Jerry Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, on a different topic, just for a moment I would like to indicate that it is time, unfortunately, for me to say good-bye to one of my long-time employees, Brian Perkins of Wichita, KS. A Kansan through and through is departing our staff at the end of the year. Brian came to our office when I was a House Member in 2009 and followed me here to the U.S. Senate. Among the issues that I consider most important as we try to care and work on behalf of Kansans and Americans are issues related to health care and issues related to education. Brian has been front and center in our office, day in and day out, on these issues. I have many wonderful and qualified staff members, but I think Brian is the role model for all of them, including for me. We have seen Brian time and again step up and act above and beyond the norm. In every setting he is genuine, he is sincere, and he demonstrates his care for Kansans in each and every circumstance. He is intelligent and knows the details of health care and education law, but the compelling factor about Brian is that he cares so much about getting it right and doing things for the right reasons. I understand there is sometimes a lack of appreciation by Americans across the country for the people who work here. I would exclude me and other Members of Congress from this statement, but I would think that almost without exception all of our staffs are worthy; those who work in the Senate, who work in our offices, and who work in committees are worthy of esteem and respect. These are people who work hard every day for a good and worthy cause. Most of them have an interest in policy or an interest in politics and decided that Washington, DC, the Nation's Capital was a place where they could do something for the good of their country. Brian exemplifies that. It is not easy to say good-bye to Brian. As Senators, we spend a lot of time with our staff. I want to express my gratitude to him on behalf of my family and me. I wish him and his family, Beth and their children, all the best as they move closer to family. It is another attribute of Brian; I think he has the sense that he hates to leave, but he knows he has a responsibility to his family. That is something Kansans also admire and respect. Brian, thank you very much for all the hours, days, weeks, months, and years in which you have advanced the good cause of government for the people of our State and the people of our country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the point of order and ask my colleagues to support the crop insurance program. In Kansas the weather is not always our friend. The most important farm program that farmers benefit from is the crop insurance program. We have eliminated other farm programs over a long period of time in the name of reform but have replaced them by crop insurance. Now crop insurance becomes the target. I yield.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I yield the floor to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 6 p.m. today, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I rise to visit for a moment with my colleagues, both Republican and Democratic, about the ongoing debate we are having over the appropriateness of having policy issues debated and then decided in appropriations bills. We are now at the stage in our legislative process in which it looks as if we are going to complete our work on the final spending bill for the fiscal year that ended a few months ago and that by December 11, when the continuing resolution concludes, we very well may have an appropriations bill that takes us into the new year completed. There are some in the Senate who have argued that within this appropriations bill there is no place for policy riders, for provisions in that bill that direct in a more specific way how we spend money. I would say that is a terrible mistake on the part of Members of the Senate to reach that conclusion, and I would say it is wrong for our country. It is wrong based upon the Constitution of the United States that creates three coequal branches of government. In the legislative branch, we know that our role is to legislate, to create the laws, to appropriate the money. There cannot be a distinction between legislating and appropriating money. They end up being the same thing. When we appropriate money, we are directing an administration to conduct itself according to that appropriations bill. Particularly in this case, we have a few Democrats who are arguing that there shouldn't be any policy riders included in that appropriations bill. I doubt that we would hear that from Democrats if this were a Republican President and a Democratic Congress. In my view, it ought not to be any different. Congress's role is to make decisions about how money is spent. For too long, Congress has given up the power of the purse strings. This is a significant development in our constitutional history because in giving up the power of the purse strings, we authorize the executive branch--that branch of Government that is to execute the laws, to administer the laws--to have significantly more power. The American people and our Constitution are harmed when any Executive-- this President, previous Presidents, future Presidents--exceeds the authority granted to them by the U.S. Constitution. Sometimes I think we end up supporting Presidential decisions that we agree with and oppose those, obviously, that we disagree with. But the reality is that if those decisions are unconstitutional, if they exceed the authority that Congress has granted an executive branch, they ought to be denied, regardless of whether we agree with those decisions or not. In other words, the Constitution should trump. In my view, this Congress and many who preceded us have taken the opportunity to be in the back seat, granting authority or allowing Presidents to consume additional power well beyond the Constitution. I am here to encourage my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats--to reexert our constitutional grant of authority to legislate. We ought not to pay undue deference to an executive branch, whether the President is a Republican or a Democrat. I would say that in the time I have been a Senator, in this first term of my term in office, we have seen an executive branch that has continued to increase its power and authority and exceeded, in my view, its constitutional grant of authority and in so many instances has exceeded the authority granted to them by a statute--a piece of legislation passed by the House, passed by the Senate, and sent to the President. The President should only be able to do those things which are granted to him or her by the Constitution or by legislative enactment pursuant to the Constitution. That seemingly has been forgotten during the recent history of our country. Congress holds the power of the purse strings. There are many of us--Republicans and Democrats--who would like to direct the executive branch in how money is spent. The appropriations bill ultimately will determine how much money is spent. But in addition to that, we have the ability to direct whether that spending can occur, shouldn't occur or how it should occur. I think all of you have heard me speak previously, and some of you may remember about a particular provision that I wanted included in the Interior and Environment appropriations bill related to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--the designation of the lesser prairie chicken as a threatened species. We have had this conversation. In fact, in a bipartisan way, that issue was voted on here on the Senate floor. It was approved, but the legislation it was attached to did not become law. Now the opportunity to instruct a Federal agency arises as we appropriate the money for them to operate. There are five States in the middle of the country-- New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma--that have felt the consequences of a decision made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the lesser prairie chicken as a threatened species. The issue that is so troublesome to me is that those five States have come together to solve this problem on their own without the heavy hand of the Federal Government. Conservation practices were being put in place. The U.S. Department of Agriculture was providing technical and financial assistance for conservation efforts to landowners to provide the incentives to put voluntary conservation practices in place across those five States. In my view, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only paid lip service to those conservation efforts. Their actions spoke louder than the words, and they listed the lesser prairie chicken as threatened. This decision at that point in time didn't provide enough time for local plans to prove their effectiveness, and the reality is the problem in our State and across that region of the country was that we didn't have moisture. We didn't have adequate snowfall. We don't have adequate rainfall. When you have little or no rain, you have little or no habitat. You can't solve that problem without moisture. Now the rains have returned. Over the last 2 years, just as you would predict and as common sense would tell us, if there is more rain, there is more habitat and there are more birds. The most recent census of the lesser prairie chicken indicates that in the last 2 years, the population of that bird has increased by 50 percent. Again, common sense tells us if there is rain and if there is moisture, there is habitat and the birds return. As the rainfall has returned, the habitat is growing, and it is healthy again. Local surveys indicate what we would expect: The bird's population is again increasing. Therefore, one might think it would be useful to take a second look at the listing. Despite our request of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, they dismissed with little thought that as the species has returned, maybe it should no longer be listed. The opportunity that I and others have to rein in decisions that we believe are poorly made, lack common sense, and are unreasonable occurs in this appropriations process. My guess is that all of my colleagues have certain issues on which they want to direct a Federal agency about how to behave, what rules and regulations are appropriate, where we believe they have exceeded their authority or where they simply lack the common sense or sound science to have made an appropriate decision. There are some who say you shouldn't legislate on an appropriations bill. An appropriations bill is a legislative effort, and it would be wrong for us not to take the opportunity to direct agencies on behalf of the American people, on behalf of the constituents--in my case of Kansas--who feel very strongly about this issue and have suffered the consequences of the listing of the lesser prairie chicken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Despite the practical reasons that this listing should be reversed, the agency is not listening, and we ought to take the opportunity to direct their behavior in a legislative way. Whether or not an amendment is approved is decided here in the Senate by a majority vote. I would tell you that in the case of this issue, the amendment was offered in the Appropriations Committee. It is included in the Interior appropriations bill. The House has adopted similar language in their appropriations bill. So for those who say this is inappropriate, this is the legislative process as it should be. This is the Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives speaking on behalf of their constituents in a very constitutional and appropriate way. It is important for us to utilize our authority as Members of Congress to make decisions that benefit our country as we see best, and we ought to work together to accomplish that. There will be riders-- provisions that are offered that are included in an appropriations bill--that I will disagree with, but the appropriations process ought to work. As a member of the Appropriations Committee and as a Member of the Senate, I want to see us get back to the days in which the power of the legislative branch is able to be utilized and we make certain that we make decisions on how we spend the money. I appreciate the opportunity to be on the Senate floor today to speak as we move next week toward the appropriations bill and its conclusion. I wish to say that in a bipartisan way, we ought to work together to find opportunities to solve the problems that our constituents and Americans face. The legislative process is a way that we can do that. It is not inappropriate. In fact, it is the constitutional response to an abuse of power in an executive branch. Whether it is a Republican executive branch or a Democratic executive branch, we ought to work together as Members of Congress in utilizing our constitutional authority to make appropriate decisions for the American people.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, we are in the process of discussing an appropriations bill--called an omnibus bill. For the first time in a long time we have passed an appropriations bill in the Senate. That is progress. We are working on a second one today as well. As we debate the priorities and spending levels for this final appropriations bill for this year, I want to highlight an opportunity we have to deliver on a promise to provide strong support for the National Institutes of Health and for the lifesaving biomedical research that results in that spending. I would also mention that we have the opportunity to assist in financial support, in providing resources to advance the efforts of a couple of agencies that are greatly allied with NIH; that being the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Defense and its medical research as it finds cures and treatments for our military men and women and the consequences of their service, as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. What I want to highlight is that if we fulfill a promise in regard to medical and biomedical research, we can position our country to provide steady, predictable growth to NIH, the largest supporter of medical research in the world. This sustained commitment, which has been absent for so long, will benefit our Nation many times over and bring hope to many patients in today's generation and those that follow. Unfortunately, we have not adequately and we have not always upheld our responsibility in this regard. The purchasing power of the National Institutes of Health has diminished dramatically. If you account for inflation, NIH receives 22 percent less funding than it did in 2003. This has negatively impacted our research capacity. In the best of times, NIH research proposals were funded one out of three times. So if there were three proposals, one of them was accepted for funding. That ratio has now fallen to one in six, the lowest level in history. The challenge is ours, and the moment to act is now for our moms, our dads, our family members, our friends, for people we don't even know, and for the fiscal condition of our country. If you care about people, you will be supportive of medical research; and if you care about the fiscal condition of our country, you will be caring about medical research. I am a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, which is responsible for the funding of NIH and these other agencies. Earlier this year, under the leadership of my colleague and friend from Missouri, the chairman, Senator Blunt, my Senate appropriations colleagues and I were successful in significantly boosting NIH's budget in the Senate's fiscal year 2016 appropriations bill. We achieved more than a $2 billion increase in NIH. This is an amount around $1.95 billion more than the President's request and more than $880 million above the number contained in the House's version of this legislation. This $2 billion increase would be the greatest baseline boost to NIH since 2003. It bothers me when I say it is a boost to NIH because what it is a boost to is not a Federal agency but rather a boost to the results, the consequences of that investment in research. With the recent 2-year budget deal that became law recently, it presents a path by which we are able to deliver a much needed budget increase to NIH and to prioritize important research that saves and improves lives, reduces health care costs, and fuels economic growth. This boost would be a tremendous step in putting NIH back on a sound path of predictable, sustainable growth, demonstrating to our Nation's best and brightest researchers, medical doctors, scientists, and students that Congress supports their work and will make sure they have the resources needed to carry out their important research. The time to achieve this objective is now. If the United States is to continue providing leadership in medical breakthroughs, to develop cures and treat disease, we must commit significantly to supporting this effort. If we fail to lead, researchers will not be able to rely upon that consistency, we will jeopardize our current progress, stunt our Nation's competitiveness, and lose a generation of young researchers to other careers or to other countries' research. Whenever Congress crafts appropriations bills we face a challenge. We all face this issue of balancing our priorities with the concern about making certain our Nation's fiscal course is on a better path than it has been. Therefore, it is extremely important for us to find those programs that are worthy of funding, that actually work, that are effective, that serve the American people and demonstrate a significant return to the taxpayer who actually pays the bill. Congress should set spending priorities and focus our resources on initiatives that have proven outcomes. No initiative I know meets these criteria better than biomedical research conducted at the National Institutes of Health and our other Federal allied agencies. NIH-supported research has raised life expectancy, improved quality of life, lowered overall health care costs, and is that economic engine our country so desperately needs as we try to compete in a global economy. Today we are living longer and we are living healthier lives thanks to NIH research. Deaths from heart disease and stroke have dropped 70 percent in the last half century. U.S. cancer death rates are following about 1 percent each year, but as we know, much work remains. Diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's disease, stroke, and mental illness touch all of us, touch all of our communities, touch all of our States, and dramatically affect our country. Half of the men and one-third of all women in the United States will develop cancer in their lifetime. One in three Medicare dollars is spent caring for an individual with diabetes. Nearly one in five Medicare dollars is spent on people with Alzheimer's or other dementias. In 2050, it will be one in every three dollars. In other words, the cost of dementia and Alzheimer's grows dramatically over time. New scientific findings are what yield the breakthroughs that enable us to confront these staggering financial challenges of these diseases and others. Therefore, in order to advance lifesaving medical research for patients around the world, balance our Federal budget, control Medicare and Medicaid spending, let's prioritize biomedical research and lead in science and in discovery. I appreciate the opportunity, as we work to fashion this final appropriations bill before the deadline of December 11, to work with my colleagues across the Senate to make sure that biomedical research, NIH, and its allied agencies receive the necessary financial support that benefits all Americans today and in the future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

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 November 16, 2015, at 5 p.m., to conduct a classified briefing entitled ``U.S. Policy Tools to Combat North Korea's Nuclear and Ballistic Missile Capabilities.''

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time remaining on this nomination be yielded back.

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

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, this week has been devoted legislatively to discussing and considering legislation affecting an EPA regulation called waters of the United States. It is one more example of executive overreach by an increasingly unaccountable Federal agency. I want to speak about our efforts here on the Senate floor this week and again encourage my colleagues to continue their efforts to make certain this overreach is responded to by Congress. The courts have spoken, but we want to make certain we do our job. One of the criticisms I hear regularly from people who support this regulation is this: Don't you care about water quality? Don't you care about clean water? I absolutely think it is important to protect our Nation's waterways. If you are a Kansan, water is life, water is the future of your community. Water matters greatly. We are not against clean water. Agriculture producers--which dominate in my State--across Kansas are strongly opposed to this regulation, but they are certainly not opposed to the efforts to keep our water supply safe and clean. Most Kansas farmers and ranchers hope to pass their land and their farming operations on to their kids and grandkids. It serves their interests to preserve the land and water to which their family farms are tethered. It is not the Washington lobbyists and the environmental radicals who are telling Americans ``If you oppose this regulation, you are opposed to clean water.'' That is what they say. Kansans care greatly and particularly farmers and landowners who want their children to enjoy their farm or ranch in the future care greatly about clean water. It is EPA's abusive regulatory path, characterized by fines, penalties, and potential civil lawsuits against landowners, that gives us major cause for concern. The Federal Government should not dictate to citizens how they manage their private lands. I believe there are better ways to promote water quality than with threats of severe fines, penalties, or even jail time. One of the ways we see this effort take place is through the Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service. NRCS promotes soil and water health not by mandates and threats from Washington but through collaborative, voluntary approaches that encourage conservation through incentives and on-the-ground technical assistance for those landowners. Unlike the EPA, which seems to view agriculture producers as untrustworthy partners who must be forced into caring for the land, NRSC and the USDA Farm Service Agency efforts are successful in large part because they operate under the recognition that farmers and ranchers are devoted stewards to their land. Policies such as the Grassroots Source Water Protection Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program are examples of voluntary approaches that incentivize innovation, provide technical assistance, and more broadly promote clean water through localized, cooperative efforts. Compare those approaches to what we are debating here on the floor today and earlier this week--an overly broad, overly complex, overly ambitious regulation drafted by an agency that has shown a complete unwillingness to listen to or work with landowners. This regulation is pretty straightforward. If it is water, EPA has the authority to regulate it unless it decides it doesn't want to. Again, what this regulation basically says is that if it is water, EPA has the authority to regulate it unless EPA decides it doesn't want to do it. First, EPA declares that all ``tributaries'' are waters of the United States. Tributaries are defined as anything with a bed, banks, or an ordinary high-water mark, regardless of the frequency or duration of the water flow. This kind of definition is so broad and all- encompassing that the EPA can assert jurisdiction over streams and ditches that may flow only for a few hours following a rainstorm. This regulation also controls waters that are ``adjacent'' to any water that is under EPA's jurisdiction, including 100-year-old floodplains. And if somehow water could still escape the EPA's long shadow, its broad definition, they came up with yet one more way to regulate it. The regulation states that if waters aren't adjacent or are not tributaries, they can still regulate if there is ``significant nexus'' between the waters EPA wants to regulate and navigable or interstate water. What that means is that every drop of rain can be regulated because every drop of rain always ends up in a body of water that is navigable. All EPA has to do is establish some connection between the two, and they have granted themselves the authority to regulate the waters. With its significant civil fines and criminal penalties for those not in compliance, we can see why so many Americans are concerned. Last year, EPA went on a public relations campaign of sorts to convince stakeholders and to convince people across the country that they only meant to ``clarify,'' not expand, the regulation. Instead of lecturing, the EPA should have listened to the overwhelming feedback they received from constituents, including many who attended a meeting in Kansas City. The EPA should have scrapped the rule and started over. Now we have learned that not only did the EPA ignore the outcry of the American people, but they also disregarded the technical experts at the Army Corps of Engineers who described the rule as ``not reflective of the Corps' experience or expertise.'' Again, the Corps is the agency that the EPA is to work with to develop rules. They are the experts, and they say this rule is not reflective of the Corps' experience or expertise. The Corps says it is not accurate. The Corps says it is not supported by science or law. The Corps says it is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision. And the Corps says it is regulatory overreach. It is obvious that the regulation exceeds the EPA's legal authority under the Clean Water Act. It is equally obvious that the EPA intended to run roughshod over anyone who disagreed. The waters of the United States regulation is, in short, a breathtaking abuse of power, and it is something Congress needs to address. For too long, Congress has looked the other way when this Executive or any other occupant of the White House exceeds their congressionally mandated legal authorities. Republicans perhaps look the other way when there is a Republican President and Democrats look the other way when there is a Democratic President. The reality is that Congress needs to play its constitutional role in determining what the law is and prevent the abuse that comes from a White House that exceeds that legislative authority day after day. The EPA's regulations ignore two Supreme Court opinions. It ignores a time-honored understanding of what the law does and does not permit in the way of regulation, as evidenced by numerous legislative attempts rejected by Congress to amend the Clean Water Act that the Obama administration now does by regulatory action. It ignores the serious repercussions for farmers and ranchers, electric cooperatives that provide electricity to my State, the oil and gas industry that provides jobs across Kansans, the homebuilders that provide homes for Kansans, and many other small business owners in our State and across the country. And it ignores the concerns voiced by so many more, including State and local officials across Kansas and our Nation. At the end of the day, if the goal is to promote clean water and responsible land management, there is a much more effective method to do so, as evidenced by the voluntary cooperative efforts within USDA that respect private property rights, incentivize conservation rather than criminalize landowners, and don't threaten to do irreparable harm to our country and to the jobs Kansans so desperately need. I urge my colleagues to block this regulation and to force the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to work with State and local officials and those affected by the regulation in protecting real waters of the United States. We must protect those waters. We should do it much differently than the Environmental Protection Agency proposes. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for yielding to me, and I appreciate both my colleagues from Missouri and Kansas joining us on the Senate floor this afternoon. I wonder if there are folks out in the country who might not be baseball fans and are wondering, with all the challenges our country faces, why these four Senators have gathered on the Senate floor to talk about baseball. But the reality is that this is an example of what can happen when we work together. We are divided here between Republicans and Democrats in support of this legislation, and that is much easier to overcome than the fact that Missourians and Kansans are working together. There has been a long rivalry between our two States, much of it done with a smile but some done with a little more intensity than just that smile of Kansas versus Missouri or Missouri versus Kansas. The good news is the Royals and their championship are more evidence that rivalry--when it comes to important issues, when it comes to the ability to work together for the benefit of Kansas City and Missouri and Kansas, those communities come together. I guess my colleagues ought to know that there is Kansas City, MO, and there is Kansas City, KS, and suburbs of both those cities on both sides of the State line. As I have said, as communities they have come together to make sure good things happen, and the Royals is just one more example. This is something that matters to Kansans, whether they live close to Missouri or they live close to the Royals stadium. The first overnight visit I ever made to Kansas City and actually spent the night in this big city--I grew up about 350 miles west of the stadium--was to watch the Royals play ball in the old stadium. All my life I have said, ``Come on, Royals.'' You can walk through the room in our house, the television is on, the Royals are playing, and that expression out of my mouth is always ``Come on, Royals.'' It is something we all grew up with, wherever we lived in the State of Kansas. You can find almost no fan of baseball in our State who is not a Royals fan. There is something also about this Royals baseball team. Throughout my lifetime, hearing the voice of Denny Matthews and Fred White as they called the games in Kansas City and around the country gave me a sense--and still today gives me a sense--of peace; that there is something still right in the world; that baseball is still played and teams come together. Most of us grew up in our early days being on a softball or a baseball team. Baseball brings us together. So while my colleagues and I recognize the importance of the many issues that our country faces and that we are dealing with in the Senate and in the Congress in Washington, DC, there is something comforting in knowing that America can still come together on a pastime, on a sport, on an activity that still means so much to so many Americans. So we celebrate with this resolution and ask our colleagues to join us in approving this effort in honoring the 2015 World Series champions. It was an amazing season. This is something that hasn't happened since 1985. So 30 years ago, in Kansas City, the Royals played in the World Series and won. I still envision my wife and her deceased father--her now deceased father. Robba, with her dad, grew up on the Missouri side of the State line, in the shadows of Kauffman Stadium. I can still envision what it was like for a little girl to grab hold of her dad's hand and go to a Royals game to watch baseball. Again, it brings families together on an almost weekly basis over a long season in Kansas City, and it has been true in our family. We are here today to commend the great things that happened during this season. Since the last time the Royals were champions, many Kansans, many Missourians, many Americans have grown up and gone off to college, served in our country's military, gotten married, and started their own families. So there is great pride, and we are here to affirm how good it feels to have that success once again. It is pleasing to be an American where baseball is a way that we live our lives, and it brings us together. It is great to be a Kansan who is so proud of the Kansas Royals, and it is great to represent many folks in Kansas City who know life as something that surrounds them with the Kansas City Royals. This was a special year, a special team, and they loved playing the game. They exuded confidence. They never lost focus. Having fallen 90 feet short a year ago, the Royals players were relentless this year in their drive to get back to the World Series, and it was a joy for all of us to watch them accomplish that and finish that job last weekend against the New York Mets. So I join my colleagues in congratulating the Royals team, the Royals fans, and Americans who enjoyed this sport and saw great sportsmanship on a baseball field. We are thankful to Mr. Kauffman, and now Mr. Glass, and their families who have invested their efforts and their time and their commitment to the Kansas City Royals. We appreciate the general manager Dayton Moore, and the manager Ned Yost, and commend and congratulate them on this amazing accomplishment. We hope we don't have to wait another 30 years for another national championship involving the Royals and their crowning again. Once again, I would say, ``Come on, Royals.'' Mr. President, I yield back to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, in the morning we will vote on a budget agreement and I will vote no. I think it is useful and important for my constituents to understand my thinking and the basis on which I reach that conclusion. In my mind, one of the most important issues that we face in this country today is the fiscal condition of our country. The amount of debt that we incur and the amount of debt that we continue to incur is a significant drag on our economy, on job creation, and, in reality, on the American dream. It is an economic issue. At some point in time, if we don't get our fiscal house in order, we will pay a significant price. We can either deal with this issue in a gradual, incremental way, in which we set ourselves on a path to right, or we can wait for the crisis to occur, which I have no doubt will happen. While it is often said that this is an economic issue, and fiscal issues matter to the country, I also would point out that this is not just an economic issue. It is a moral issue. The borrowing of money to pay for services and goods that the government provides the American people is a selfish circumstance in which we take the so-called benefits of government programs today and expect future generations of Americans to pay for those benefits. It is wrong economically for us to continue down the path of fiscal irresponsibility, but it is also morally wrong to expect someone else to pay for the so-called benefits we receive today. As to this issue today, this Bipartisan Budget Act--this bipartisan effort to resolve the circumstance we find ourselves in because we face a debt limit problem--the problem is that if we don't do something, then we reach the debt limit. There are those who will argue that the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling are so dramatic, so damaging that we need to do that regardless of the fiscal consequences of doing so. I come down on the side of fiscal responsibility, and I want to explain why. I want Kansans to know how I think about this issue. In fact, one of the first letters I ever wrote to President Obama as a new U.S. Senator, March of 2011, was an explanation to the President that he needed to work with Congress, and I offered to work with the President and the administration and my colleagues in the Congress and the Senate to see if we couldn't find a solution so that when we raised the debt ceiling, we actually did something that would change the course, the path of spending we are on. I explained to Kansans, by publishing that letter and explaining my comments in the letter to the President, what I believed was important, most important. Unfortunately, since 2011 we are no more on a course of fiscal sanity than we were when I wrote the letter to the President. Here is the point I want to make. If we give up the leverage, the opportunity that this issue presents to us as Members of Congress, to force us to do things that we apparently don't have the will, the courage, the political desire to do, how do we ever get it done? Again, I guess there will be editorialists--certainly across the country and perhaps a few in Kansas--who will say that we need to raise the debt ceiling because it is irresponsible not to. Isn't it also true that it is irresponsible simply to raise the debt ceiling every time we need it? If we don't take advantage of the circumstance we are in to force ourselves to do the things that need to be done, we are irresponsible. I read a lot of history. For a few years I have studied our country as a private citizen, and I have been involved in the political process in Washington in trying to resolve problems our country faces. Here is an observation: Things have changed over time. It used to be a bipartisan desire, a bipartisan understanding that balancing the budget was important. One of things that has changed over time is there no longer seems to be the desire on the part of many in Congress--many don't see it and in my view Democrats in particular don't see deficits as a bad thing. We look the other way. Maybe in days gone by, when there was broad consensus from Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents that balancing the budget was something that mattered, that reducing the debt at least over time was important, that when we incurred expenditures going to war that we paid for them, that was something that was generally believed across the country by the vast majority of Americans and by the vast majority of Members of Congress, regardless of what political party they associate with. That consensus, that drive, that insistence that we do that no longer exists, which highlights for me that the necessity of using this issue of whether the debt ceiling should be raised to determine what we should do about reducing spending, reducing the debt, figuring out what the balance is between taxes and expenditures is all the more important. If I had any faith that this Congress, this President were going to deal with the deficit, regardless of what happened with the debt ceiling, then I wouldn't be interested in using the debt ceiling as a tool to force change in behavior in Washington, DC, but unfortunately I have no faith that there are enough people here who care enough about the deficit to do something about it unless we are forced to do so. At the moment, the only tool I have is to insist we use this opportunity, in which we are requested to raise the debt ceiling, to change the course our country is on in regard to spending and deficits. Again, the argument may be by some it is irresponsible. In fact, I have heard so many times that all we are doing is authorizing the borrowing of money to pay for the things we have already encumbered. Wouldn't it seem a better solution for us to quit encumbering over time rather than coming after the fact and saying let's raise the debt ceiling? But the reality apparently is there is no will to do that. We can say it is irresponsible not to raise the debt ceiling. We can say we are only paying for the things we have already decided to spend money on, but if that is the only thing we say, we never take it to the necessary step of doing anything about the problem. It is irresponsible not to use this opportunity to force us to behave in ways that are good for the country today, that are economically solid and sound, that are morally correct. Borrowing money ad infinitum is not an option for this country under either economic or moral circumstances. It is irresponsible for us to once again decide we will try to solve this problem later. I have always thought that the most important political issue we face, the one that has been most important to the country since I was elected to the Senate, was how do we make certain that the economy is growing, there are job opportunities, people feel secure in their employment, they have the opportunity to advance their careers, and they have the sense that they are saving for their kids' education, that they are saving for their own retirement. This issue of the fiscal condition of our country inhibits the ability for that economic security to be available to Americans. I wish to conclude by saying we need to do what is responsible. What is responsible is making certain we pay our way and that we don't expect others to do so in the future. To only say that we have to reach this agreement in order to avoid greater challenges in our country is to walk away from something that I think is a primary and important responsibility of Congress and the President. It is unfortunate. In my time and service in the Senate, President Obama has been the President, but I have seen no political will on the part of this administration to do anything about the long-term consequences of spending more money than we have. That means we have no choice but to insist that something be done, and the only opportunity before us is this question of whether the debt ceiling should be raised without corresponding reductions in spending. In my view, those reductions in spending take priority. It is important. Our primary responsibility as American citizens, as an American citizen, not just as a U.S. Senator but all of us as American citizens--we have a responsibility to do two things for the future of our country: protect and preserve the freedoms and liberties guaranteed by our Constitution and make sure the American dream is alive and well so future Americans have the chance to pursue their dreams in this country. To continue to borrow money to put our country's fiscal condition in jeopardy once again means we will have failed that responsibility because the spending and borrowing of money inhibits our personal liberties and freedoms and reduces economic opportunity, the American dream for all Americans. I will vote no. I yield the floor to the Senator from Nebraska.

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I spoke a few moments ago on the Senate floor, and as I was leaving I was made aware of an article in which the minority leader, Senator Reid, was quoted. I wish to highlight something I want my colleagues to hear and know. What the Senator from Nevada indicated was--the article begins: Having secured their goal of getting a budget deal addressing the debt ceiling and sequestration cuts, Democrats are now looking forward to the appropriations process. As an appropriator, so am I. I am interested for us to have the opportunity, if this budget agreement passes, to make decisions about the priorities of spending within those budget numbers. What is so troublesome to me is that the indication was that President Obama and Democrats stand firm against efforts to target environmental regulations and other contentious riders. I am quoting the Senator from Nevada: We're holding hands with the president, we're all holding hands. We are not going to deal with these vexatious riders. We feel comfortable and confident. . . .'' He goes on to talk about the agreement. This is a Congress that is supposed to deal with contentious and vexatious issues. Why does anyone have the opportunity to say it is off the table? It happened in these budget agreements in which we were told dealing with mandatory spending is off the table. Yet it is one of the most important issues we need to address, and you ought not start negotiations by saying we are not even going to talk about an issue. In this case, ``off the table, not subject to discussion'' is the issue of contentious or environmental regulations. Congress--Republican and Democratic Members--ought to care about the power of Congress that is granted to us by the Constitution in our representation of the American people. We need the days in which the Congress and Members of Congress are not wedded to a Republican President or a Democratic President just because they happen to be Republicans or Democrats. We need to make decisions based upon what is good for the country, not whether we are backstopping a President who happens to be a Member of our political party. Where are the Members of Congress who say congressional authority is the constitutional grant of power to act on behalf of Americans? We need not only to establish priorities as a Congress when it comes to the spending process, but we need to make decisions when an agency or a department exceeds their authority, when they operate in ways that are contrary to what we believe is in the best interest of the country, in circumstances in which they are doing things that lack common sense. The role of Congress is to direct the spending. It is granted to us by the Constitution of the United States. We are saying that while we are pleased we have a budget agreement, we will not stand for Congress determining whether the money can be spent in a certain way, whether it can be prohibited from being spent in a certain way. We are taking vexatious riders off the table. This is our responsibility. It is just as important for us to determine whether money should be spent at all as it is for us to determine how much money can be spent on a government program. It is particularly true, I don't think there is any question but that this administration has been the most active, many of us would consider acting in an unconstitutional way in the development of regulations, of policies, of the bureaucracy of what the departments and agencies are doing. This is an administration that cries out for congressional oversight, not for someone who says it is not even on the table to be considered. I would think Republicans and Democrats both ought to have an interest in determining how money is spent as well as whether we should tell an agency, a department they can't spend that money at all. Many of my Democratic colleagues have indicated they support a number of riders, including ones that are considered environmental. Waters of the United States is one that I have been told numerous times that my colleagues on the Democratic side of this Congress support the rider that is in the appropriations bill. Numerous times I have been told that many Democrats support reining in the regulations that are coming from the Department of Labor related to a fiduciary rule. Now we hear that vexatious environmental riders are off the table. We ought not allow that to stand. It is not that I expect every rider that I am for to receive approval of Congress, but those votes ought to be taken. That is our responsibility and majority rules. Again, the circumstance we now find ourselves in, this is nothing that we are even going to talk about. It is troublesome to me that those of my colleagues who have expressed support for those riders--I guess I should explain to Kansans and to Americans, a rider is a provision--language in the appropriations bill that oftentimes says no money can be spent to implement this idea, to implement this regulation. It is an absolutely important responsibility for Congress. It is not unusual. It is not something outside the boundaries of what we are supposed to be doing. It is absolutely a significant component of our responsibility. Now those who claim they are for a rider, say the Waters of the United States or the fiduciary rule that the Department of Labor is promulgating--we have colleagues who say they are for that. Now they will be able to say: I am for it, but I never had a chance to vote on it because it was off the table. I would again ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, don't fall into this trap in which we are here to support ad hoc, at every instance, the executive branch just because they happen to be a Member of our political party. When there is a Republican President, I hope to abide by those same rules. I am here on behalf of Kansans and on behalf of Americans, not on behalf of an administration regardless of their political party, and we ought to demand that Congress do its work. We had an election, the people of this country asked for something different, and once again we are back in the circumstance in which no longer are we able to move forward on legislation. I assume by what the former majority leader is saying that when he says it is off the table, he means there will not be 60 votes for us to even consider an omnibus bill in which those riders are included. Now, what I will say is that before long, we are going to be hearing about how Republicans are interested in shutting down government because they want these riders. Well, the reality is that the Senator from Nevada is indicating there is no discussion, and the blame ought not fall on those of us who actually wanted Congress to work. The allegation of shutting down government ought to rest on those who say: We won't even discuss an appropriations bill that includes vexatious or contentious riders. Who would want to be a Member of a Congress that is unwilling to deal with contentious issues? It is our constitutional responsibility. The American people ought to demand the opportunity for us to address issues of importance to them, and it ought not be off the table before the conversation even begins. Again, the point is that we have a constitutional responsibility that we failed to exercise. When the decisions are made, it is off the table. We need a Congress that works, and we need a Congress that puts the American people above defending a President, regardless of his or her political party. I yield the floor. Measure Discharged and Placed on the Calendar--S.J. Res. 20

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak about a piece of legislation that is pending before the Senate and is expected, as I understand it, to be considered tomorrow, and that would be a short- term extension of the Transportation bill. While I am tired of short-term extensions of transportation bills, it is my understanding that in this particular case a short-term extension will lead us to a long-term transportation bill. I certainly welcome the opportunity to consider something that would meet the needs of our country--its infrastructure needs, our highways, roads, bridges--for a number of years to come. We have to get to the point at which we are dealing with issues over a longer period of time than we do when we do a short-term extension. It is also important for us to make certain there is certainty so that the Kansas Department of Transportation and other departments across the country, as well as highway contractors and those who use our highways, can have certainty in what the transportation system--the roads, bridges and highways--is going to be. There is another issue of uncertainty that is out there, and it has to do with positive train control. Included in the legislation, extending the time for us to consider a transportation bill, is a provision that extends the deadline for the final implementation of positive train control, a safety issue that has long had consideration here in Congress, and we are well on our way to having positive train control in our rail transportation system, both passenger and freight. But we need to have an opportunity for that implementation to occur over a slightly longer period of time than what was originally planned when positive train control became a mandate, a requirement upon our railroads. I am pleased that we are going to consider an extension of the Transportation bill that puts us in a position to deal with a long-term transportation bill. I am also pleased--and I wish to spend just a minute or two speaking--about a provision that is included in that extension, and that deals with extending the positive train control implementation. I wish to thank my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune. He is the chairman of the committee that I am on, the commerce committee. I thank him for his leadership in advancing this effort and allowing us the opportunity to deliver the certainty that we need on this important issue. There is no allegation that those who are implementing positive train control are inattentive or that they lack desire; there is no suggestion that it is an undue delay, that they are not doing what needs to be done. Every indication we have from all experts is it has nothing to do with a lack of commitment of the railroads; it has to do with the fact that we can't get there in the time that we had hoped for originally when we set forth this requirement. We know there is a pending implementation date, a deadline of December 31. We know it is unattainable. It is unattainable despite the fact that billions of dollars have already been spent to get PTC installed as quickly and as safely as possible. However, the reality is that without an extension of that deadline beyond December 31, railroads and shippers--that deadline to take the necessary precautions to alter their service standards is imminent. In other words, if they have to comply, they are going to change their schedules, and that has tremendous economic consequences to businesses that depend upon rail transportation. It creates a significant problem in contingency planning required by a shutdown of the supply chain that uses rail transportation. Congress needs to act now. There are suggestions that I understand from a number of my colleagues that the extension we are going to presumably be voting on in the next day--that the vote be delayed or that the extension be shortened. I want to express my conviction that it is necessary for Congress to act now, not later. Our Nation's economy cannot afford-- those who work in Kansas in agriculture, including our farmers and ranchers, and those who work in manufacturing, as well as our laborers in the aircraft industry--cannot afford a rail disruption that would occur if we don't do this extension immediately. We need to extend the deadline. As I say, it could have a devastating impact upon thousands of manufacturers, farmers, ranchers, and certainly the passengers who utilize rail transportation--who use Amtrak and other passenger services across the country. I would indicate to my colleagues that just a few weeks ago my colleague from Montana, Senator Tester, and I joined in a bipartisan effort to ask our colleagues to express the need for this extension, and we were successful in getting 43 Senators, 12 of whom were Democratic Senators, to sign a letter encouraging our leadership to bring forth this issue. So in a very bipartisan way, with broad agreement, this extension needs to occur. Incidentally, the House passed this extension by unanimous agreement. Again, apparently there was little controversy or no controversy; it passed by voice vote. So we have significant bipartisan support, bicameral support. The House has already acted, and it is time for us to do so. I wanted my colleagues to know that many in this Chamber have encouraged this to occur. We are on the precipice of it happening, and we ought not allow it to be delayed or shortened. The extension needs to occur this week. The vote needs to occur this week. The extension needs to be for a sufficient period of time to send that message of certainty and give the rail industry the opportunity to come into compliance in a timeframe that is reasonable and manageable. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Kansas City Kansas Community College and its efforts to support innovation and entrepreneurship by launching 100 Garages, an initiative of the KCKCC Innovation Center to connect area inventors with local makers who can help translate ideas into products. The initiative enables local makers who have skills and equipment to assist those with ideas and inventions by helping them find each other through an online database and other avenues. Additionally, as part of this initiative, KCKCC is launching a class to guide potential inventors from the idea phase through patent searches, licensing, prototyping, and product creation to market and revenue generation. The story of America is a story of entrepreneurs--individuals who took great risks to pursue their dreams. These entrepreneurs built the foundation of the American economy from its earliest days by pushing forward innovative solutions to some of the world's most pressing challenges. Innovation by entrepreneurs not only improves our lives, but also results in the creation of countless new jobs and opportunities for Americans. Many of our favorite and most inspiring stories about innovation and entrepreneurship are those that trace their beginnings to the family garage. Many Fortune 500 companies, such as Ford, Apple, and General Electric, got their start with passionate, committed individuals, a promising idea, and a great deal of hard work. Often, the greatest barrier to creating something innovative and transformative is bringing together people and their respective potentials. I commend KCKCC for its efforts to promote innovation and the spirit of entrepreneurship in Kansas City, Wyandotte County, the State of Kansas, and the region.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I wish to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the founding of Ottawa University in Ottawa, KS. Ottawa University has grown from a single building in 1865 to a comprehensive, global institution of higher learning dedicated to preparing and educating students to have a lifetime of enlightened faith, exemplary service, inspired leadership, and personal growth and significance. The university traces its roots to a strong partnership between Baptist missionaries and the Ottawa Indian tribe. In 1865, the partnership between members of the Baptist church and the Ottawa Indian tribe, under the leadership of Tauy Jones, led to the founding of a school for the benefit of children of the Ottawa Indian tribe. Originally chartered as a boarding school, OU's leaders also recognized the importance of offering a college-level education and having a college to serve as an economic growth engine for the community emerging around the Marais des Cygnes River. Ottawa University's partnership with the Ottawa Indian tribe remains strong. In 2008, Kevin C. Eichner, president of Ottawa University, and Chief John Ballard of the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, entered into an agreement to grant, in perpetuity, free tuition and room and board to all certified members of the Ottawa tribe who wish to attend the residential college in Ottawa, KS, or any of OU's adult on-ground or online programs. This 2008 agreement has been widely embraced and celebrated by members of the tribe and the faculty, alumni, board members, and friends of OU as emblematic of the institution's core mission and principles and its enduring commitment to maintaining a strong partnership with the Ottawa Indian tribe. Throughout its history, Ottawa University has pursued an innovative approach to higher education. In the 1970s, OU was among the first universities to embrace a growing demand for programs of higher education specifically tailored to the needs of adult students, opening an adult campus in Kansas City in 1974; Phoenix, AZ, in 1977; Brookfield, WI, in 1992; Jeffersonville, IN, in 2002; and Chandler, AZ, in 2009. In 2008, OU began offering complete degree programs online. Today, Ottawa University serves more than 5,000 students from 50 States and six countries. The university employs more than 200 faculty and staff who are committed to ensuring that each student receives a high-quality education that honors OU's mission and history. Today there are more than 23,000 distinguished OU graduates serving their communities, professions, and churches around the world. Congratulations to Ottawa University on the 150th anniversary of its founding, its enduring partnership with the Ottawa Indian tribe, and the achievements of all faculty, staff, students, and alumni who have contributed to the university's success.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I appreciate the remarks of my esteemed colleague of Tennessee, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He has the knowledge and relationships in the Senate to make the case he just made. I wish to just briefly address what I see as terrible flaws in this agreement which was negotiated by the Obama administration with other countries and with Iran. I have previously outlined my objections on the Senate floor. I will restate that I strongly oppose the agreement and would hope that the Senate, on behalf of the American people, our national security, and peace around the globe, would make the same decision that I have made, which is that this agreement results in less stability, a greater likelihood of war, and a nuclear Iran--a country that is capable of delivering nuclear devices across its border, shouts ``Death to America.'' We are acquiescing by the action the Senate has taken to date that this agreement will take effect. I can't imagine a more significant vote that Members of the Senate will take than this one, certainly in the arena of national security, national defense, and international relations. This agreement concedes too much and secures too little. I serve on the banking committee. This is the committee that, because of our oversight over the Treasury Department, is responsible for legislation dealing with sanctions. I have participated in the debate in the committee and on the Senate floor about the sanctions that Congress has put in place against Iran. In my view, my colleagues and I--and I can certainly speak for myself--did not vote to put sanctions in place for the purposes of causing Iran to negotiate a path to nuclear capabilities. I voted for sanctions time and time again. I voted to increase them, encouraged by my letters and comments on the Senate floor, in my conversations with administration officials, and with my colleagues in the Senate that we tighten the sanctions. I didn't ask that the sanctions be tightened. I didn't encourage the administration to be more forceful in their enforcement for purposes of creating a setting in which Iran could negotiate a way out of the sanctions for the purpose of developing nuclear capabilities. Those sanctions were put in place for the purpose of keeping Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Instead those sanctions have been the excuse by which this administration has negotiated a deal that is bad for the United States, bad for our European and worldwide allies, and particularly bad for our allies in the Middle East. One would think that any agreement that was negotiated would dismantle Iran's nuclear capabilities. This agreement does not do that. One would assume that any agreement negotiated would prohibit the dollars from flowing--particularly billions of dollars to Iran--until they had complied with the terms of the agreement. But, no, this agreement allows the dollars to flow nearly from the beginning. Iran will become a legitimized and enriched nuclear power, and they will become a wealthier, nuclear-capable country that supports terrorism in the Middle East and around the globe. As they have clearly stated, they will continue their effort to terrorize the world and end our way of life in the West as we know it with their continual chants of ``Death to America.'' As perhaps an issue that ought to be raised, one would think the administration would negotiate the release of Americans held captive in Iran as part of this agreement, but, no, they said that was extraneous. Yet, they negotiated issues related not only to nuclear capability but other weapons allowing Iran to increase its weaponization outside the nuclear arena. I wish to now talk about the process. I came to the Senate following an election in 2010, and the frustration I immediately experienced was that this place was doing next to nothing. For most of my life, I have been encouraged when Congress wasn't at work because I thought my constituents were safer in the absence of congressional activity, but I came to the Senate with the intention of having a Senate that would work for the purpose of undoing many of the things that have happened over a long period of time that, in my view, are damaging to our freedoms and liberties and damaging to our ability to live the American dream. I learned in a matter of a few weeks of my arrival in the Senate, and after taking the oath of office, that in this place the plan was to do nothing. We have seen that time and time again. My reaction to that was: I want to go out and see if we can get a Republican majority in which we have different leadership of the Senate, in which the goal is to have a Senate that functions, and the opportunity is for every Senator, Republican and Democrat, to present their ideas on behalf of their constituents and make the case to the rest of us that those ideas are worthy of our support. The goal, in part, for a change in the majority of the Senate was to have a functioning Senate in which every Senator, Republican or Democrat, had the chance to present their ideas. I thought, as a result of a change in the majority, that when we all, Republicans and Democrats, had the opportunity to present those ideas on behalf of our constituents, we would see a change in the attitude and approach of the way the Senate operates. For much of my early life, what I discovered about America's Congress--about the Senate and the House--was that there were Senators who didn't care who the President was or what party the President belonged to. There were Republican Senators who would disagree with a Republican President and Democratic Senators who would disagree with a Democratic President. Somehow over time, the political nature of our country has changed, and it seems to me we put the party of our President above the well-being of our Nation. That is dangerous. I oppose this agreement not because it was negotiated by a Democratic President. I oppose this agreement because it is wrong, and it is bad for America. I thought the Senate--once the opportunities for all of us to present our ideas was available--would once again see the days in which it was not about party affiliation, but about the idea of presenting the best course and direction our country should go. Unfortunately, it seems to me, that the Iran agreement is the poster child for a Senate that is once again bogged down in support of a President on an agreement that is unworthy of that support. Our country desperately needs men and women who serve in public office whose decisions are made not because they are pressured by a President, not because their President shares their party and political affiliation. Decisions need to be made here that benefit Americans today but, more importantly, Americans in the future. What seems to me to be missing in my efforts to change the nature of the Senate is that we are still mired in the circumstance in which--in the absence of 60 votes--the Senate's will on behalf of the American people cannot be expressed. The point I guess I failed to understand is when new leadership came into play that was open and receptive to Democratic and Republican Senators presenting their thoughts, amendments being offered, bills being considered, most of my Democrat colleagues would find that appealing because we all came here to do something we believe in, not to play a political game. Unfortunately, that does not seem, to me, to be the case today. This is the opportunity for us to change course and return the Senate to the day in which it was deliberative and in which Senators spoke on behalf of the well-being of the country as compared to the well-being of a President. It is very discouraging to me. We worked hard to make certain that the Senate became a place different than it was, and unfortunately we see in this circumstance it doesn't appear to be much different than it was a year ago. I have been a supporter of the rules that allow for a filibuster, that require 60 votes for the Senate to advance an issue. I always thought that protected the minority--people who have different points of view, people who come to Washington, DC, and may not be in the majority and may feel as if they would be run over in the absence of their ability to protect their constituents, their ideas, and 60 votes was designed to protect the minority viewpoints in this country. This becomes the moment, in my view, in which we can look at what has transpired on the debate on Iran and reach the conclusion that the 60- vote rule is damaging to the future of our country because it is damaging to the ability of the Senate to work the will of the American people and to make decisions that advance a cause different from one's political party and political philosophy. In my view, the time has come for us to consider this issue of how the filibuster works. It is because this issue is so important and the outcome of this debate so valuable to the future of our country and the security of the world that in this case, we need to move forward with a majority vote to allow this agreement to be rejected. This agreement is not worthy of the protection it is being given by a minority of Senators. It is supported--the rejection of this treaty-- this agreement; it should be a treaty--the rejection of this agreement is opposed by a majority of Republican and Democratic Senators. Yet we will never have the opportunity--unless a couple of our colleagues decide to do what is right this evening--for the American people to see where we stand on this issue. These are serious times. Nothing is easy in the world. It is always difficult to know what the right answers are, but the path the Senate is on today and the path the Senate took last Thursday is a terrible mistake for the future of our country and the security of our citizens. I urge the Senate to allow consideration of this agreement, and I urge the Senate to reject this agreement for the good of America. I yield the floor to the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 15, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, today I wish to commend all foster grandparents on the program's 50th anniversary this year. The Foster Grandparents Program provides ways for volunteers age 55 and older to stay active by serving children and youth in their communities. These volunteers give their time and talents as role models, mentors, and friends to children in need. More than 25,000 foster grandparents volunteer through over 300 programs throughout the United States. Last year, foster grandparent volunteers provided 23 million hours of service to their local communities, serving more than 189,000 children facing academic, social, and financial challenges. These volunteers serve at thousands of locations, helping children build reading skills, providing one-on- one tutoring, mentoring troubled teenagers and young mothers, caring for premature infants or children with disabilities, and assisting children who have been abused or neglected. I am particularly proud to honor the more than 500 seniors in Kansas who contribute their time and talents serving children in my State. Foster grandparent programs operate across Kansas out of Augusta, Hays, Kansas City, Manhattan, Paola, Topeka, and Wichita. Volunteers serve in an array of locations throughout the State, including schools, hospitals, juvenile correctional institutions, and early childhood education and childcare centers. These compassionate individuals have reached more than 5,000 Kansas students over the last 50 years. The following are just a few examples of their inspiring service: Alice Reid has been part of the Foster Grandparent Program since 2004. At the age of 92, she has consistently given an average of 33 hours per week and 11,341 lifetime volunteer hours. She primarily works on reading with children younger than 5 years of age, but Grandma Alice is happy to help any student. She often spends her lunch hour in the cafeteria eating with the children. Grandma Alice is so valued that the school had a big celebration for her 90th birthday. There were more than 400 children involved in this birthday celebration for their friend. The students made birthday cards and sang to her. A kindergarten teacher remarked, ``We love Grandma Alice and we appreciate all that she does for us. She has been a wonderful part of our school.'' In WaKeeney, Grandma Deb Fabrizius serves in kindergarten classrooms at Trego Grade School and has formed trusting friendships with many of the children she serves. She shared a story about a child, ``a sweet little guy who is quiet, very particular about his work and has a great smile. This little boy does not hug a lot, but when he does it, it is special--he's very sincere about it.'' The child told Grandma Deb that he wanted to share a secret with her. She followed him to his locker, where he took out a folder from his backpack with papers in it. The papers detailed what he wanted to be when he grew up. Grandma Deb was touched that he trusted her enough to keep his secret, and she told him that his parents would be proud of him and encouraged him to share his dreams with them. Foster grandparents such as Grandma Deb are sometimes the only adults with whom children have consistent, loving, nonjudgmental relationships. Grandma Deb and other foster grandparents do their best to encourage students and inspire them to have self- confidence and reach for the stars. Carol Sheffield, Udena McKee, Naomi Graves, and Margaret Hill work as foster grandparents in the Manhattan area. These women note the work they do for the kids is very fulfilling, and they plan to continue to serve in the classroom for years. By giving positive attention to kids, the volunteers and teachers have been able to see a real turnaround in students' lives. Carmen Flaz, principal of Oakdale Elementary School in Salina, said that foster grandparents have a large effect in the classroom. Grandma Linda Downs is the only foster grandparent in Waterville, a town of around 700 people in northeast Kansas. Grandma Linda serves students in her local preschool as well the afterschool and summer elementary programs. She volunteers at least 30 hours each week for her community. Grandma Melinda serves as a foster grandparent at Lucas-Luray Elementary School in Luray. When she was younger, she lost her right thumb in an accident. While most people do not notice her missing thumb, Grandma Melinda says, ``Leave it to a kid! They look you over from head to toe. They spy my missing thumb right away. They watch me holding a crayon or glue stick. They are always watching my hand to see what I can do.'' When children at school ask her about her missing thumb, Grandma Melinda lets them look closer and touch her hand if they want. She uses this opportunity to teach the children a life lesson about each person being special in their own way and about accepting everyone. Grandpa Hubert Brown serves in a Head Start classroom in Great Bend, where he gives special attention to three particular students. A set of two boys have formed a close bond with him. Another child, a little girl who is very shy and did not talk much with other students, always finds a place near Grandpa Hubert during circle time. Through her friendship with Grandpa Hubert, she has increased her involvement in class and developed friendships with her classmates. The special way of life we live in Kansas and across this great country would not be possible without individuals committed to giving back to improve their own communities, and foster grandparents change the world for the better one soul at a time. Their acts of kindness and selflessness are inspiring to us all. I honor foster grandparents for their shining examples of service to others. This commitment to service enriches our own homes and strengthens our Nation. Thank you, congratulations on your 50th anniversary, and all the best for many more years of helping others.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, cyber security is an important issue, but I come to the floor to talk for a bit about one of the most consequential decisions that I, as a Member of the U.S. Senate, and my colleagues will make, and that concerns the negotiated agreement between the P5+1 and Iran--the proposed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran. In my view, it provides too much relief in return for too few concessions. The deal implicitly concedes that Iran will become a nuclear power and will gain the ability and legitimacy to produce a weapon in a matter of years while gaining wealth and power in the meantime. I serve on the Senate Banking Committee. The sanctions that were created by Congress originate from that committee. Those sanctions were put in place to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power--a country capable of delivering a nuclear weapon across their border. Those sanctions were not put in place to give Iran a path or a guideline to become a nuclear-weapon-capable country. The key is to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Iran's Government. The key to that is to permanently disable Iran from nuclear capability and remove the technology used to produce nuclear materials. This deal fails to achieve this goal by allowing Iran to retain nuclear facilities. Though some of it will be limited in use in the near term, the centrifuges used to enrich nuclear matter will not be destroyed or removed from the country. This deal allows Iran's nuclear infrastructure to remain on standby for nuclear development when the restrictions expire. Also troubling is the agreement's lack of restrictions on nuclear research and development. Iran seeks to replace its current enrichment technology with a more advanced centrifuge that more efficiently enriches nuclear material. By failing to restrict research and development now, we are priming Iran's nuclear program to hit the ground running toward a bomb once the restrictions are lifted in a matter of years. Also, the inspection regime agreed to in this negotiation is dangerously accommodating. The agreement provides Iran a great deal of flexibility regarding the inspection of military sites just like those where Iran's past covert nuclear development work took place. The deal allows Iran to hold concerned international inspectors at bay for weeks, if not months, before granting access to a location suspected of being a site for nuclear development. The value of any access to suspected Iranian nuclear sites that international inspectors ultimately do receive will depend upon their understanding of Iran's past nuclear weapons research. A comprehensive disclosure of possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear research is necessary for inspectors to fully understand Iran's current infrastructure and is critical to their ability to rule out any future efforts to produce nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, has not made public its site agreement with Iran about their previous nuclear developments. This is an aside, but I would say none of us should agree to this negotiated agreement without seeing, reading, and knowing the content of that agreement. Under the proposed deal, that vital full disclosure of Iran's nuclear past may not occur, diminishing the value of inspections and increasing the risk that another covert weaponization of Iran will take place. Painfully absent from the agreement's requirements is Iran's release of American hostages: Saeed Abedini, Jason Rezaian, Robert Levinson, and Amir Hekmati. The freedom of Americans unjustly held in Iran should have been a strict precondition for sanctions relief instead of an afterthought. In return for very limited concessions, this deal gives Iran way too much. If implemented, the agreement would give Iran near complete sanctions relief up front. This isn't a Republican or Democratic issue. Common sense tells us that you don't give away a leverage until you get the result that you are looking for, and this agreement provides sanctions relief upfront, delivering billions in frozen assets to the Iranian Government and boosting the Iranian economy. Included in this relief are sanctions related to Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, which were to be lifted only when Iran ceased providing support for international terrorism. The sanctions relief in this proposal not only fails to require preconditions and cooperation regarding nuclear disarmament but will remove sanctions from the Iranian Guard, despite their status as a top supporter of terrorist groups around the Middle East and globe. This type of gratuitous flexibility for Iran is found elsewhere in the agreement. The P5+1 acceptance of Iranian demands for a relaxed U.N. arms embargo is both perplexing and scary. This deal would relax trade restrictions on missiles after 8 years, while immediately erasing limits on missile research and development. It would also lift restrictions on Iranian centrifuge use and development after just 8 to 10 years. The deal grants Iran the ability to more efficiently produce nuclear material just as it gains the ability to access the delivery weapons system. Earlier this month, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Martin Dempsey, said: ``Under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.'' Lifting the U.N. arms embargo was ``out of the question.'' Yet, just 1 week later, negotiators announced the lifting of the embargo in 5 to 8 years or less. I wonder what has changed. Unless the menace of an increased flow of weapons in and out of Iran somehow substantially decreased during the intervening week, the consequence of this sudden capitulation should have us all greatly concerned. This fear of increased money flow to terror organizations linked to the Iranian Government is not based upon merely an outside possibility; it is a likelihood. Last week Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister stated: ``Whenever it's needed to send arms to our allies in the region, we will do so.'' More money and more weapons in the hands of terrorist organizations are the fuel for increased violence and further destabilization in the conflict-torn Middle East. We have little reason to believe Iran's behavior will change as a result of this agreement. In fact, their chants of ``Death to America'' become more real. Since the announcement of the agreement, the leader of Iran has been openly antagonistic to the United States. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has promised to continue to incite unrest and said Iran's ``policy towards the arrogant U.S. will not change.'' These anti-American statements come from an Iranian leader whose commitment the Obama administration is relying on for the nuclear accord to work. It should trouble every American that the Obama administration is asking us to support a deal that relies on the total cooperation of those who, as I say, strongly state their commitment to bringing about ``death to America.'' Given the Obama administration's troubling efforts to push through this deal to the United Nations and restrict the influence of the American people through this Congress in the decision, it is all the more important that we follow through with a serious assessment of this nuclear agreement. We are faced with a circumstance that, by the administration's own previous standards, concedes too much and secures too little. I strongly oppose this nuclear deal. It is intolerably risky, and the result will be a new Iran--a legitimized nuclear power with a growing economy and enhanced means to finance terror, to antagonize, and to ultimately pursue a nuclear weapons program. I will support the congressional resolution to express Congress's explicit disapproval. President Obama has used fear in his agenda in seeking our support for this agreement. The warning has been that a vote against his policy is a vote for war with Iran. The President's political scare tactics are not only untrue but also illogical. Incidentally, we were not at war with Iran when the agreements were in place before the negotiation. The absence of agreeing to the negotiated agreement would not mean we will be at war thereafter. The President's claims undermine numerous statements his own administration has made about the negotiation process, the nature of the Iranian nuclear program, and the proposed agreement's prospects for success. If true, the President's words concede that his foreign policy has led America into a dangerous position. We would expect a President to provide the American people as many alternatives to war as possible, not just a single narrow and risky one such as this. According to the President, the only alternative to war is this agreement--a deal that results in better financed terrorists, a weakened arms embargo, and the need for boosting U.S. weapons sales to Iran's regional rivals. If this prospect of war is his concern, the President would benefit by reevaluating the geopolitical consequences of the deal and seeking out much better options. I had hoped these negotiations would result in a strong but fair deal to dismantle Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Again, the purpose of placing sanctions on Iran was to get rid of their nuclear capability as far as delivery of nuclear material across their borders. Yet this agreement leaves that infrastructure in place and puts them on a promising path toward that nuclear capability. Regrettably, that kind of deal was not reached. Now my hope is a simple one: that we are able to reverse some of the damage that is already done and that this agreement is rejected. I would say that there are those who argue that we would be isolated by rejection of this agreement, that other countries would approve and the United Nations may approve. This is an issue of such importance that we need to do everything possible to see that Iran does not become a nuclear power, and we need to have the moral character and fiber to say no to this agreement. Mr. President, I yield the floor.