Jerry Moran

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, just a short time ago, the Senate rejected legislation that would promote and protect women's health and protect the lives of unborn children. The legislation introduced by Senator Joni Ernst would deny the Nation's largest abortion provider taxpayer funding and shift that funding to local health organizations to provide necessary health care and medical treatment for women. This issue arises once more after the release of several undercover videos that successively have become more gruesome than the last. The videos of Planned Parenthood that have been released so far reveal the breadth of institutionalized disregard for human life at its earliest stages. At the basic level of decency, we are repulsed by these videos because science and reason inform our consciences and lead us to the inescapable conclusion that lives are being ended through this exploitation. If individual organs and tissues can be harvested from aborted babies, it is impossible to make the case that this is not a human life that is being destroyed. Why do we place more value on the parts and the pieces of a human life than the life as a whole? In one of those videos, Planned Parenthood's senior director of medical services noted: ``We've been very good at getting heart, lung, and liver, because we know that, so I'm not gonna crush that part, I'm going to basically crush below, I'm gonna crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact.'' Another Planned Parenthood official in another video--this one from California--said this: It's been years since I talked about compensation, so let me just figure out what others are getting. If this is in the ballpark, it's fine. If it's still low, then we can bump it up. I still want my Lamborghini. These words by two different officials in two different settings reflect a view that unborn children are nothing more than a commodity to be exploited and abused and they seemingly would do that for material gain. Is this where we would want our scarce tax dollars to go? In fact, if we had an abundance, is this a place we would want those dollars to go? Critics contend that the videos are heavily edited. Yet the videos have been released in their entirety and the transcripts of the full conversations have been provided. It is telling that despite full access to what was discussed, these critics have not been able to justify their grotesque practices being described, nor the inappropriate tone adopted with regard to selling tissues and organs of an unborn child. This isn't news. We have long known of the hundreds of thousands of abortions Planned Parenthood performs each year. If we can only avert our eyes and look the other way, as critics would have us do, we can avoid what is obscene and hugely uncomfortable. That can no longer happen. Light needs to be shed on an organization that destroys human lives while hiding behind the veil of women's health services. It is alarming that Politico reports that Planned Parenthood's public relations firm is requesting that members of the media refrain from airing the videos that expose the truth of Planned Parenthood practices. We cannot allow atrocities such as this to be swept under the rug because of the power this organization wields. Kansans have long made it clear they don't want their tax dollars contributing to abortion providers, and I have worked to make their voices heard in Washington. Taxpayers should not fear that their money is going to fund actions they find sincerely and seriously morally wrong. This legislation would prevent taxpayer dollars from funding Planned Parenthood, allowing our taxpayers peace of mind and a sense of morality that their hard-earned money is not facilitating something they abhor. Instead, S. 1881 would reallocate the funds Planned Parenthood receives through grants back into their communities. The money would go to local health care providers that offer important women's health services, allowing them to care for more women in their communities. By distributing the funds Planned Parenthood currently receives through a grant process to community health centers, we can increase the number of women's health care providers instead of funding a contentious organization that ends life. In fact, in our State, there are two offices of Planned Parenthood, but there are 50 community health centers. It would actually be more available. Women would have more access to health care services if the money was provided through community health centers. We are a rural State and only through that process would many women be able to access this service. Hard-working Americans--our constituents--deserve to have their taxpayer dollars going toward local community centers and county health departments, places that value life instead of destroying it. Women deserve affordable health care, and it is being provided by a number of organizations that have nothing to do with abortion. We can and should support these health providers and we can and should protect the unborn. We can do both. S. 1881 would be a significant step, an important step, in accomplishing both of those goals, and I believe it should have passed with broad support. Though I am deeply disappointed by the result of tonight's vote, I remain hopeful for a solution that will advance the life and health of both mother and child. In fact, as science improves our understanding of the unborn and the practices of abortion providers are further exposed, I think a solution will be inevitable. Unfortunately, that time apparently has not yet come, but I and others will remain focused on this goal. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to act appropriately to do the same. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, as a representative of Kansas in the U.S. Senate, it is my honor to celebrate the public service of Richard Dean Rogers, a Kansan who has dedicated his life to serving his community, State, and country. Richard's professional achievements are as plentiful and diverse as they are impressive. Born in Oberlin, KS in 1921, Richard Rogers went on to serve in the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II and then moved to public life as a county attorney for Riley County, city commissioner and mayor of Manhattan, KS, State representative, State senator in the Kansas Legislature. In 1975, President Gerald Ford appointed Rogers to serve as a U.S. district judge for the District of Kansas, beginning a lasting tenure that will soon reach 40 years. Judicial colleagues describe Judge Rogers as a role model whose long public life is marked by an amiable spirit, an unpretentious fortitude, and an unmitigated desire for the advancement and protection of all segments of society. Americans thank Judge Rogers for his service and contributions to the State of Kansas and the United States of America and wish Judge Rogers and his wife Cindy well as he moves to inactive senior status on August 7, 2015 and begins a new chapter of his most admirable life.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, earlier today the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, of which I am a member, conducted a hearing on the data security breach at the Office of Personnel Management. I am a member of that subcommittee, and we had several witnesses, including OPM Director Archuleta. Our goal was to learn about the latest data breach that was revealed earlier this month. I think that in many ways the hearing was useful and in other ways it was inadequate. The hearing once again demonstrated that much more needs to be done to address the ongoing IT management issues which plague so many agencies but in particular OPM. As our witnesses testified, the recent breach--and really, it is breaches--at OPM was not a resource issue but a management issue. Too often--and I certainly understand that how we appropriate money is important--the excuse is we don't have enough resources. Today, in my view, it was made clear that this is much more of a management issue than a resource issue. As Director Archuleta said in her confirmation hearing as well as in today's hearing, IT security was her top priority when she entered the agency in November of 2013. But what has transpired since then has been troubling. She reminded me today that in her confirmation hearing--IT data security was her top priority when she arrived at the agency in late 2013. Ms. Archuleta highlighted the fact that in March of 2014, OPM detected a sophisticated attack targeting sensitive information. While the hackers didn't get information in that particular instance, this should have been the first alarm to go off that somebody was trying to get access to very sensitive documents. I will reiterate what I am talking about in this case. This was March of 2014. We are talking about a hack attempt that occurred last year, not the ones that are making the news today. Unfortunately, it happened again a year ago--in June of 2014--when a company that was involved in background checks for the government, U.S. Investigation Services, USIS, suffered a breach impacting as many as 26,000 Federal employee records. It happened again in August of 2014--a third time. So we have March, June, and August. In August of 2014, another company involved in background checks, KeyPoint, was breached, and this time over 48,000 records were stolen. In both of these contractor breaches, OPM was required to send out notifications to Federal employees who were affected. Clearly OPM knew about these breaches. Now we have learned that the credentials stolen in those original breaches were used to enter the OPM system and this time steal highly sensitive information. The information stolen was Social Security numbers, military records, veteran status, addresses, birth dates, job and pay history, health insurance, life insurance, pension, age, gender, race, and union status. So these three separate examples should have been the stark warning to secure this highly sensitive data. When I asked the Director today about this topic, she merely pointed to an IT modernization plan that was drafted when she entered the agency about 20 months ago. My question was: Having seen these three attempts to breach the information at OPM, what then occurred at OPM following that which was different to further and better protect information at the Office of Personnel Management? The answer was really about pointing to a plan that was developed when the Director initially arrived at OPM some 20 months ago. In addition to those three breaches, if those were not warning enough, there were two other important reports which also could have and should have suggested that better management was needed. In November 2014, the inspector general for OPM released its annual report on Federal information security. That report found that 11 of the 47 major information systems--23 percent--at OPM lacked proper security authorization. In fact, 5 of the 11 systems were in the office of the Chief Information Officer, the person responsible for the agency's data security. This morning, Ms. Archuleta was proud to claim that the agency had been upgraded to just ``significant deficiency'' with regard to its IT system, up from ``material weakness.'' And the inspector general testified this morning that they had offered 29 recommendations in their November report, and to date only 3 of the 29 recommendations had been adopted. In addition to the inspector general report in November of 2014, in December--the following month--of 2014, the General Accounting Office, or GAO, issued a report highly critical of IT management at OPM. The report identified best practices that OPM should implement to improve IT management. The report found that ``OPM's efforts to modernize retirement processing have been plagued by IT management weaknesses''-- another indication that OPM desperately needed to address IT management, which our witnesses argue is critical to ensuring agency- wide security. So my takeaway from this morning's hearing is that all the warning signs were there. OPM was aware of the persistent issues. They knew about breaches to their contractors, and the agency knew they were a target. Yet the only evidence that OPM did anything was a plan that was written in the first 100 days of the new Director's tenure at OPM. Planning is important, but execution matters a lot more. We still need lots of answers as to what OPM did following those original breaches last year. What security plan did they put in place? Have they identified which information to secure? How did they secure these documents? Were they effective in preventing other attacks? How often did the OPM Director and the CIO, the Chief Information Officer, meet and what were their discussions? I am encouraged to know that our Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee intends to have another hearing, and this time we will have the opportunity to present it in a secured setting so that no one can indicate that they are incapable of answering the question because of security issues. I look forward to that hearing. However, I will tell my colleagues that it is discouraging to know what I now know, and it is a discouraging time for IT security and the Federal Government. I hope we can use this as a lesson for other agencies that they need to be vigilant. We face real and serious threats. Inaction by agencies put Federal workers, the American people, and, most importantly, our national security at risk. In my view, this is important. These hearings matter. The information we are garnering and attempting to garner is important for those who are employees of the Federal Government. They need to know what has transpired so they can better protect themselves. Why are they at risk because of these hacks? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, we need to know what has transpired here. Processes need to be in place to prevent additional challenges to our information technology, because it is a matter of our national security. So for the sake of our Federal employees and their well-being but also for the sake of the American citizens and our national security, this is not an issue that we have the opportunity to avoid. Answers need to be forthcoming and decisions need to be made system-wide--not just at OPM but throughout the entire Federal Government--as we work to protect those who work for the Federal Government and as we work to protect American citizens from a national security perspective. With that, I thank the Chair for the opportunity to address the Senate. 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 business.

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 Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 203, submitted earlier today.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I rise this evening in support of more than 1,700 high school students who happen to be in our Nation's capital, in fact, this week. They are part of the Electric Cooperative Youth Tour. During this year's tour, students will participate in leadership training and gain firsthand insight into the legislative process. Those electric cooperatives that sponsor these kids coming to Washington, DC, from my State, yours, and every other State across the country, are more than just poles and wires. They are about people and communities. Recognizing that youth are the future of those communities is what the rural electric cooperative program is all about--sending 51 students to Washington, DC, for 51 straight years, so future leaders can have a front-row seat to American Government. What would rural communities look like without power? That is pretty difficult to imagine. Think about the power of electric cooperatives. Sure, our local electric co-ops keep the lights on, but, as I say, they do much more than that. Co-ops are not-for-profits and owned by their members. They recognize the need to invest in future generations. Co- ops give back to the communities they serve, and the Youth Tour is proof of that. Each year, I enjoy taking time to visit with Kansans who are part of the Youth Tour because they are among the most energetic, engaging, and respectful young men and women I see throughout the year in Washington, DC. It is always valuable for us to have folks from our home States come and visit us, but it is especially pleasing to have these young men and women visit us. In my view, it is a program that has figured out how to find the best and brightest and those with the greatest interest and find a way for them to come to Washington, DC, and see our Nation's Capitol and hopefully inspire them to continue their interest in government and politics throughout their lives. Youth Tour alumni have gone on to become university presidents, Fortune 500 CEOs, Members of Congress, and built lifelong friendships. In fact, just last week I had Jacob Helm in my office. He is from Norcatur, KS, a small town along the Colorado-Nebraska part of our State. Jacob is an individual I nominated to attend the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, and he just graduated. He is now engaged to a fellow Youth Tour alumna, Michelle Peschel of Axtell, KS, which is on the other side of the State--Nebraska more than the Missouri part of our State. Both Jacob and Michelle grew up in communities of fewer than 500 people, and I am proud to see them giving back to their State and their country. They became engaged as a result of meeting each other on a Youth Tour back when they were in high school and will soon be married. My own interest in public service stemmed from a summer internship from my Congressman when I was in college, and I am hopeful that visits like these that the rural electric cooperatives provide for these young men and women--these visits to Washington, DC--will inspire these young people to get involved and work to improve their hometowns, our State, and our Nation. Each of these 1,700 Youth Tour students should be commended for being in Washington, DC, this week, just as our co-ops should be commended for realizing the need to invest in our future leaders.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 18; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein, and that the time be equally divided, with the majority controlling the first half and the Democrats controlling the final half; lastly, that all time during morning business and the adjournment of the Senate count postcloture on H.R. 1735.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1519 be discharged from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and be referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, Senator Vitter spoke about his amendment, No. 1473, to the fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, which makes certain our U.S. Army is able to maintain the current number of brigade combat teams to prevent further reductions to the Army force structure. I support Senator Vitter's amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same so that our military men and women are prepared to face our Nation's evolving national security threats. Our Army and soldiers here at home and abroad need all the support we can give them. In the coming months, I look forward to welcoming home Major General Funk, who is currently serving in Iraq and leading the front against ISIS. We must remember that he and the soldiers he commands need our help and protection, just as they serve and protect us. The across-the-board cuts called for in the Budget Control Act, including a reduced force structure, make no sense when our country continues to face global threats. The cuts fail to establish priorities and suggest that every program has equal value, which is not the case. In my home State of Kansas, these reductions could have a significant impact on the Intellectual Center of the Army, Fort Leavenworth, and the Army's First Infantry Division, the Big Red One. The Big Red One is just one of the many divisions across the country that could lose entire brigade combat teams, BCTs, degrading our Army's ability to meet current and emerging challenges such as Russian aggression, Ebola response operations, and taking on terrorist organizations like ISIS or Al Shabaab. I mention these specific examples because they are the most recent situations over the last 12 months that call on our Armed Forces to be ready and resilient. Without arbitrary budget reductions, the Army would not intentionally choose to downsize the Army and let valuable soldiers go. As the cochair for the Senate Defense Communities Caucus, we must consider our towns and citizens who overwhelmingly support our military. These reductions make no common sense for our communities and the soldiers and their families who call our towns home. These reductions impact the morale of the men and women who serve our country, as well as their families, at a time when we need their commitment and readiness the most. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Vitter's amendment. Maintaining our Nation's military forces must be our top priority. A capable and strong national defense is critical to the security of the United States and is our Federal Government's primary constitutional responsibility.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I understand we have a vote scheduled at 5 o'clock, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak for about 60 seconds. Amendment No. 1473 I came to the floor today to speak in favor of an amendment described earlier in the afternoon by Senator Vitter. This is an amendment, of course, to the National Defense Authorization Act that makes certain our U.S. Army is able to maintain the current number of brigade combat teams. Sequestration is creating significant problems in many arenas but no more important than in the area of our Army and defense. The concern is that in the process of downsizing the Army as a result of sequestration and other reductions in available funding, brigade combat teams would be eliminated. Senator Vitter's amendment, which I support and am a cosponsor of, would eliminate that as an option.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I wish to bring S. 1463 to the attention of my colleagues. The topic of the bill is one my colleagues have heard me speak about numerous times before in the Veterans' Affairs Committee, where I am a member. Just yesterday, I addressed this topic in the appropriations subcommittee markup of veterans and military construction, where I am a member and have many times on the Senate floor. The issue is the Department of Veterans Affairs and its interpretation of the CHOICE Act. My colleagues will remember we passed the CHOICE Act back in August of last year. The important provision for today's conversation is what that law says, which is, if a veteran lives more than 40 miles from a VA facility, the Department of Veterans Affairs must provide services, if the veteran chooses, at a location in his or her home community. Unfortunately, the Department of Veterans Affairs has interpreted it in a way that eliminates the opportunity for a veteran who happens to live within 40 miles of a facility from accessing that care, even though that facility doesn't provide the service the veteran needs. S. 1463 corrects that problem. It indicates that the 40-mile rule applies only in the circumstance where a veterans facility provides the service the veteran needs. The Senate has previously voted on this provision. In fact, in our budget, it was adopted 100 to 0 on a rollcall vote. I think what I am presenting is something that is very noncontroversial. There is no fiscal consequence to the current spending. This is money that was appropriated in the CHOICE Act and should be something that can pass on a unanimous consent request, which I will make momentarily. The question may be why are you doing this? It is because it is important and needs to be corrected quickly. This bill, if adopted today by unanimous consent, will go to the House of Representatives where it can be considered. I also hope what happens here is that the Department of Veterans Affairs, which I believe can correct this problem on its own volition, will do so, and when they see the Senate pass this legislation, hopefully by unanimous consent, they will respond and solve this problem immediately. There is no reason this can't be done by the Department, and I will outline the explanation of why that is true by reading the CHOICE Act and by the report that confirms our position. Before I ask unanimous consent, I also wish to thank a number of my colleagues, but in particular I thank the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, who has worked side by side with me to make certain this legislation ultimately becomes law. In fact, the chairman and the ranking member, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal, have committed to me that on every occasion, should the House not pass this bill--I will say it this way: Three options can occur. If we pass this by unanimous consent today, the House picks it up, passes it, sends it to the President, the President signs it, and that would be a great outcome. Secondly, we pass this bill, the Department of Veterans Affairs realizes they can do this on their own, and that would be a great outcome. Thirdly, if neither one of those things happens, the chairman has committed to me that he will work side by side with all of us on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and with other Senators to make sure, at every opportunity, the language included in this bill is included in every bill related to veterans affairs that is on its way to the White House. The chairman will work with me to make sure this language is enacted into law. I ask, through the Chair, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson, if what I am indicating is accurate and have him explain his thoughts on this topic in the few moments we have.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and very much appreciate his commitment to veterans. This is not about a specific piece of legislation, it is about keeping our commitment to those who served our country, always, every day but especially in advance of Memorial Day. Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1463, introduced earlier today.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, the Presiding Officer comes from a State very similar to mine, and what I was going to say is that when you do-- in fact, our State has twice as many cattle as it has people--you begin to understand the importance of agriculture to our Nation's economy and the communities that comprise our State. In rural Kansas, as it would be in rural Iowa, agriculture is our economic lifeblood. One of the primary reasons I sought public office was my belief in rural America and that it needed a strong voice in Washington advocating on behalf of that part of the country. Since the time I was first elected to Congress, I believe that has only become even more important. People involved in farming and ranching endure challenges that no other industry, no other profession faces. They are at the mercy of Mother Nature and rely on favorable weather to produce a crop. The severe drought that has plagued parts of Kansas for a long number of years and is once again crippling this year's wheat crop is evidence of the unique challenges. Farmers and ranchers also operate in a global marketplace that oftentimes is distorted by high foreign subsidies and tariffs. American farmers are the most efficient producers in the world. Too often, however, our farmers cannot be afforded the opportunity to compete on a level playing field. Unfortunately, agriculture is also under assault from the Obama administration. Overregulation by the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service threatens the livelihood of farmers and ranchers in my State, which in turn threatens the viability of family businesses that line main streets in rural towns across our State. To better understand the damage caused by foolish overregulation, consider waters of the United States. Despite the overwhelming outcry that the Obama administration received from American producers--from agriculture and other businesses--after proposing the potentially harmful regulation, the administration has continued their march forward toward finalizing that rule. The regulation is a troublesome expansion of Federal control over the Nation's waters. The Obama administration has continued to repeat the mantra that the rule is only intended to clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act, but we all know better. Not only has the rule failed to provide clarity or certainty, it also seeks to expand the EPA's jurisdiction to include thousands of new miles of streams, rivers, and even dry ditches. Where I come from, the term ``navigable waters,'' which is what the statute says, means something on which you can float a boat. We don't have many of those waters in the State of Kansas. Yet, this administration seems to believe they have the right to enforce those burdensome regulations on land that is far removed from what is traditionally considered navigable waters. People in rural Kansas also faced increased regulation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As my colleagues will recall, I led a debate earlier this year to delist the lesser prairie chicken from the endangered species list. The bird's listing is creating havoc and uncertainty in Kansas, where its habitat is located. Wind energy projects have been abandoned, oil-and-gas production has slowed, and farmers and ranchers are faced with uncertainty regarding new restrictions as to what they can do on their privately owned land. Those of us from Kansas know that we need the return of rainfall and moisture and that will increase the habitat and therefore increase the population of the lesser prairie chicken, not burdensome Federal regulations that hinder the rural economy. While the lesser prairie chicken regulation is directly harming the western part of Kansas, the administration's recent proposal to list the long-eared bat as a threatened species will do the same in our State's eastern communities. We often speak about the ever-increasing average age of farmers in the country and the need to encourage more young people to stay on the farm and to return from college to the farm. I could not agree more with this goal. I believe a key component in achieving this objective is to make certain our Nation's policies and regulations make farming and ranching an attractive venture for our children and grandchildren. Unfortunately, the regulations we have seen from this administration too often make farming and ranching much less attractive, much less profitable, and young people have made the conclusion that the battle cannot be won. I am deeply concerned about the impact of this administration's regulatory scheme and the effect that scheme will have on farmers and ranchers, but there remains reason for us to be optimistic about the future of American agriculture. We are faced with a growing rural population who is hungry for high-quality, nutritious food products grown by American farmers. We must continue to work toward reducing foreign barriers to make certain that people from around the globe have affordable access to U.S.-grown products. We must continue to invest in policies that lift up rural America, not hold it back. I am the chairman of the agriculture subcommittee, and I am working to make certain that Congress is doing its part to support farmers and ranchers. American policies should aim to keep rural America strong by way of implementation of the farm bill, preserving and protecting crop insurance, investing in agriculture research, and supporting rural development. I often tell my colleagues here in Washington about the special way of life in Kansas and the opportunities that special way of life continues to provide. The strength of rural Kansas is a key component to what makes our State a great place to live, work, and raise families. The future of communities in rural America depends upon the economic viability of our farmers and ranchers, and it is time to make certain that Federal policies and regulatory decisions coming out of Washington, DC, reflect this critical importance. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 10 minutes.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I wish to call to the attention of my colleagues the idea that biomedical research must be a national priority. The Presiding Officer and myself, as members of the Appropriations Committee, are in the process of crafting our appropriations bills for fiscal year 2016, and we face a tremendous task in trying to balance effective, efficient government operations with the necessity of righting our Nation's fiscal course during very difficult and challenging times. Therefore, what I take from that--the circumstance we are in--is it is extremely important that we prioritize initiatives that are effective in their service to the American people and demonstrate a significant and sufficient return on investment. Congress should set spending priorities and focus our resources on initiatives with proven outcomes. No initiative meets these criteria better than biomedical research supported by the National Institutes of Health. NIH-supported research has raised life expectancy, improved the quality of life, lowered overall health care costs, and is an economic engine that strengthens American global competitiveness. The benefits of NIH are widely acknowledged on a bipartisan basis. During the recent negotiations on the fiscal year 2016 budget agreement, 34 of my Senate colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, cosponsored an amendment I offered affirming NIH biomedical research as a national priority. I was pleased this amendment was included in the final budget agreement passed by Congress. Furthermore, the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, and the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, have recently agreed to form a Senate NIH--National Institutes of Health--Caucus. I am happy to be a founding member of this caucus, which will offer an opportunity for Senators to visit about the importance of NIH and to seek bipartisan strategies to provide steady, predictable growth for biomedical research. If the United States is to continue its leadership in providing medical breakthroughs to develop cures and treat diseases, we must be committed to supporting this research. If researchers cannot rely on consistent support from Congress, we will jeopardize our current programs, we will reduce our progress, stunt our Nation's competitiveness, and lose a generation of young researchers to other careers or other countries. New scientific findings help us confront the staggering challenges of disease and illness. One such challenge I wish to focus on in my remarks is Alzheimer's. It is a devastating and irreversible brain disease that slowly destroys an individual's cognitive functioning, including memory and thought. Today, more than 5.3 million Americans are living with this terrible disease. Every minute, someone in our country develops Alzheimer's. It is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States, and it is the only cause of death among the top 10 in the United States that cannot be prevented, cured or even slowed. Within these grim statistics are immeasurable suffering and stress this disease places on individuals, on their families, on their friends. This reality hits home in the stories I hear from Kansans. The Alzheimer's Association's Heart of America Chapter in Prairie Village, KS, tells me about Ricky from Topeka: Ricky has early onset Alzheimer's disease. He is 60 years old. Due to Alzheimer's disease, Ricky had to retire from a good-paying job because he no longer was able to do the work. He and his family expected him to work at least another 5 years or more, and they had plans that were interrupted that caused them to have to adjust from a two-income family to a single-income family. Ricky is frustrated at times and tries to maintain a positive attitude with his family and his peers. He and all members of his early stage support group are very scared about their future and they are desperate for a cure. They are worried about the burden they might place upon their families. Ricky and so many of his peers are continually looking for ways to slow down the progression of this disease. This includes testing himself daily with the use of an iPad, trying new foods, and joining in a research study at the University of Kansas Medical Center. Fortunately, Ricky is still able to ride his Harley Davidson, but he knows the day is coming when the thing he enjoys so much will not be able to occur again. I am also aware of Katrina from Shawnee, KS. She is an Alzheimer's Association ambassador and she shared her story: As personal and health care advocates, my brother and I used more than 7 weeks of personal vacation time--some unpaid--during our mother's final year of care. During the year, she was transitioned through 10 different care facilities, we worked with more than two dozen health care professionals at these locations and some were not [even] notified of her basic needs such as her iodine allergy or insurance--information she was unable to share during her moves. This would be a significant life change for anyone-- but especially for our mother, a 67 year old, physically strong woman but cognitively impaired due to early onset dementia diagnosed at [age] 59. Katrina said they reflect upon her passing, which is now 3 months ago, and the emotional and financial toll of the last 27 months couldn't be quantified--long-term savings and time off from work for vacations were limited, and the time spent at work was interrupted with calls, doctors appointments, and meetings to communicate with care providers ``regarding our mother's ongoing care needs, including behavioral challenges.'' My brother and I are 40 and 37--we have children ages 4 to 15--we worked full time [during this period of time] while doing everything we could to advocate for our mother's care. We are fortunate to have devoted spouses, family, and friends and understanding employers that worked through these difficult times with us. All of us in the Senate, every American knows someone who has been affected, someone whose family member has been affected by the terrible disease Alzheimer's. It is a tremendous personal tragedy, this disease, but it is also a very expensive disease, and we have a lot to gain both in the care for people and the quality of their lives that we want to maintain. We also have the opportunity to invest in Alzheimer's research that will reduce the cost of Alzheimer's to us as taxpayers, to health care, to those of us who pay insurance premiums. This is a way we also can save money because, on average, per-person Medicare spending for individuals with Alzheimer's and other dementias is three times higher than Medicare spending across the board for all other seniors. So for Alzheimer's patients, Medicare has per-person expenditures three times the amount of other seniors on Medicare. This year, the direct cost to America for caring for those with Alzheimer's is estimated at $226 billion--$226 billion. Half of these annual costs--more than $100 billion--will be borne by Medicare. These numbers mean that nearly one in five Medicare dollars is spent on individuals with Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. In 2050, which isn't that far away, this amount will be one in every three Medicare dollars will be spent on Alzheimer's and dementia diseases. Unless something is done, in 2050, Alzheimer's will cost our country over $1 trillion in 2015 dollars. Taking into account inflation, it will be $1 trillion, and costs to Medicare will increase more than 400 percent to nearly $590 billion. We must commit to a national strategy for speeding the development of effective interventions for Alzheimer's disease. As the baby boomer generation ages, Alzheimer's has unfortunately become a disease to define a generation, but it doesn't have to be an inevitable part of the aging process. America can tackle Alzheimer's by prioritization of our biomedical research capabilities. In a recent New York Times editorial, former Speaker Newt Gingrich praised the considerable benefits of NIH and specifically a research breakthrough relating to Alzheimer's. He noted that a breakthrough that could delay the onset of the disease by just 5 years, slow the onset by 5 years, would reduce the number of Americans with Alzheimer's in 2050 by 42 percent and cut costs by a third. These encouraging statistics--the idea that we can have hope and that there is a better day--these encouraging statistics would also represent increased health and quality of life for both patients and their loved ones. Current research advances give us that reason for hope. Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, recently stated, ``Alzheimer's research is entering a new era in which creative approaches for detecting, measuring and analyzing a wide range of biomedical data sets are leading to new insights about the causes and course of the disease.'' Dr. Collins calls on our Nation's medical researchers to work smarter, faster, and more collaboratively to determine the best path for progress in Alzheimer's disease research. As an example, NIH is implementing a new initiative called the Accelerating Medicines Partnership, working together with pharmaceutical companies to develop the next generation of drug targets for Alzheimer's disease, as well as rheumatoid arthritis, type 2 diabetes, and lupus. NIH is also leading the Brain Research through Advancing Intuitive Neurotechnologies Initiative, or BRAIN Initiative, which is a multiagency effort to revolutionize our understanding of the human brain. The objective of the BRAIN Initiative is to enable the development and use of innovative technologies to produce a clear understanding of how individual cells and neurocircuits interact. By better understanding how the brain works, technologies developed under this initiative could help reveal the underlying cause of a wide array of brain disorders. Understanding these causes will provide new avenues to treat, cure, and prevent neurological and psychiatric conditions such as Alzheimer's disease, traumatic brain injury, autism, schizophrenia, and epilepsy. Groundbreaking research is taking place, and Congress must do its part to prioritize the important work supported by the NIH. As a member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that is responsible for the funding of NIH, I am committed to working with my colleagues to see that prioritization of NIH occurs and that within NIH there is strong support for Alzheimer's research. In 2011, Congress passed the National Alzheimer's Plan that specifically lays out a series of scientific milestones that researchers think need to be met in order to make meaningful impact on the trajectory of Alzheimer's by 2025--what is the plan to get us where we need to be by that point in time? Over the last two years, Congress has provided NIH with approximately $125 million in increased funding to support good science that addresses Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. Additionally, we have worked to include language in the fiscal year 2015 omnibus that requires NIH to submit a yearly budget request for Alzheimer's research based on what is required to fund the necessary science. This particular effort is to make certain we have a specific, accountable research plan to ensure that our resources are effectively targeted to meet these milestones the scientific community has established. Alzheimer's disease is a defining challenge for our generation. The health and financial future of our Nation are at stake, and the United States simply must not continue to ignore such a threat. This is a moral and financial issue. It is one that should be easy for us to come together on. If you are the person or the Senator who cares the most about people, who cares in compassionate ways, you should be for medical research. If you are the Senator who cares about the fiscal condition of our country and getting our financial house in order, you should be for biomedical research. This commitment by all of us will significantly lower costs and improve health care outcomes for people living with the disease today and those who may encounter it in the future. Together, we can. This is what we are all here for. Together, we can make a difference, and we can do that by making a sustained commitment to Alzheimer's research that will benefit our Nation and bring hope and healing to Americans today and tomorrow. The challenge is ours, and the moment to act on this disease is today. It is important for our moms, our dads, our grandparents, our family members, our friends. For the fiscal health of our Nation, the time to act is now. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, this week we are going to, in my view, deal with one of the most concerning, one of the most dangerous, one of the most treacherous issues we will face--that I will face as a Member of the U.S. Senate and, certainly, has been in the short period of time I have had the honor of representing Kansans here in our Nation's Capital. It is the question of Iran. It is the question of their ability to acquire nuclear weapons. On this question of Iran, American policymakers are approaching a number of fateful decisions--in fact, a series of decisions that I think have significant consequences. The implications of the choices that will be made by our Nation and others will determine events today, tomorrow, and well into the future, both regionally and globally. As I indicated, the consequences will be felt for decades--generations, perhaps--to come. Such significant consequences require each step to be planted with great care and consideration. I fear that the recent American march into nuclear negotiations with Iran has been misguided, drawing our country and the global community into a dangerous position. American foreign policy with respect to Iran has long been centered around the goal of preventing Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapon capability. Today, this policy has weathered and has been allowed to be weakened. It has become a position of delayed tolerance of a nuclear Iran. This policy deterioration was made clear in recent weeks by global affairs minds no less than former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, who wrote: ``. . . negotiations that began 12 years ago as an international effort to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes that very capability. . . . '' The administration's stated goal of securing a 1-year nuclear development breakout period reveals a shift from firm disapproval to acquiescence. The result, in my view, is a world that is much less safe, a Middle East that is further prone to violent conflict, and an international order trending toward nuclear armaments rather than walking away from it. Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif pointed this out last week in his writing in the New York Times: Nothing in international politics functions in a vacuum. Security cannot be pursued at the expense of the insecurity of others. No nation can achieve its interests without considering the interests of others. Nowhere are these dynamics more evident than in the wider Persian Gulf region. That is the Foreign Minister of Iran speaking. Mr. Zarif's words apply to the pending nuclear question and the budding proposal to exchange sanctions relief for a temporary suspension of Iranian nuclear development. The decisions made by Iran and the P5+1 participants in these nuclear negotiations are being considered and acted upon and responded to by others in the region and others around the globe. As Iran's neighboring states are looking to increase arms purchases for use in the ongoing conflicts in their region, international concerns about a nuclear-capable Iran are not merely passive policy critiques. They are warnings worthy of our careful, determined consideration. I would suggest and I will ask what we must ask: Does this pending accord make the world safer or more dangerous? Does it bring Iran closer to or further from nuclear capabilities? Can the world trust Iran to uphold its commitments? Will the terms of the deal be sufficiently verifiable to know if they do not? Ultimately, we must ask if this deal would stabilize tensions in the Middle East or accelerate them. These questions are greater than any grappling things that go on between Congress and the President, between Republicans and Democrats. This cannot and should not be a politically partisan issue. It should be one of serious consideration about long- term consequences to America, its allies, and our enemies. The nuclear accord will have serious and lasting consequences for us all. It is incumbent upon American leadership to guide these efforts in the safest possible direction. In my view, our trajectory to date has been uncertain. In response, Congress has insisted--and rightfully so-- that it oversee and participate in the process, especially in any decision regarding the lifting of sanctions. The President's efforts to ignore or sidestep the legislative branch's constitutional role in foreign policy are troublesome. Many, including me, have been asking why Congress lacks the ability to block or more forcefully respond to a potential bad deal or to do more to limit the President's ability to act unilaterally. Unfortunately, the law resulting from the previously passed sanctions legislation allows the President to waive sanctions under certain conditions--the legislation that we passed. Let me say that again. The legislation that we passed over a period of time--and I am a Member of the banking committee involved in this legislation--allowed a President--this or other Presidents--to waive those sanctions under considerations of national security. What we regrettably discovered is that Congress provided way too much flexibility to a President too willing to ignore the concerns of the legislature, too willing to find a reason to waive the sanctions. But there remains reason of hope that Congress will play a constructive and important part in this matter. Despite opposition from the White House, bipartisan efforts led by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Senator Corker have produced legislation providing for a congressional review process. The bill had broad bipartisan support, and perhaps that makes it impervious to President Obama's initial threats of a veto. Any increased role by Congress is welcomed, from my perspective. For too long, Congress has deferred to Executive action when it comes to foreign relations and foreign affairs--not just this Congress and this President, but many Congresses and many Presidents. In my view, Congress has failed its constitutional authority to oversee a President's foreign policy efforts. So this increased role for Congress is welcome. And for anyone who is skeptical of the framework released by the State Department in early April or curious about what the parameters might look like in a final deal, Congress will have the ability to see, to know, and to let the American people, and, in fact, the world know what these agreements might contain. After the presumed passage of the Iran Nuclear Review Act--the legislation we have been considering this week--if it passes and the case is that a deal is ultimately struck and an agreement is struck by the June 30 deadline between the administration, the P5+1, and Iran, Congress will have 30 days to review that agreement. As we began late last week and early this week to consider this legislation, the point in being here at this stage is to indicate that while I wish there were more opportunities for congressional involvement in the process, what the committee has presented to us gives us the starting point, the beginning point, and the opportunity to explore fully what the administration has been negotiating in secret. I have attended the meetings--the so-called classified briefings--and it is hard to leave those meetings with an understanding or appreciation or more knowledge of what is in the potential agreement with Iran than before I walked in the door. What will transpire this week on the Senate floor gives me and others the opportunity--and ultimately the American people--to know a lot more. As this process has been developed and as we implement it here on the Senate floor, it is important that we use this time to carefully examine the results of any nuclear negotiations and ask ourselves this question: Is the world better off as a result of that agreement? Is peace more assured, and does humanity have a better future? We don't have the agreement in front of us yet, but what we do this week sets the stage for that review, for that understanding, and for the ability to reject, if necessary. What that agreement contains is important. It is encouraging to me to see that the Senate--the Congress, in fact--is stepping forward to play its rightful constitutional role in foreign affairs. I look forward to the discussion this week, but more importantly, I look forward to the passage of legislation that allows us to have a much greater say, much more significant knowledge, and a better opportunity to have understanding about a potential treacherous path that our country may be headed toward. I yield the floor.