Jerry Moran

Mr. MORAN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, the Moran amendment is an attempt to address the issue--in fact it is addressing the issue--of the 40-mile requirement contained in the choice act that Congress passed in August. Senators may recall that in August we were successful in coming together and passing legislation to give veterans greater options if they live more than 40 miles from a VA facility or if they cannot get the services within 30 days, the VA should provide those services, if they choose, at home. This amendment makes clear that the VA should provide those services in the circumstance where there is a VA facility within 40 miles, but it does not provide--if it does not provide the service the veteran needs, it does not count against the 40 miles. This is a commonsense, very bipartisan amendment. I ask that it be adopted. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for yielding to me. First of all, I would like to talk for a moment about the budget. I am pleased that the Senate is debating a budget. We are required by law to pass one by April 15. It has been a while since we have been able to accomplish that. I am hopeful that the budget will be reconciled with the House-passed budget, giving us the opportunity to develop 12 appropriations bills within this budgetary outline. It is unfortunate that by the nature of a budget, it is a partisan endeavor. The expectation is that no Democrat will vote for the budget that ultimately will pass the Senate today. I hope that doesn't continue to be true in another issue that I am encouraging and am encouraged to know will be considered by the Senate, and that is the sustainable growth rate fix, the so-called SGR fix. Back in 1997, a budget act was passed that created a formula by which physicians are reimbursed under Medicare. That formula has been very damaging to the practice of medicine--the ability to sustain a practice of medicine--particularly in areas of the country in which the population is elderly and patients are generally on Medicare and most of the physicians' income is then derived from reimbursement from the Medicare system. The SGR has created a series of problems. At least annually, there has been a problem we have had to fix. Over a decade, we have spent millions of dollars--in fact, $150 billion in short-term so-called doc fixes. What I hope happens after consideration of the budget today, tonight, in the morning, is that there will be unanimous consent and agreement that we take a vote on finally permanently fixing the problems created by this SGR, the formula. In my State of Kansas, there are 127 community hospitals across our State that care for patients every day, every hour. Most of those hospitals have a significant volume of Medicare patients. The physicians who admit patients to those hospitals and see patients on an ongoing basis in those communities see a significant portion of their patients, and their bills are paid by Medicare. In the last several years, the reduction in payment for a physician, that Medicare reimbursement, has been in the neighborhood of 20 percent to 30 percent. The reality, I think all of us know--in fact, it is evidenced by the fact that every year we do a patch, we fix this issue--what we know is that in the absence of fixing that formula either on a periodic basis or today potentially permanently, physicians will no longer be able to see Medicare patients. In many of the communities I represent, the physicians are employed by the hospital. So this becomes not just a physician issue, not just a hospital issue-- the reality is, it is a patient issue. Will you have a doctor in your community who is willing to see, who is able to see a patient who is of the age at which Medicare is providing Medicare health care benefits? The opportunity we have today is important. We can do so many things by permanently fixing the SGR. The outcome is that communities across our country and communities across my State of Kansas have a much brighter hope that their hospital doors remain open and physicians continue to practice medicine in their communities. Our health care providers face tremendous challenges today related to the Affordable Care Act, related to the ever-increasing amount of regulatory burden placed upon hospitals and doctors, upon the costs associated with moving toward computerized medical records. Our health care providers in many instances are hanging on by a thread, and whether or not a community has a doctor, has a hospital determines whether that community has a future. I know that in my own hometown of Plainville, the ability of my parents--who lived into their nineties--to remain in their hometown was determined by whether there was an active, quality medical community, quality physicians who cared about their patients and hospitals, who were there to admit their patients when that care was needed. Only because that existed in our hometown were my parents, into their nineties, able to continue to live in a community they called home. The SGR fix is a significant component to make certain that no people have to move, no senior citizens have to move someplace closer to a doctor or a hospital because their hospital no longer is in existence or their physician no longer cares for folks who have Medicare. The SGR, which I did not support when it was created, has caused a volatile and unsustainable system for both patients and health care providers. The uncertainty of knowing when and if Congress is going to fix by a patch creates problems in and of itself, in addition to the ultimate reimbursement rate that physician receives. The time to act is now. We are as close to a permanent SGR fix as we have been in my time in Congress. It would be a very sad occurrence if we let this opportunity slip by, and one more time, in a few months, we will be back trying to figure out how to patch the SGR once again. We will spend more money. We will create greater uncertainty. We will hasten the day in which citizens of our country--Medicare recipients-- are no longer able to see a physician of their choice or be admitted to the hospital in their community. I am of the view that we ought not move on to other business. We ought not recess for this April period of time until we make sure that tonight or in the morning the SGR fix is permanently put in place. Amendments Nos. 467, 468 En Bloc Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up the following amendments en bloc on behalf of Senator Blunt: amendments Nos. 467 and 468.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up the amendment I am offering, which is amendment No. 356.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I would remind the Presiding Officer of the hearing we had yesterday dealing with veterans affairs and the opportunity we had to discuss the implementation of something we now refer to as the choice act. One of the successes and, in my view, one of the few successes we had last term--in fact, with Senator Sanders being on the floor as well-- was the passage of the choice act. That legislation was Congress responding to scandal within the Department of Veterans Affairs--the fraudulent wait lists, the lack of services available to veterans who were waiting, and a number of veterans falling through the cracks. Congress responded and passed legislation now referred to as the choice act. What that choice act said in simple terms is that if you are a veteran and you are unable to receive the services you need from the Department of Veterans Affairs within 30 days or if you are a veteran who lives more than 40 miles from a VA facility, the choice act allows you--in fact, requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide you with services at home if you so choose. It is your choice. That bill was passed by Congress in August of 2014, signed by the President in September, implemented since then beginning in November, and it is now March of 2015. What we have discovered during that period of implementation is there are a number of pitfalls by which veterans are not receiving the care we indicated they would receive following the passage of that legislation. A lot of that problem is related to the 40-mile provision. Again, if you live more than 40 miles from a VA facility, the law says the Department of Veterans Affairs will provide you with service, if you so choose, with a local provider. A couple of things have happened. The interpretation by the Department of Veterans Affairs of a couple of provisions has precluded a significant number, in my view, of veterans from being able to utilize this choice program. Yesterday, the Department of Veterans Affairs, to their own credit, decided that they had been interpreting the law incorrectly. That provision related to as the crow flies, meaning that the 40 miles was to be computed as the crow flies, and that was the way the VA determined they were required to interpret that provision. Yesterday, the Department of Veterans Affairs decided they had the authority to really make that 40 miles highway miles. So if you happen to live on one side of a lake or one side of a mountain, it is no longer as the crow flies. That is a piece of good news. But here is the issue I have raised numerous times, and here is the issue that still remains a problem for many veterans. I smile when I say this because there are not many lakes in Kansas and there are no mountains in Kansas, so ``as the crow flies'' is not a significant issue to most Kansans as it is in many other places in the country. But yesterday's decision by the Department does increase the number of veterans who may qualify for the choice act. Among other things, what is still missing is the idea of a facility within 40 miles. The problem is this: The Department of Veterans Affairs has interpreted and continues to interpret that to mean even though there is a VA facility within the 40 miles that does not provide the service the veteran needs, it is still a facility within 40 miles, and thus the veteran will be required to transport themselves to a hospital 2, 3, 4 hours away. I have said this before on the Senate floor. As a House Member before coming to the Senate, I represented a congressional district made up of tens of thousands of square miles, larger than the State of Illinois. There is no VA hospital within that congressional district. We worked hard to create outpatient clinics where routine services could be provided closer to home for those veterans. Now we are saying: If you can't access the care that is more than 40 miles from your home, the VA is going to give you the option of seeing your hometown doctor, being admitted to your hometown hospital. But here is one of the problems: If there is an outpatient clinic within that 40 miles, even though it doesn't provide the service you as a veteran need, the VA says you don't qualify for the choice act. I am of the view that they have the ability to interpret that law differently. They say it takes a legislative change. I am not sure there is a lot of value in continuing to have the debate about who is right about that. What I do know is there are many veterans in Kansas and across the country who are not receiving the services promised by the choice act because there is an outpatient clinic within the 40 miles, but it doesn't provide the service they need. To give folks an understanding of what I am talking about, most outpatient clinics don't provide colonoscopies. So we have a veteran who needs a colonoscopy. The VA is to provide that service. Yet, in the case of where I come from, my hometown, the VA hospital is 3 hours away and the outpatient clinic is half an hour away, and because there is an outpatient clinic half an hour away, that veteran can't utilize the choice act. But the outpatient clinic doesn't provide colonoscopies, so that veteran is told by the VA that he or she has to drive the 3 hours to the hospital in Wichita to get the colonoscopy. Well, there is a community hospital within that area, within that veteran's hometown that provides colonoscopy. That situation is what the choice act was designed to accomplish-- service provided at home. So this amendment creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund that requires the VA to utilize its current authorities to offer community care to veterans who are currently unable to receive the health care services they need from a VA medical facility within 40 miles of where they live because the facility they have won't or can't provide the services they need. This is something we ought to be able to resolve. This amendment is widely supported. There is legislation--S. 207--which I have introduced and which has many cosponsors, Republicans and Democrats, and we will continue to push this legislation. In fact, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has indicated they will not only have the hearing we had yesterday on this topic, but also the chairman and the ranking member and their staffs will work over the recess to get this legislation front and center in our committee and, presumably, on the Senate floor. This amendment is cosponsored by Senator Collins and Senator King of Maine. Senator Tester, Senator Blunt, Senator Toomey, Senator Hoeven, and Senator Vitter--Republicans and Democrats from States across the country--realize this is something which needs to be resolved. While I believe the Department of Veterans Affairs should resolve this, they haven't. While the Department of Veterans Affairs believes Congress should resolve this, we haven't. What I do know is veterans who are entitled to care are not receiving it, and, in a sense, false promises were made until we get this issue corrected and the VA then implements the choice act as intended. This is an important issue. I would say to my colleagues, particularly those who served in the Senate with me in the last 4 years, in my view, we haven't accomplished much in those 4 years, but one of the areas in which we did come together and did pass significant legislation was the choice act. Now we need to make certain that accomplishment results in those who are entitled to those benefits receiving them. Who, I would ask, in this country would we expect to have the best quality health care? Who would we expect? I think it would be those who served our country--our military men and women, those who retired and became veterans. And I would say that the employees and Members of Congress have the opportunity of choosing a hospital or a doctor, and our veterans ought to have the same opportunity. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to explain this amendment. I ask for support when it is considered during the budget consideration. I would ask my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the underlying legislation that will follow. I thank my colleagues on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, particularly the chairman, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson, and the ranking member, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal, for their commitment to seeing that this is accomplished. I appreciate the opportunity to explain one more time why this is something of significance and how the quality of life of our veterans is affected not because we don't want to care for them but because we lack common sense to implement a law when we know how it should work, we know what it should say, and yet we are impeded from accomplishing what matters so much. This is not a Republican issue; this is not a Democratic issue; this is an American issue that mostly calls for common sense. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, in my home State of Kansas, we enjoy a special way of life. I have talked about it many times on the Senate floor. That special way of life includes a rich tradition of hunting, target shooting, and other law-abiding activities covered by our Second Amendment rights. Our State welcomes nearly 300,000 hunters each year, and in turn those individuals create jobs and economic opportunity for many Kansans. I was disturbed to learn of a recent proposal by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. On Friday, February 13, the ATF proposed--without any instruction from Congress, on its own volition--a framework to determine whether M855 ammunition, which is popular for hunting and target shooting, is primarily intended to be used for sporting or if it is more likely to be used in handguns by criminals. ATF indicated it wants to ban the ammunition, which has been used by law-abiding citizens, including Kansans, for decades because it is ``armor piercing'' and, therefore, poses a risk to the safety of law enforcement officials. The fact is that almost all rifle ammunition is armor-piercing. The Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1986, which ATF cites as a statutory authority to ban this ammunition, specifically exempts armor-piercing ammunition ``which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.'' Congress's intent for providing this exemption was clear: Law-abiding citizens should not be deprived of their right to use this ammo for legitimate purposes, such as target shooting, hunting, and shooting competitions. In fact, Kansans, who expressed their concern to me about this issue in recent weeks, have consistently indicated that the proposed ban would directly interfere with their sporting uses and, more broadly, their Second Amendment rights. Most troubling about the ATF proposal was how it intended to judge ``likely use'' of this ammunition. ATF planned to judge that M855 ammunition is more likely to be used in a handgun for criminal purposes rather than for sporting purposes simply based upon the bullet's weight and type of firearm in which it could be loaded. What was missing was any interest by ATF in the law-abiding ammunition consumers across the county. How might they use the ammunition? How could ATF determine primary intended use without conducting a study on how that ammunition actually would be used by the public? The ATF framework failed to make any objective conclusions and would have served as nothing more than a tool for increased gun restrictions--and I would say increased gun restrictions that weren't passed by Congress. Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator Grassley, circulated a letter among my colleagues and to me directed at ATF Director B. Todd Jones outlining these and many other concerns related to the proposed framework to ban this ammunition. I join Senator Grassley in signing this letter, and I am thankful it appears that our message was received because on Tuesday of this week the ATF announced that it will ``formally delay'' the implementation of the proposed ammunition ban. I thank the thousands--in fact, tens of thousands of Americans who voiced their concerns both to Congress and to ATF. ATF received an incredible 80,000 public comments on the proposed framework. Congress has never banned this ammunition and has never intended to ban it. In the future, the ATF should not propose to ban any widely used form of ammunition favored by law-abiding civilians for lawful purposes. Again, I am thankful that the proposed framework has now been rescinded, and I will continue my efforts in the Senate to support the Second Amendment freedoms of all Americans. I yield to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, we are here today and apparently this week to discuss legislation pending before the Senate, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. We have a serious problem in this country and around the globe in regard to human trafficking. This legislation is an issue that needs to be addressed and ought not be delayed. In fact, many from across the country are asking us to do just that, including hundreds of Kansans who are concerned about the rights of individuals, the rights of women and men across the country. Congress has legislation now pending that seems to me to be very straightforward and common sense in trying to eliminate this scourge from our country. I want to highlight what I think is unfortunately developing in the Senate. I would refer back to the elections of November 2014, in which, I thought, at least one of the messages the American people delivered to us through their votes was a desire to see that legislation-- particularly legislation such as this--be addressed, that the Senate consider it, amendments be offered, votes be taken, and ultimately legislation be approved or disapproved by the Senate. Unfortunately, we still find ourselves in a position in which we are unable to move forward on this legislation to consider amendments. I would guess that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would indicate that when the Republicans were in the minority they from time to time blocked consideration of legislation pending. I would tell you, that in my view, when I was a participant in that process, it was because of the belief that we would have no opportunity to offer amendments to legislation then pending. What I want to see is how the Senate can process legislation, and what I want is for every Member of the Senate to have the opportunity to offer amendments, to have them considered, to be voted on, and that right should exist for every Republican Senator and every Democratic Senator. We should be in a position in which we can resolve our differences not by blocking the consideration of an important piece of legislation but by taking a vote on an amendment offered by a Senator from a State here in the United States and that the Senators have an opportunity to present their case, votes be taken, and issues be resolved. Unfortunately, we are in a position where we are even unable to consider this legislation, and I would ask that this circumstance come to an end. Again, in my view, a message from November 2014--the last time voters spoke in the United States--was, could we at least have a Congress that can function, that can consider issues, and where votes can be cast and decisions made. We find ourselves one more time in a situation in which we are unable even to get to the bill to enable that consideration to occur. At least as stated in the press, there is an argument about a provision in the legislation. I would again say that if there is a provision in the legislation, despite the fact that it was unanimously approved by the committee--every Republican and Democrat voted for it. And now there is this claim that they are opposed to that. If you are opposed to something, the way to solve it is not to block consideration of the bill. The way to solve it is to allow the bill to be considered, and if you oppose something in the bill, offer an amendment, have a debate, and let the votes decide here on the Senate floor whether that provision should remain in or be removed. That provision that people are indicating is causing problems is one that is related to the public funding of abortions. It is a provision that has been law since the 1970s. It was voted on many times in the Senate, and 23 Senators voted for that provision in a spending bill in 2014--just last year. It appears we are manufacturing problems that don't really exist. This provision was in the bill when the committee considered it, when the committee approved it. Now as we bring this bipartisan bill to the Senate floor, there are those who are saying we can't consider it because this provision is included. I would indicate that the idea of public funding--the use of taxpayer dollars to support abortion--is disapproved by 7 out of 10 Americans. This is not a radical kind of issue or proposal. But my point is that we should have the opportunity to debate this and every other item within the bill, reach a conclusion, and move forward on a piece of legislation that is important in trying to protect the lives and safety of people across our country, particularly women and children. So my plea to my colleagues is this. Could we again get to the point where the Senate functions, where we debate bills, votes are taken, and issues of importance are considered. I hope I learn later today that is the case--that we can move forward in resolution of this legislation. I am here to indicate I oppose public funding of abortion. I support the trafficking legislation now pending. But I will never have the opportunity to demonstrate that because we are at a point in which no legislation is able to be considered. Madam President, I thank you for the opportunity to address the Senate. I notice the Senator from Wyoming is on the floor, and I would be happy to yield the floor for him.

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I want to comment on an interview that was published yesterday, quoting the President. In an interview published yesterday, the President spoke about a number of issues facing the United States. During that interview he had commentary on terrorism and he referenced the January attacks in Paris, France, in what I would describe as a very concerning way. The President addressed the attacks in Paris as ``randomly shooting a bunch of folks in a deli.'' The President's stated perception of the hostage taking and murder of four Jews in a kosher supermarket in that way--we ought to all be concerned. When asked to clarify the President's comments today, the White House stated that the Jewish victims of this attack were ``killed not because of who they were, but because of where they randomly happened to be.'' The White House today suggested that because there were non-Jews in the kosher supermarket named Super Kosher, the attack did not specifically target Jews. The State Department restated this explanation today, refusing to say that an attack on a kosher supermarket that killed four Jews could be Jewish. The absurdity of this logic is apparent. Let me give you a hypothetical. If an attack occurs in a synagogue or in a church or in the American Embassy, are we really to accept the idea that on the chance that there were diverse people there, that that somehow disqualifies the possibility that members of the group who would predominantly frequent that place might be targeted? In other words, if somebody who happened to work in an American embassy but is not an American is killed in an attack, would we reach the conclusion that the attack on the embassy is not an attack on America? The Obama administration's logic doesn't make sense and it is difficult to understand what they are trying to convey. It is also contrary to the open source media reports about the attack. Reuters reported that the perpetrator of the attack called a French television station to declare his allegiance to the Islamic State and stated his intentions to target Jews. Given this information, the Obama administration's now repeated comments that chalked this up to randomness--that is just amazing to me, that it is just random, this attack in Paris. The fact that four Jews were killed at a kosher supermarket, it is just random. It is dangerous for our government leaders to reach such a conclusion and for us to be operating as we make a determination of how to proceed next in the war on terror to reach the kind of conclusions the President, his spokespersons, and the State Department are reaching. The Islamic State, the organization the perpetrators of the Paris attack claim allegiance to, has made a point to persecute various ethnic and religious minorities. The denial of anti-minority or anti- Semitic motivations in this case gives me hesitation about whether the President understands the true nature of the threat we now face. This comes in the context of a report that the administration is soon to present to Congress for approval an authorization for the use of military force against Islamic State fighters. Authorizing a war is a decision that should be made with the fullest of information and the most complete understanding possible. The Obama administration should be doing everything it can to clearly describe the threat our country faces--in fact, that people around the globe face--and a strategy that will be employed under this potential authorization to use force. If we don't know who we are fighting, how can we have a strategy to prevent the death and destruction those enemies will cause? The stakes are way too high to operate under anything but a clear understanding of the significant challenges our country faces. It makes no sense to describe something different than reality. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I am on the floor today to speak about an issue that I spoke about just a few days ago, the Choice Act. Let me take my colleagues back in history just a few months, just to last year. I don't imagine any of us don't remember the scandal the Department of Veterans Affairs was facing--the stories across the country of fake waiting lists, of services not provided, of the potential death of veterans while waiting for those services to occur. I also would think that at least many of my colleagues would agree that for much of the past few years the Senate hasn't done much of the business it was designed to do and that needed to be done in our country. But I remember a day in August of 2014 in which the Senate and the House of Representatives were successful in passing a bill. It is somewhat embarrassing to me to be on the floor praising the accomplishment of a bill passage. It is a significant part of what should be the normal course of business of the Senate. But those of us--and I would put all of my colleagues in this category who care about the service men and women who sacrificed for the benefit of their fellow countrymen and came home to a Department of Veterans Affairs that failed to meet their needs. I have indicated that since I came to Congress, both in the House and the Senate, I have served on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. This is an issue that we need to make certain we get right. Just this week, in fact this morning, we passed a piece of legislation, the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act. That is an accomplishment. I remember the testimony of the two mothers in the Veterans' Affairs Committee who came to talk to us about the importance of this legislation, their experience as mothers, and the death of their sons by suicide. In the time that I have been in Congress, it is among the most compelling testimony I have ever heard. The part that sticks with me the most is the belief by these two mothers that had the Department of Veterans Affairs done their work, their sons would be alive. What that tells me is the decisions we make and those decisions as implemented by the Department of Veterans Affairs in some cases--in fact in many cases--are a matter of life and death. We saw the scandal that came about last year. We know the decisions we make have huge consequences on veterans and their families. We rejoiced--at least I did--in the passage of the Choice Act, which gave veterans the opportunity to choose VA services, to choose health care to be provided in their hometowns by their hometown physicians and doctors. The criteria that is set out in the Choice Act for that to occur is pretty straightforward. It says if you live more than 40 miles from a VA facility, you are entitled to have the VA provide the services at home, if that is what you want. It says that if those services can't be provided within 30 days of the time you need those services, then the VA shall provide those services at home if you choose. You can see the hospital, you can be admitted to the hospital of your choice, and you can be seen by the doctor of your choice. That was actually something to rejoice about, to be excited about-- that this Congress and this Senate came together and passed what I know to be a very significant and important piece of legislation. It is important for the reasons that common sense tells us it is important-- that a veteran who lives a long way from a VA hospital or a VA facility can now get services at home. A veteran who had to wait in line for too long could now get those services at home. The other aspect of that is that the Department of Veterans Affairs has told us time and again about the inability to attract and retain the necessary health care providers, the doctors and others who provide services to our veterans. So one way to improve that circumstance is to allow other health care providers, those in your hometown, to provide that service. The Choice Act was a good measure for the Department of Veterans Affairs to meet its mandate to care for our veterans, and the Choice Act was a good measure for veterans who live long distances from a VA facility, especially in States such as mine and the Presiding Officer's, where it is a long way to a VA facility. So I remember the moment in which that bill passed and was sent to the President. Finally something good has come. A bill has been passed. Something important to our veterans is occurring. But the reality is the implementation of the Choice Act has created many problems and, in my view, the Department of Veterans Affairs is finding ways to make that implementation not advantageous to the veteran but self-serving to the Department. This is what catches my attention today. We are reviewing the President's budget, and within that budget is this language: In the coming months, the Administration will submit legislation to reallocate a portion of Veterans Choice Program funding to support essential investments in VA system priorities in a fiscally responsible, budget-neutral manner. What the President's budget is telling us is that there is excess money within the Choice Act. We allocated money--emergency spending--to fund the Choice Act, and the President's budget is telling us: Well, we think there is too much money in there. We are going to submit legislation to reallocate that money to something we think is a higher priority. I don't expect many of my colleagues to remember, but I was on the Senate floor last week talking about a specific problem in the implementation of the Choice Act, and it was this: The Department of Veterans Affairs shall provide services at home to a veteran who lives more than 40 miles from a facility. Well, the problem I described last week is that the VA has determined that if there is an outpatient clinic within that 40 miles, even though it doesn't provide the services that the veteran needs, that veteran, he or she, must drive to the VA, wherever that is located, and does not qualify for the at-home services. Does this make any sense to any of us, that the VA says: Oh, there is an outpatient clinic within 40 miles of you, Mr. Veteran? Even though it doesn't provide the service that you need, we are still going to require you to drive to a VA hospital to receive those services and you don't qualify to go see your hometown doctor or be admitted to your hometown hospital. Who would think--in fact, I admired Secretary McDonald in his early days at the Department in which he talked about how the VA is going to serve the veteran: The decisions we make at the VA will be directed at how do we best care for our veterans. I respect Secretary McDonald for that attitude and approach, and I want the Department to follow his lead in accomplishing that mission. But clearly deciding that a facility, even though it can't provide the service you need, precludes you from getting services at home makes no sense, and it certainly doesn't put the veteran at the forefront of what is in the best interest of a veteran. So why would the Department of Veterans Affairs make that decision? We have a facility within 40 miles, but you don't qualify. So drive 3 or 4 hours to the VA hospital. Well, one might think they have made the decision that we are going to enforce that aspect of the Choice Act. We are going to enforce the idea that you don't qualify because they don't have enough money to pay for those services. But, lo and behold, the President's budget says there is excess money that we now want to transfer to other priorities. So, clearly, it is not funding issues. The Department is making decisions for some reason that makes absolutely no sense, defies common sense, and certainly doesn't put the veteran ahead of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I don't know what the story is that these kinds of decisions would be made, but it certainly is worthy of the Senate to make certain the Department implements its moment of triumph, the Choice Act, in a way that benefits those we intended for the legislation to serve. I will ask some questions of the Department, and I wonder about the attitude. I have been on task trying to get services provided closer to home for veterans for as long as I have been in Congress. One of the other programs, aside from the Choice Act, is a program called ARCH for accessing services closer to home. There are pilot programs across the country to do that. One of them is in Kansas. In an internal memo from Washington, DC, to a VA hospital in Kansas, the Department of Veterans Affairs indicated to the VA hospital in Kansas they could not promote, encourage or market the idea of a veteran seeking services at home. So already I bring skepticism about the attitude at the Department of Veterans Affairs. For a long time they have been told not to encourage veterans to find health care outside the VA hospital, outside the VA outpatient clinic. Here are a few questions. How do you reach the conclusion that there is excess money when the program is just now being implemented and, in fact, there has been a significant delay in getting the choice cards out to veterans so they could determine whether they were interested and qualified? I also have learned that the Department of Veterans Affairs has intentionally narrowed the veteran population that is eligible for the choice program by rule, narrowing the number of medical procedures for which they will consider whether it can be performed outside the VA on the 30-day rule. I didn't say that quite right. I didn't say it quite as well as I would like. But the VA already narrowed, by regulation, the services that might qualify for hometown services if it takes longer than 30 days to get those services. The VA added an unnecessary reimbursement requirement. I am told now that if there is a third-party provider and you have some insurance, the VA is going to require that the veteran pay the copayment up front and then seek reimbursement from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Of course, the fourth one is how can you reach the conclusion that a veteran, who needs colonoscopy--in my hometown, as I talked about last week, one must drive 3 or 4 hours to Wichita to the VA to get the colonoscopy because there is an outpatient clinic within 40 miles of my hometown, but the outpatient clinic doesn't provide colonoscopies. Now we learn that it is not a matter of money. It has to be a matter of attitude, approach, and culture. Just today, a few minutes before I came to the Senate floor to talk about this issue, I received an inquiry from a constituent who is a health care provider. What they indicated to me is their interest in providing services under the Choice Act. They have contacted the VA, pursued the opportunity to be a provider for that veteran population in rural Kansas, and they were told the rate of reimbursement would be something significantly less than Medicare. The Choice Act says the Department of Veterans Affairs shall provide these services up to paying Medicare rates. The VA says if you are going to provide services to our veterans, we are only going to reimburse you at something significantly less. That is something this health care provider didn't believe they could make any money doing, but ultimately they concluded it was their responsibility to try to help veterans who lived in rural Kansas, and so they went back to the VA and said we are willing to take less rates. Certainly let's negotiate and see if we can find something mutually agreeable between the VA and us to provide those services. They have yet to receive a return to their inquiry to the VA--again, trying to preclude a willing provider who is willing to provide services at less than cost. How can that be common sense? How can that be putting veterans ahead of the VA? I look forward to working with my colleagues. I look forward to our Committee on Veterans' Affairs--a committee the Presiding Officer serves on--trying to make sure we get this right. I want to return to the day in August when the Senate passed the Choice Act and there was this feeling of accomplishment of something beneficial and useful. If the VA continues to implement this bill--if it doesn't reverse course, if it doesn't put the veteran first, we will have missed another opportunity to care for the needs of those who served our country. What American would we expect to receive the best health care possible in this country? Well, of course, I want all Americans to receive quality health care at an affordable cost. But I would say there is no group of people for whom it is more important that they receive what is their due, what was committed to them, than those who served in our military and are now our Nation's veterans. I represent a very rural State. The congressional district that I represented as a House Member is larger than the size of the State of Illinois. It has no VA hospital. How do you get to a VA hospital when you are a 92-year-old World War II veteran and the hospital is 4, 5, 6 hours away? I thought we had finally come to a solution. I thought that earlier with the passage of legislation I introduced in the House that ultimately became the ARCH pilot program. While it gets rave reviews from veterans who are in those pilot program areas, it has not been expanded. It doesn't solve the country's rural needs. Then I thought, well, a great day has occurred; we passed the Choice Act. But as I look at the implementation, as I look at the decisions being made today at the Department of Veterans Affairs, I have to wonder if one more time we are providing false hope, false promises to those who served our country. We owe them something different than what is occurring today. I reaffirm my commitment to my colleagues, but also to the leadership of the Department of Veterans Affairs, to work closely, side-by-side, to make sure the choices made fit the reality of those who served our country in the circumstances they find themselves in today. Help those veterans who can't get the service because they can't get there. Help those veterans who need the services more quickly than the Department of Veterans Affairs can provide them. This seems straightforward to me, but I raise this concern today to make sure my colleagues and I are united in the effort to see that good things happen as a result of the passage of the Choice Act in 2014. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate in morning business for such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, we have had a lot of talk--certainly in the last year or so and certainly as this new session of Congress begins-- on the importance of tax reform. Our country is at a point in time where we certainly are no longer competitive globally. The economy now is one that works against us because of our Tax Code. I think there is general consensus in the Senate that reforming the Tax Code is of significant importance, something that must be done. I am often asked not only when I am back in Kansas but here in Washington, DC: Do you expect there to be broad-based tax reform? And we keep guessing about the likelihood of that happening. I think it is typical of elected officials, politicians, to always talk about the need for comprehensive tax reform. We talk about lowering rates, making the tax system more fair, less bureaucratic, less paperwork. I certainly join in those sentiments and believe that the current circumstance we have in regard to our Tax Code is such that it limits the freedom of Americans--American business men and women, individuals, and their families. We make way too many decisions based upon the consequences of those decisions and how they are affected by the Tax Code. So I am all on board on tax reform, but I wish to talk about what I believe is the best solution toward tax reform. And it is not tinkering with the current system; it is an overhaul of the current Tax Code. I have joined my colleague from Georgia, Senator Perdue, in once again introducing the fair tax plan. I started a long time ago in Congress, knowing that we needed to make significant changes in our Tax Code, with the belief that most Americans ought to be able to file a tax return without the need of professional help, that we ought to be able to make decisions that are in the best interests of ourselves, our families, and our businesses without always going to the Tax Code to see what the consequences of those decisions were. I looked at a variety of proposals that were being considered at the time and continue to be considered today and ultimately reached the conclusion that the Fair Tax is the best option for significant reform. I wish to speak for just a minute about why I think that is the case. As I said, Senator Perdue and I introduced S. 25, the Fair Tax Act of 2015. I have been a cosponsor of that legislation. It was originally introduced in the Senate by the former Senator from Georgia, Mr. Saxby Chambliss, and I am pleased to now succeed him in his efforts to see that not only is this topic discussed in Congress but ultimately that the Fair Tax Act becomes law. It is a significant step in the direction of individual freedom. I would highlight for my colleagues--and I have said this on the Senate floor before--I think the greatest responsibility we have as American citizens is to pass on to the next generation of Americans the freedoms and liberties guaranteed by our Constitution and the opportunity for every American to live the American dream. The Fair Tax, in my view, brings both of those goals front and center. Greater freedom and protection of individual liberties is certainly a component of the Fair Tax, and the opportunity for every American to pursue the American dream is a result that comes from the Fair Tax. It is that Fair Tax direction and individual freedom that caught my attention. It is the concept our Founding Fathers knew so well.

Mr. MORAN. I ask unanimous consent for additional time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, the Fair Tax repeals all Federal, corporate, and individual taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, and estate and gift taxes and replaces them with a revenue-neutral personal consumption tax. The Fair Tax allows Americans to keep the entirety of their income, putting individuals in charge of their own finances, not the government--or, more specifically, not the Internal Revenue Service. All Americans should be able to trust the IRS, which exercises great authority over the lives of Americans in this country, but we know from past experiences that expectation is no longer founded. So getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service is a significant benefit that comes from the passage of the Fair Tax. I recognize that consumption taxes can be regressive, meaning they are harmful to those at lower income levels. So the Fair Tax takes that into account by providing a pre-rebate for those who fall below certain poverty income levels so that the basics--the things we by necessity need to by in our individual daily lives--are not covered by a tax, therefore creating greater progressivity to what otherwise would be a more regressive tax and something that I think is still important in this country to make certain we don't overtax those at the lowest income levels in the United States. Certainly, our current Tax Code has significant complexities with all the paperwork. By some estimates, U.S. companies are currently holding over $20 trillion overseas. With the passage of the Fair Tax, foreign investments would no longer continue to sit on the sidelines when they could be brought back to America to drive economic growth and create jobs. For international businesses looking to relocate to the United States, the Fair Tax would be a welcomed sign. But the Fair Tax also benefits the consumer. It also benefits the everyday citizen, as I said, because of the pre-rebate. With my time being short, I look forward to having a dialogue on the Senate floor and in the committees over the next few months, and I ask my colleagues to seriously take a look at S. 25 and to join the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Perdue, and me and others in promotion of a program that reduces the complexity of the Tax Code in our lives, rids us of the Internal Revenue Service, protects the progressivity of the tax circumstance we find today, and most importantly, allows us to continue to pursue the American dream and promotes our individual freedoms and liberties. The Fair Tax is worthy of people's consideration. It ought to be more than just a talking point. It deserves a debate, a discussion, a vote, and consideration by the Senate. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the lesser prairie chicken should be listed in a number of States, including Kansas, as a threatened species. The lesser prairie chicken has had a significant history in our State and a significant population of birds, but as a result of a drought, the habitat for the lesser prairie chicken and other wildlife has been diminished and the number of birds has decreased. The consequences of listing the lesser prairie chicken that results from a drought is so dramatic and so damaging to the Kansas economy and to the farmers and ranchers and the use of their lands, to the oil and gas industry and the exploration of oil and gas, and to the utility industry in regard to the production and transmission of electricity that this amendment is necessary to set aside that listing as a threatened species and to allow interest holders in Kansas to come together and find a commonsense solution based upon sound science to protect the habitat of this bird. This is not just a Kansas issue, and in fact, this species is only the precursor to problems others will have in their States.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The Senator from Alaska.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, earlier this evening an amendment of mine was made pending to the legislation that we now have before us, amendment No. 73. I thank my colleagues for allowing that amendment to become pending, and I look forward to the opportunity now, while we are determining the remainder of the evening's schedule, to describe the nature of amendment No. 73. I have a copy of the amendment in front of me. It is a short paragraph, but it is one that has significant consequences to the people of Kansas. But in addition to the people of Kansas, it has significant consequence to the people of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. The story we are talking about is the lesser prairie-chicken. In March of 2014, the lesser prairie-chicken was listed not as an endangered species but a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. It is true the numbers of birds declined in 2012 and 2013. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had their explanation for why there was the decline in the population of those birds, both those who live on the land but as well a number of wildlife experts--people who are very interested in conservation practices in our State--believe and agree that the primary reason behind the bird's decline in population was the historic and prolonged drought that our area of the country has experienced in the past several years. There is less habitat for birds generally in our State and across this region of the country, but the reality is that it is because we have had so little rainfall. We have been in a drought in a significant part of the Nation, in our part of the country, for a number of years, and as a result there is less habitat and a decline in the bird population. What many believe is that with the return of rainfall, with the return of snow this winter and the moisture it will provide, we will have increasing wildlife habitat for the lesser prairie-chicken and a large number of birds and other wildlife in our State and in the surrounding States where this is a significant issue. There are some exceptions that have been written into the designation, but the reality is that there are huge, ongoing, significant economic consequences to the listing as a threatened species of the lesser prairie-chicken in Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. Front and center of that, of course, are the consequences to agriculture. It is how we earn a significant portion of our living in our State. Land values, for example, have dropped as a result of this issue. Oil and gas exploration has been disrupted. Wind energy projects that have been an important component of our State economy and particularly a benefit to the economy of rural Kansas have been harmed as a result of this listing. These disruptions have driven down county tax revenues that are used for essential services in some of the most challenging and difficult parts economically of our State, from damage to Main Street, and certainly harmed a portion of Kansas that always struggles to be economically viable. The listing, in my view, was based on an artificially low population estimate due to the drought I described. I guess I failed to mention that 1 year ago this was a bird which could be hunted in Kansas. So, again, it was prevalent enough to be able to be pursued by those who hunt, but because of the drought the population declined. In fact, every Kansas county that is included in the habitat area was experiencing a D3-Extreme or a D4-Exceptional drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor, again highlighting that what we need here is rainfall and moisture that comes from snow and rain and that listing this as a threatened species doesn't create the moisture necessary to create the habitat for the return of the population of the bird. What we really have asked for is an opportunity which has been offered and suggested by conservation groups in Kansas, by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, and by the Kansas Farm Bureau and others to work together to find a solution short of this listing to increase bird population in Kansas. And I assume that is true in the other States as well. We are looking for a cooperative effort to improve habitat, and the fact is that the listing as a threatened species has been so disruptive that we have been unable to get what we would say is a more commonsense, less broad-brush approach to solving this problem in place as compared to the heavy hand of this listing. We stand ready, willing, and able to provide that kind of local effort to improve habitat and bird population. This amendment would not mean the lesser prairie-chicken would never be listed again, but it gives Kansans and others the opportunity to go back and make certain that efforts at the local level are given a chance to work before the very dramatic and devastating implementation of this decision to list the bird as threatened. So this is a relatively straightforward and simple amendment that will take the lesser prairie-chicken off the list as a threatened species, give Kansans and others the opportunity to improve the habitat, reduce the economic damage that is being done in our State and the States that surround us as a result of this listing, and then give us the opportunity to again work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to find a better solution and one that, I might add, may be more easily found once the rainfalls return to the State of Kansas. I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to describe this amendment, and it is certainly my request and I look forward to it being an amendment that would be considered tonight, later this evening. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that sets aside the endangered threatened species listing of the lesser prairie chicken. It is an important issue to the citizens of Kansas but also to Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Colorado. I look forward to having this conversation and debate on the Senate floor at the appropriate time.

Mr. MORAN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.