playoffs. We remember the high school science teacher who helped us dissect frogs or build a box made of toothpicks that would protect the egg as it dropped from a two-story building. Our teachers are our friends, our mentors, and our role models. The lessons they teach us stick with us for a long time after we have left their classrooms. Their jobs are never done, and educators know that often the last ringing bell of the afternoon, rather than signaling the end of their workday, begins the beginning of a new kind of work-- grading homework, tutoring individual students, or prepping for the next day's lesson plan. Educators work round-the-clock on behalf of the kids they instruct. They take on a job that requires more hours than there are in the day because they believe in their students and because they know how crucial their efforts are in seeing these students succeed. I believe we change the world one person at a time, and it happens in classrooms across Kansas and around the country every day. Teachers often forfeit material gain for the thrill of seeing a student's eyes light up when they discover a new concept or grasp a new idea. Teachers have long understood they truly shape the world by their work, and their greatest product is an educated society. Unfortunately, each day teachers walk into their classrooms they are also subject to threats of bullying or violence. Far too many educators have lost their lives in the line of their professional duty. Teachers have been killed at the hands of students, and many have been killed protecting their students from adults perpetrating violent acts. To honor these slain teachers, the National Teachers Hall of Fame, under the leadership of the director, Carol Strickland, created the Memorial for Fallen Educators. The memorial, which was dedicated 2 years ago at Emporia State University, stands alongside the National Teachers Hall of Fame. I had the honor of visiting the site last September. Already built and paid for, the memorial lists the names of educators across the country since 1764 who have lost their lives while working with students. It is owned and cared for by the National Teachers Hall of Fame and Emporia State University. I introduced legislation last year that would designate the Memorial for Fallen Educators as a national memorial. The more than 100 fallen teachers whose names are etched in marble taught in schools across the country. As a nation, together we should recognize the incredible sacrifices they each made because of their dedication to educating young people--their dedication to caring, loving, and protecting young people. This legislation has no cost to the taxpayer and private funds will be used to maintain the memorial. It simply brings the site--the only one in the United States dedicated to fallen educators--the national prestige it merits. As the Senate considers the national memorials proposed for designation, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this worthy tribute to our fallen teachers. Anyone who has ever been inspired by an educator should visit the memorial and recognize and remember those honorable lives which have been lost. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to COL Paul J. Taylor for his inspiring and honorable dedication to the U.S. Army and service to our Nation. Paul spent a year on Capitol Hill as an Army Congressional Fellow in the U.S. Senate where he learned valuable skills that prepared him for his service the last 3 years as a Congressional Budget Liaison for the Secretary of the Army. In this capacity, I have found Paul to be a critical resource and trusted confidant on all matters related to supporting our Army. Colonel Taylor was nominated to attend the U.S. Military Academy from his home State of Connecticut and was commissioned an armor officer in 1993. Colonel Taylor has served in a broad range of armor and cavalry assignments during his 23 years of service. As a junior officer, he served as a tank platoon leader, executive officer, and battalion maintenance officer in the 1st Infantry Division at Fort Riley, in my own State of Kansas. During his time with the Big Red One, he met the former Amy S. Boydston, from Centerville, KS. The two were married at Fort Riley and have experienced more than 20 years of Army life together, along with their three daughters: Lauren, Abigail, and Ella Kate. Following his time at Fort Riley, Colonel Taylor attended advanced training at Fort Knox, KY, and stayed to command two armor companies in the 1st Armored Training Brigade. Upon completion of command, Colonel Taylor was stationed in Doha, Qatar, as the operations officer responsible for one of the Army's forward positioned headquarters in the Middle East. After returning from Qatar, Colonel Taylor was assigned to the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, CA, the Army's premier training center, where he helped train units for deployment for 4 years. Colonel Taylor was next assigned to Fort Hood, TX, where he served as a brigade and battalion operations officer and executive officer in 4th Infantry Division, including a deployment to Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq. Following his assignment at Fort Hood, Colonel Taylor was selected through a highly competitive process to serve as an Army Congressional Fellow on the personal staff of my colleague Senator John Cornyn of Texas. Following his fellowship, he was assigned to the Army's Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison, where he served for 2 years as the Army's primary liaison for personnel issues to the U.S. Congress and the Armed Services Committees. During this assignment, Colonel Taylor was selected for command of 1st Squadron, 32d Cavalry, in the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, KY. Following command, he returned to the Pentagon, where he served for 3 years as a congressional budget liaison officer in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller. He expertly managed the Army's procurement and research, development, test, and evaluation portfolios, liaising with the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to provide critical resources for Army warfighters. His most recent assignment was the office's senior budget liaison, providing day-to-day leadership to 15 other budget liaisons who greatly benefited from his guidance and mentorship. Over the last several years, Colonel Taylor has developed a close working relationship with my office. As much as his Kansas ties mean to me and my staff, equally valued is Paul's strength of character and humble approach in serving others. He represents the best in our Army, and he will always be welcome in my office and as part of our Kansas community. I wish Paul, his wife Amy, and his daughters Lauren, Abigail, and Ella Kate the very best as they transition from Army life and move home to Kansas. On behalf of a grateful nation, I join my colleagues today in recognizing and commending COL Paul Taylor for more than 23 years of service to his country. Paul's leadership throughout his career has positively impacted his soldiers, peers, and superiors. We wish Paul, his wife Amy, and their children all the best as they continue their journey of service.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, in a rural State like my own, where many Kansans live more than half an hour from the nearest neighboring town, communities are stitched together by what they hear on the radio. For more than 40 years, Tad Felts has been broadcasting high school athletics and reporting north central Kansas news for KKAN-KQMA radio in Phillipsburg, but after several decades chronicling hundreds--or more likely thousands--of sporting events, Tad decided a couple years back it was time to watch a few more games from the bleachers rather than the press box. Now, this month, he will retire from radio altogether. Tad first started his radio career in Garden City at KIUL as a high school sophomore in 1948, working after school and at night for free. During his time at KIUL, his main duties were cleaning the floors and playing records. While he was a student at Fort Hays State University in 1951, Tad worked at KAYS radio station in Hays and upon graduation at KLOE in Goodland. Tad found his eventual home with the team at KKAN- KQMA in Phillipsburg in 1972. Given his decades of experience in broadcasting, Tad knows the business well and takes great joy in teaching others. Gerard Wellbrock, the sports director of KAYS radio in Hays and the voice of the Fort Hays State University Tigers said this about Tad: ``He was a good mentor, I learned so much from him. The work ethic, how to deal with people, the relations you build with athletic directors and coaches. It's hard not to like Tad. And you learned a lot about work, and life, just by being around him.'' In gyms across north central Kansas, the KKAN-KQMA banner can be seen at high school basketball games, wrestling tournaments, and State championships. In fact, it is because of Tad's dedication that the radio station is so often present. Families who can't make the game in person, often because they are working long hours on the farm, especially appreciate local radio hosts being there because they can still catch the details of the game. In rural America, entire communities revolve around how the high school sports team is doing. It is a common topic of conversation while standing in the checkout line at the grocery store or while dining at a neighborhood restaurant. By no means is Tad a one-trick pony, though. Cherished equal to his sports reporting are his updates from the field during wheat harvest season, in which Tad will drive straight up to a farmer in his combine and record an interview from the cab. This is in addition to the full slate of city council and school board meetings, county fairs, and annual parades. For years, Tad's knowledge and sunny disposition has greeted folks tuning in to local radio. One former peer of Tad's said this about the significant impact he has made: ``KKAN-KQMA Radio has played an integral role in the lives of people in the Phillipsburg area, and Tad has always been a driving force behind that station's programming and its scope of community service.'' His professionalism was recognized by his peers when Tad was inducted into the Kansas Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame in 2010. Inductees to the hall of fame are selected based upon their contributions to the broadcasting profession, their broadcast career, and their recognition and awards received, and Tad is an extremely deserving recipient. Today I want to express my gratitude to Tad Felts for helping to strengthen the close bonds of rural communities through his years of faithful service. I want to congratulate him on a job well done for the past nearly six decades. Tad's been a tremendous friend to me over the years, and his work has served as a bedrock for many of the communities I grew up in and care deeply about. Tad, I wish you all the best and thank you for everything you have done to improve the lives of so many in our great State.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I rise this afternoon in the middle of this debate on an appropriations bill because of the timing of a tragedy in our State and the reality that this is a week of importance to reflect upon what happened in Kansas just a few days ago. I wish to honor the life of Police Detective Brad Lancaster. He was a member of the Kansas City, Kansas Police Department, and he was killed in the line of duty. On May 9 of this year, Detective Lancaster joined Kansas City, KS, patrol officers in responding to a call about a suspicious person. When law enforcement arrived, the suspicious person fled into a field where Detective Lancaster exchanged gunfire and was hit twice. Unfortunately, ultimately, he died from his injuries. Detective Lancaster gave his life to keep his community safe, and he deserves our highest respect and appreciation, our love and care for his family, for his service, and for his sacrifice. His friends, family, and neighbors remember Brad Lancaster's commitment to his community and its extension beyond his 9 years of service to the Kansas City, Kansas Police Department. Before joining the police department, Brad served in the U.S. Air Force and completed two tours of duty abroad, including one in Kuwait during Desert Shield. Neighbors say Brad was a family man and one who was always there to offer a helping hand. Detective Lancaster is survived by his wife Jamie and two daughters, Brianna and Jillian. I join the Kansas City community and law enforcement agencies across the country in our prayers for Detective Lancaster and his family as we mourn his death. This tragic loss occurred just prior to National Police Week, a time in which we celebrate those who leave their homes and families each day and put their lives on the line to keep our neighborhoods safe. So today, during this National Police Week, and especially in the wake of this tragic death in Kansas City, I wish to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to American law enforcement officers and their families and to thank them for working tirelessly amid dangerous conditions for the sake of others and for upholding the law and for the burdens they shoulder and the sacrifices they make on a daily basis. We owe so much to these everyday heroes. Law enforcement officers perform some of the most difficult and hazardous jobs in America. A routine traffic stop can turn into deadly gunfire, a shootout without warning. Members of this legislative body and communities across America alike must do everything we possibly can to prioritize and protect the lives of those who protect us. Federally, efforts like the Justice Assistance Grant Program and the bulletproof vest grant program help enhance the safety of our law enforcement officers, and Congress's continued support of these efforts is important. This body passed the Fallen Heroes Flag Act, which was signed into law on Monday. This week, I hope the Senate will unanimously adopt a resolution to express appreciation to the police officers and honor each of the 123 who were killed in the line of duty last year. Support and appreciation for law enforcement must be delivered not only in the communities where officers have been killed but to every officer every day. When we as Americans commit to the safety, training, and support of law enforcement, we can help to secure our streets, strengthen our communities, and, hopefully, reduce the number of deaths in the line of duty. May Kansas City, KS, police detective Brad Lancaster and each of those fallen heroes rest in peace. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, over two decades ago, Congress passed a law on an overwhelming bipartisan basis to provide a standard way of doing business for motor carriers nationwide. This preemption provision resulted in increased efficiencies that led to lower transportation costs and improved services, which have benefitted shippers and consumers throughout the country. For two decades, this intent of Congress was adhered to for those involved in interstate commerce, and even upheld by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, a recent Ninth Circuit Court decision has brought confusion to what had been the clear intent of Congress, and in my home State of Kansas, numerous trucking companies and drivers have become victims of these unintended consequences. As the Senate begins consideration of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, THUD, Appropriations bill, the issue of trucking preemption laws may be debated once again. Due to escalating rhetoric and increasingly pointed statements regarding this issue, I sought the objective, authoritative policy expertise of the Congressional Research Service, CRS, to answer one-by-one many of the claims being made. As the debate on THUD appropriations moves forward, I would encourage any of my colleagues interested in the trucking preemption debate to consult this CRS analysis and judge for themselves the merits of this important issue. I think they will find many of the claims made in opposition are exaggerations, if not outright falsehoods, and that the original intent of Congress on this matter was and continues to be critical for preventing unnecessary burdens on an industry that hauls our Nation's freight and is vital to our economic well-being. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the CRS memo provided to me with its thoughtful and informative answers. Thank you.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, education is a critical to ensuring a bright future for both individuals and our society at large. There is no more important or more noble profession than teaching. Many of us have had teachers who changed our lives--myself included--educators who taught us not only the facts and figures but also instilled in us a love for learning and an interest in the world beyond the city limits of our hometowns. As a U.S. Senator representing the great State of Kansas and as an alumnus of the University of Kansas School of Law, it is my privilege to celebrate the careers of three outstanding legal academics: Mike Davis, Sandra Craig McKenzie, and Martin Dickinson. Mike Davis began teaching at the University of Kansas School of Law in 1971, but his academic life in Kansas began years earlier. Davis earned his bachelor's degree with honors from Kansas State University in Manhattan, KS. After completing his undergraduate education, Davis attended the University of Michigan Law School, where he was an editor on the Michigan Law Review. After earning his juris doctor and practicing law in the private sector, Davis went on to work with the Office of Economic Opportunity, culminating in becoming the associate director of planning and research for the legal services program. Davis then became a legislative assistant for Representative Louis Stokes before returning to Kansas to begin his career in teaching future lawyers. Professor Davis joined the KU Law faculty in 1971 and has had an impactful and storied career. He earned the ``Immel Award for Teaching Excellence'' and the title of Centennial Teaching Professor of Law. In addition to earning teaching accolades, Davis served as dean of KU Law School for 9 years and served as the interim dean from 2005 to 2006. Outside his teaching duties, he served as the American Bar Association standards and accreditation committees chair and was of counsel to the Kansas City firm of Stinson Morrison Hecker for 20 years. Colleagues at the law school praised Professor Davis's dedication to promoting the university's law school program. Students were also grateful for his commitment to maintaining a challenging and rewarding learning environment. The Kansas community thanks Mike Davis for his service, dedication, and contributions to the university's law school and the State of Kansas. Sandra Craig McKenzie arrived at KU Law in 1979 and has been a positive presence in Kansas ever since. McKenzie's legal life did not begin in our State, but she arrived in Lawrence with high accolades. McKenzie earned a bachelor's degree from the University of New Mexico and then went on to the University of New Mexico's School of Law, where she graduated magna cum laude and was a member of the New Mexico Law Review. After the receipt of her juris doctor, McKenzie went on to serve as a law clerk to the Honorable Oliver Seth of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and later spent 4 years working in tax and estate planning in Albuquerque before turning her talents to teaching. Sandra Craig McKenzie joined the KU Law faculty in 1979 as one of the institution's first female law professors. Professor McKenzie was KU Law's Elder Law LL.M. program director and an esteemed contributor to the elder law community, as well as a sought-after voice in Kansas local government law. McKenzie served as the law school's ombudsman and was a member of Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi, and the Order of the Coif. Friends and colleagues say her tenure was marked by accessibility as a teacher, dedication to women in the law, and leadership in making KU's law community a safe and equitable space for all students. The University of Kansas was without question enriched by Sandra McKenzie's committed 36-year career at the school of law, and her many contributions are appreciated throughout the university community. Martin B. Dickinson is the longest serving faculty member at the University of Kansas School of Law, where his distinguished 48-year tenure has earned him the highest regard from the university community. Dickinson received a bachelor of arts degree from KU in 1960 and then went on to receive a master of arts degree from Stanford University in 1961 and his juris doctor from the University of Michigan in 1964, where he was editor-in-chief of the Michigan Law Review. After finishing at Michigan, Dickinson became an associate at Holme, Roberts & Owen in Denver, where he practiced until joining KU Law. Dickinson joined the KU Law faculty in 1967 and quickly rose through the ranks, moving from assistant professor to associate professor in just 2 years. In 1971, Dickinson was named dean and professor of law at KU, a title he held until 1980. While serving as dean, Dickinson made great strides in strengthening the school's profile both in Kansas and nationally, creating new admission criteria, successfully appealing to the Kansas Legislature to fund a new building for KU Law and recruiting outstanding new faculty. These accomplishments put the KU Law community on a path toward growth and sustainability, and the university thanks him for these contributions. As his impressive decade as dean drew to a close, Dean Dickinson returned his focus to teaching alongside an of cousel position at Barber, Emerson, Springer, Zinn & Murray in Lawrence, KS. He also served on numerous State-level advisory committees related to property taxes, income tax, estate tax, and trust administration--all of which have made recommendations leading to important revisions of Kansas law. Additonally, Dean Dickinson gained nationally recognized authority in estate planning and taxation and became a coauthor of standard publications in those fields. In 1986, Professor Dickinson was named the Robert A. Schroeder Distinguished Professor of Law, KU Law's top honor. As a highly respected teacher and mentor in the KU Law community, Dickinson also received other top awards, including: the ``Chancellor's Award for Excellence'' in 1988; the ``Moreau Student Counseling Award'' in 1988, 1995, 1997, and 2009; the ``Immel Award for Teaching Excellence'' in 1997; and a Kemper Fellowship for Teaching Excellence in 2002. The Kansas Bar Association conferred the ``President's Award for Outstanding Service'' on Dickinson, as well as the Phil Lewis Medal of Distinction. He also received the ``ALI-ABA Harrison Tweed Award'' for excellence in continuing legal education and is a fellow at the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, the American College of Tax Counsel, and the American Bar Foundation. Professor Dickinson retired from the University of Kansas School of Law in 2015, as professor emeritus, leaving behind a rich legacy that has deeply impacted the entire KU community. The university will remember Dean Dickinson as a highly respected teacher, mentor, and friend. In the fall 2015 edition of the KU Law magazine, Dickinson was quoted as saying, ``Over the last five decades, KU Law has demonstrated an impressive capacity to respond to changes in Kansas, the nation, the world and the legal profession while continuing to honor its rich tradition.'' It is without question that KU Law has been able to navigate these changes because of Martin Dickinson's leadership, and KU's continuing tradition is no doubt marked by his impressive tenure at KU Law. Professors Dickinson, McKenzie, and Davis were intrumental in my own education and those of countless others. The products of their work, within academia and beyond, are vast, and my words today seek to reflect those contributions to the University of Kansas, the State itself, and the many communities to where their lessons were extended by way of their former students. As Professors Davis, McKenzie, and Dickinson near retirement, let us say thank you and celebrate their accomplished careers and the impact they had on the University of Kansas, their communities, and the State of Kansas.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, just a month ago, I was on the Senate floor talking about the struggles of a number of Kansas veterans as they attempted to utilize the Veterans Choice Program that Congress passed nearly 2 years ago. That program is being implemented by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. We looked for many opportunities to try to provide better service, more efficient service, more timely service to our veterans, and Congress ultimately came together and passed the Veterans Choice Act. As I indicated a month ago and numerous times on the Senate floor, that legislation, that law says if you are a veteran who can't receive the medical services you are entitled to, you have the opportunity to receive those services at a medical facility, a clinic, a physician, or a hospital at home. As an individual Senator who comes from a State as rural as most and more rural than many--and certainly as rural as the Presiding Officer's home State and the home State of the Senator from Missouri--we have a real interest in trying to make certain our veterans who live long distances from a VA hospital can access that medical care. I thought we took great satisfaction in the passage of that legislation. I certainly did. What we have discovered since then in its implementation has been one handicap, one hurdle, one bureaucratic difficulty, and one challenge after another. While maybe it is difficult for the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement this legislation, they are the ones who ought to suffer the challenges of doing so, not the men and women who served our country. During my conversation on the Senate floor a month ago, I talked about a number of veterans in Kansas and called them by name. One of those veterans was Michael Dabney, a Kansas veteran from Hill City, KS, in northwest Kansas, in the part of the State that I grew up in. A piece of good news is that Mr. Dabney is eligible for the Veterans Choice Program because he lives more than 40 miles from a VA facility. So Mr. Dabney qualifies under that Veterans Choice Program, and Mr. Dabney needed surgery and elected to use the Veterans Choice Program. There is a community-based outpatient clinic hosted by the VA in Hays, which is about an hour away from his hometown. He was receiving care and treatment there. The indication was he needed the surgery, and they suggested that he travel to Wichita--another couple hundred miles--for that surgery. But Mr. Dabney suffers from PTSD and indicated that he didn't feel comfortable and capable of traveling that extra 200 miles to receive the surgery. His primary care provider at the outpatient clinic in Hays indicated to him this: Well, you live more than 40 miles from a facility. You qualify for the Veterans Choice Act. You can have these services provided and this surgery provided at home. Mr. Dabney elected to do that. Rather than driving another 200 miles for surgery in a city far away, he had the surgery performed at home. That seems like the way this is supposed to work. But the end result was that, according to the VA, he didn't receive preauthorization. So despite his primary care provider telling him that he qualified for the Veterans Choice Act, after getting the service at home, he then started receiving the bills for that service. In frustration, he then contacted our office, and the folks in my office went to work. Here was an example that I thought we could be successful in solving. The record clearly indicates that his primary care provider, his VA primary care provider indicated he should utilize the Choice Act and have the services, the surgery provided at home. He did so. The VA then declined to pay for those services, and he began receiving the bills. So we went to bat for Mr. Dabney. Despite our efforts and despite his efforts, he has been told that those bills are due to be paid by him because he didn't get preauthorization. My point today is that the Department of Veterans Affairs ought to be the Federal agency that bends over backwards to help our veterans. I remember when the current Secretary testified before our Veterans' Affairs Committee in his confirmation hearing, and he indicated that he was going to run the Department in a way that was all focused on meeting the needs of veterans. Yet, just a few weeks ago, Mr. Dabney was told this by the VA. I don't know if they said they are sorry. They simply said: You didn't get preauthorization. You don't qualify. Those bills are your responsibility. I am here once again trying to highlight what happened. We went to the intermediary TriWest. They thought they could help us accomplish this and get the information that Mr. Dabney acted on and that this ought to be sufficient for the VA to pay the bill. And even with their help, the results from the Department of Veterans Affairs, through their Wichita hospital, said that Mr. Dabney obviously didn't understand the rules, and, therefore, they were not going to see that his bills were paid by the VA. This seems outrageous to me. The VA, through its employees, indicated he qualified. He relied upon that information, their assurance that he qualified, to have the surgery done at home. He is a veteran who needed surgery. He suffers from PTSD. He would be deserving of all the care, the treatment, and the consideration that could be given a man who served our country so well and suffered the consequences. Yet, despite the assurance that he should use the program, this decision was made: I am sorry, but you didn't dot the i's and cross the t's. I ask my colleagues to help me as we work our way through the implementation of the Veterans Choice Act. It is discouraging to me-- the number of veterans who tell me how disappointed they are with the Veterans Choice Act--when I thought it was such a great opportunity for their care and well-being. The end result is that many are discouraged, giving up on the Veterans Choice Act and not receiving the care and attention they need from the VA, deciding that the VA should not be their provider. The point is that we are failing them once again. We are failing them veteran by veteran, one at a time. The consequence is that the program is still not working. You cannot not meet the needs of a veteran and then have an expectation that we have done something useful and beneficial for that veteran. There is a discussion going on in the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and there are bills led by Senators Isakson and Blumenthal that address many of the issues plaguing the VA, ranging from their appeals system to accountability, to remedying the problems associated with the Veterans Choice Act. I urge my colleagues not to allow this opportunity to bypass, to go away. We must take these actions. In my view, this is an example of this problem that the VA should solve on its own. They should find a way to make this work. In their absence to do so, as Members of the Senate--certainly, I, as a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs--we have the obligation to continue to do battle for those who battled for our freedoms and liberties. I apologized to Mr. Dabney that he has been treated the way he has been by the Department of Veterans Affairs, by his government, and I will continue to fight on a case-by-case basis. But we do have a real opportunity as Republican and Democratic Senators to come together and agree upon a legislative solution to these and many other problems that plague us and plague our veterans. I simply am here to make the case, hopefully to the Department of Veterans Affairs, that they should find a way to care for this man who served his country and also to ask my colleagues to work together to make certain--in whatever ways legislatively we need act to meet the needs of those who served our country--that we do so. I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to address this issue and the cause of this veteran and many others. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be on the Senate floor as we begin the debate and discussion of legislation that I think is critical to certainly my home State of Kansas and important and valuable to the rest of the Nation as well. Kansas is known as an aviation State. Wichita, KS, is known as the air capital of the world, and one would expect a Senator from Kansas to be especially supportive of things that improve the opportunity for aviation, and that is certainly true. We care about the jobs that are in our State as a result of general aviation manufacturing, as a result of aviation manufacturing for large commercial airlines, and it matters. The FAA is an important component of the environment in our State as a driver of our State's economy, but I also point out that I am a strong supporter of general aviation and reauthorization of the FAA as a result of representing a very rural State. Kansas is made up of a number of larger communities, but small cities and towns dot our State. Those local airports and the ability to connect with those communities as a result of general aviation--the ability to fly to visit somebody but perhaps more importantly the ability for a business to be in a community, a small rural community-- exist in part because of those general aviation airports and those planes and pilots. So in communities across our State, we are able to have manufacturing and service industries that probably otherwise, in the absence of an airport and aviation, would have to be located in larger cities in Kansas or elsewhere. GA and FAA reauthorization is important to every Kansan, regardless of whether they are a factory line worker or engineer in Wichita and South Central Kansas or whether they are a hospital, a manufacturing business, or a service located in a small community in our State. I am pleased the Senate is beginning to do its work on the FAA reauthorization. I serve on the Committee on Commerce responsible for this product, and I am pleased the chairman and ranking member have worked closely together to get us to this point today in a bill that I hope--I assume subject to some amendments--I hope this bill then passes with strong support across both sides of the aisle. This FAA Reauthorization Act of 2016 will strengthen the industry by improving the FAA's process for certifying aircraft. Again, in that manufacturing sector in our State, one of the things that would be of great value is to have a process by which an improvement, a development, the manufacturing process, the product we manufacture is more readily and more quickly, more efficiently certified by the Federal Aviation Administration, making certain that those certifications allow those airplane manufacturers to compete in the global marketplace. This bill also addresses the Pilot's Bill of Rights. I see I have been joined on the Senate floor by the Senator from Oklahoma, the champion of this issue. We are pleased it is in this bill, and it reforms, among other things, the third-class medical certificate process for general aviation pilots--something that has been long overdue and something the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, has championed and continues to champion. Just this week, he called me asking for assistance as we make certain that this bill advances and the House approves language that is included in this bill. Another essential piece of this bill text, S. 2549, is the TSA Fairness Act. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation that was originally introduced by Senator Merkley and Senator Barrasso. The language provides protection for some of our small airports that have commercial air service. Generally, it is possible that air service is there, that small commercial airline flight is there because of the Essential Air Service Program, but in order for Essential Air Service to work and to meet the needs of a community and the traveling public, we need to make certain the TSA, the Transportation Security Administration, provides the necessary screeners and screening equipment that you would find in a larger airport. We want to make certain our rural communities that have commercial service--often flying to Denver International Airport--are screened before they enter the plane to fly to DIA, and this legislation includes language that would enhance that circumstance. I am also encouraged by the efforts in this bill to address the rapidly evolving circumstance we face with unmanned aerial vehicles. That industry is moving forward, again another Kansas industry that matters greatly. This legislation moves the ball forward for an environment where businesses, universities, and countless others can tap into the potential and the vast economic benefits of UASs, while maintaining high safety standards we would expect in the aviation world. I know my colleagues remember--I remember well--the 23 short-term FAA reauthorizations that have occurred leading up to the 2012 FAA reauthorization bill. It is hugely detrimental to our aviation system to have to tolerate, to have to figure out how to abide by these short- term extensions that eliminate the opportunity for long-term planning and create great uncertainty. I am pleased we are headed down the path of a longer term, more permanent FAA Reauthorization Act represented by this legislation, this act of 2016. I would ask my colleagues to work, all of us together, to make sure the end product is something we can be proud of. We certainly start in a position in which that is the case. Again, I commend Mr. Thune, the Senator from South Dakota, for his leadership and working with the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, getting us to this point today. This is an important piece of legislation for our country, its economy, and our citizens, and matters greatly to the folks back in Kansas. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from Oklahoma.

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. MORAN. I thank the Chair. Because of his age--Mr. Wierman needs to travel. It is difficult for him to do it. What he needs is an annual physical. So Mr. Wierman has attempted to utilize the Choice Program, and he was told there was no flexibility to be seen in La Crosse by a hometown doctor or go to a hometown hospital due to his proximity, his location next to an outpatient clinic. Mr. Wierman sacrificed for our country, and he deserves to be able to receive his care in his own community given the burden and strain traveling imposes upon him, a veteran of 92 years of age. We need to make certain he receives the care he is entitled to, and we need to make sure the VA is doing what needs to be done to accomplish that. My final example today is Mr. Dabney, who suffers from post-traumatic stress. He was also told he was eligible for Choice, so he set up an appointment with the local care provider. Despite the OK from the VA practitioner about getting care outside of the VA, the handoff got lost in the shuffle, and somehow the VA determined that it was Mr. Dabney's fault that the paperwork didn't follow him, leaving him with the bill for the services provided by the outside-the-VA practitioner. I shared this case with Secretary McDonald at a hearing the Presiding Officer and I attended several months ago. The conclusion months later by the VA was that Mr. Dabney simply didn't understand the Choice Act and he should have tried harder to get an official authorization before setting up the appointment; therefore, the bill still rests with him. Thankfully, the provider, the network TriWest, disagreed, and they are now elevating his case to try to make certain he doesn't have to pay the bill for the services the VA originally authorized him to receive outside of the VA. The Choice Act was designed specifically to help these veterans. They gave of themselves to serve our country and fought on our behalf, and they deserve the care and respect they should be receiving today from or country and its Department of Veterans Affairs. Our country must fulfill its commitments to these individuals and to others who provide for those who sacrificed for our Nation, regardless of the community they call home. Last week I joined my Senate colleagues in sponsoring the Veterans Choice Improvement Act of 2016. This legislation is designed to fix problems with the original Choice Act that the VA has been unable to resolve on their own to make sure these veterans receive what they are entitled to. As a member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I look forward to working with the Presiding Officer and other members and with our chairman, Johnny Isakson from Georgia, as well as the ranking member, Senator Blumenthal, for purposes of making sure that we get this right and that we make certain the VA does its job in caring for these men and women who served our country. I will continue to make certain that happens, and I continue to express my gratitude to those who served our country and renew my willingness and my desire to make sure they receive the health care they are entitled to. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I want to take a moment or two to speak about our Nation's veterans. The Presiding Officer and I have the honor of serving together on the Senate Veterans' Affair Committee. I take that responsibility--as does the Presiding Officer--very seriously. There is no other group of people that we should hold in higher regard than those who served our country. Today I want to talk about some of the challenges they are facing as a result of our failure to do that. Who would we expect to get the very best health care in our country? We want everyone to have good quality, affordable health care. But of all the people we would want to make certain received the health care services they were promised, clearly, it would be those who served our country--the men and women of our military who are now veterans. They deserve timely, high-quality health care. That is true whether they live in an urban or suburban setting or a rural place like your State and mine. There are more than 221,000 veterans who call Kansas home, and the vast majority of them live in very rural parts of our State. Before being elected to the Senate, before the honor that Kansans allowed me to serve them here in the Senate, I served in the U.S. House of Representatives. I represented the First District of Kansas, generally known in our State as the Big First. That is a congressional district larger than the State of Illinois, and there isn't a VA hospital in that congressional district. Veterans in this part of Kansas drive hours on end to get care, or they simply go without it all together. Over the past year, Congress has repeatedly passed legislation designed to ease the burden for veterans who are struggling to get health care from VA facilities in my State and yours and across the country. In the wake of the scandal, we learned across the country about the false waiting list for veterans. The VA put people on a waiting list that didn't really exist. The scandal across our country allowed us, as Members of the Congress and the Senate, to come together--Republicans and Democrats--and we passed legislation called the Choice Act. This legislation allows veterans who can't get timely service to access that service with a provider outside of the VA. Importantly--and what I want to talk about today--the Choice Act says that if you are a veteran who lives more than 40 miles from a VA facility, then at your request you can have those services provided by a local hometown physician, be admitted to your hometown hospital, see your local optometrist, and be treated by your local physical therapist or chiropractor. All of those things make a lot of sense for the veterans who live in the places where I come from. In the process of doing that, part of the goal was to ease the burden, in addition to providing quality and timely services, for those who live in rural places. Part of the theory--and I think rightly so-- in passage of the Choice Act was to lift a bit of the burden on the VA off of the VA. It has been difficult for them to have the necessary health care providers to meet the needs of veterans. So we began providing services in the community. And we are also speeding up the process by which a veteran who still goes to a VA hospital or still goes to a VA clinic gets services in a more timely and effective way. This past July Congress passed legislation to amend the Choice Act. We did so because of the number of problems we were encountering as a result of the stories that I heard from my veterans across our State-- and I know it is true of many Senators, if not all--about problems with the way the Choice Act was being implemented by the Department of Veterans Affairs. We amended that legislation to try to make it work better. In my view, that shouldn't have been necessary. The VA could have solved this challenge on their own but didn't. What it says is that it is not a facility. I have used this example on the Senate floor before. My hometown is a town of about 1,900 people. It is about 23 miles from the community of Hays--about 20,000 people--where there is an outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA was saying that you cannot access the Choice Act if you live within 40 miles of a facility, and the problem was that they were saying even if that facility doesn't provide the service the veteran needs. So by law, we changed the definition of what a VA facility is, and it said that it is not a VA facility if it is not open full time and doesn't have a full-time physician--a pretty commonsense kind of thing that we needed to apparently put in the law to get the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement and to interpret the Choice Act in a commonsense way that was designed to meet the needs of veterans. Unfortunately, many of our veterans remain unaware of their options. I talk to lots of veterans, some who have given up on Choice, some who don't know it is an option, and some who tried and are caught up in a bureaucratic system and are trying to get an answer about whether they qualify, and even if they do, where they can go and how their bill will get paid. Examples in my State: One of the Kansas VA community-based outpatient clinics--known as a CBOC--is only open 2 days a month, and it shouldn't be counted as part of the Choice Act, a facility of the Choice Act. There are 9 out of 14 CBOCs in Kansas that do not have a full-time medical doctor. Those nine community-based outpatient clinics should not be counted under Choice. I want to highlight that for veterans from Kansas and across the country who might happen to hear what I have to say today so they know there are more options than they may realize. Many Kansas veterans choose to live in rural communities. Many of us often choose to live in rural communities and raise our families, see our grandkids, and more often than not, those communities don't have a VA hospital or a clinic to serve those veterans' needs. In townhall meeting after townhall meeting and up and down Main Streets of communities in my State, the most common conversation I now have is with veterans who are expressing how the system is failing them, the frustration they are encountering, and that they are not seeing the improvements and changes for the betterment of the care they are entitled to. As I said earlier, many veterans are so frustrated with the back-and- forth they have with the VA and the redtape, they simply give up and either go without health care or end up trying to pay for it out of their own pocket. That is exactly what occurred to Mr. Lamoine Guinn, who is a rural Kansan. Mr. Guinn shared his story with me not to try to get me to solve the problem, but he wanted others to know how this program needed to change so that other veterans would benefit. After a year of dealing with the VA, he decided to simply give up on Choice. I don't want to let that happen. I don't want veterans to give up on Choice. I don't want the Department of Veterans Affairs to have the excuse to say Choice is not a viable program, veterans don't like it, and come back to Congress and tell us that it is no longer needed. If I were home in Kansas, I would explain it this way: Again, my hometown, Plainville--population now 1,900--used to have rail service, and over time the rail service diminished and became less effective. The rates went up, and fewer people used the rail service, the railroad, to haul grain in particular. Then the railroad could go to the regulators and say: Nobody is using the railroad; can we just abandon it? I worry that that kind of attitude and approach could happen with this issue if we don't make certain our veterans see the benefit and actually receive the benefits that come from the Choice Act. I don't want to give anybody--the Department of Veterans Affairs or other Members of Congress--the opportunity to say ``The Choice Act doesn't matter. People don't like it. It is not popular. Let's do something different'' when the reality is that it would be popular if it were working effectively and in a timely way and veterans were being cared for. Mr. Guinn lives in Oberlin, a small town, a county seat town in Decatur County, almost in Nebraska. It is one of those typical Kansas small farming communities. The closest VA facility to him is actually in Grand Island, NE. Although he is a Kansas resident, he is part of the Nebraska VA network because of its proximity to Grand Island. He is eligible under the Choice Program, and he needed to schedule spinal surgery with the community provider. That is what he wanted to do. So the VA referred him to HealthNet. HealthNet is the organization that manages this program for the Department of Veterans Affairs. HealthNet then referred him to TriWest because he is a Kansas resident. TriWest covers Kansas while HealthNet covers Nebraska. The health care providers were arguing about who is responsible for his care because he lives one place and his VA provider is in an adjoining State. My complaint is that it shouldn't matter where he lives. He is stuck in a bureaucracy. The burden ought not fall to him to solve all of his problems. The VA ought to step in and solve the problem for him and tell him what it is that ought to be done and get him out of the back- and-forth between the Nebraska and Kansas networks. He has now gone a year without the surgery. He is going to now drive to another VA medical center in Omaha--300 miles one way--so he can get the surgery he is entitled to have by his hometown provider or a regional hospital in his area. Many of our veterans--I don't know the age of this particular veteran, Mr. Guinn, but many of the veterans who live in those communities are World War II veterans and now more likely Vietnam veterans. The opportunity for them to have family around them, the ability for them to get long distances is a complete challenge. To have to go 300 miles, when the law says that he is a veteran and he, who served our country, is entitled to services at home, is a terrible mistake, and it ought to be something that can be sorted out, but every time he has attempted to do that, the burden still rests with him. We want the Department of Veterans Affairs to step in and figure this out and get it done and get it done quickly. Another veteran who reached out to my office for assistance was Mr. Francis Wierman, a 92-year-old veteran. He lives in La Crosse. It is a county seat town of a couple thousand folks. Because of his age, it is difficult for him to travel for his annual physical appointments. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak until I conclude my remarks.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I wish to address the Senate in regard to a terrible tragedy that has occurred in our State. I start with the premise that our immigration system is terribly broken and the consequences of flawed immigration policies exhibit themselves across our society. It is hard to understand why nothing has been done to address certain obviously dangerous vulnerabilities and specific problems that put American lives at risk. Sanctuary city policies and indifference about prosecution of illegal immigrants arrested for dangerous crimes and the tolerance of bureaucratic redtape by the administration all contribute to a dangerous degrading of the criminal justice system. The failure to address illegal immigration at all levels of government has been accounted for in lost lives. Sometimes a government failure is just annoying. Sometimes it is deadly. Decades of broken immigration policy contributed to the situation that led to the murder of four people in Kansas and another in Missouri. The victims are Michael Capps, 41 years old, Jake Waters, 36 years old, Clint Harter, 27 years old, and Austin Harter, 29 years old, all of Kansas City, KS, and Randy Nordman, 49 years old, of New Florence, MO. The man suspected of taking these lives is an illegal immigrant--a man who has unlawfully entered the United States three times. He has been arrested over and over. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he is a serious threat. Yet, despite these red flags, the system failed, and this man was free and able to commit these barbaric acts. The extent of the systemic breakdown in this case is sickening. How criminal suspects unlawfully in the country are processed is a failure. The policies are terribly ineffective. In the current system, justice is delayed by bureaucracy or obstructed, in some cases, amazingly, by design. A broken system--some people prefer it that way and work to make it so. Others simply permit it to persist. Regardless, this has resulted in horrific crimes. Sanctuary city policies and the laws that enable them must be fixed before the unnecessary loss of innocent life happens again. Failure to do so only allows more crimes like these murders and the spree of criminal behavior that preceded them. Congress needs to act now. The President needs to act now. The Department of Homeland Security needs to act now. Local governments and law enforcement agencies need to act now. The Senate's attempt to do just that has been stymied, but we must not give up on an effort to secure our Nation and protect Americans from harm. Failure to address these problems will only make the problems worse and will make them more difficult to solve later. Continuing the status quo means empowering career offenders, incentivizing law-evading behavior, impeding the prosecution of crime, and releasing dangerous and habitually unlawful individuals who have no place in our communities. The victims of crime like last week's horrors in Kansas City have been failed by their communities and by their political leaders. Americans and our communities will continue to pay the price for the failure of our immigration system and the refusal of policymakers to work together to fix it. Americans and their families will continue to pay--hopefully not again in the loss of life, but how can we guarantee that? We must act quickly. We must act now to correct these immediate problems, improve our Nation's broken immigration policies and laws, and stop the terrible consequences. The loss of life is a terrible thing, and probably in this circumstance had no reason to happen, would not have happened if jobs had been done. Kansans, Kansas families, Americans, American families deserve much, much better. These victims and their families--we honor them today, we offer our condolences and provide our sympathies--but these individuals and their families deserved better. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

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