Jerry Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I come from a State not exactly like yours, but we share the fact that we provide the energy, the fiber, and the food for this country and much of the world. There is a crisis that is with us, and that crisis is growing, and the consequences are dire. I was in my State of Kansas, as many of my colleagues were at home during the month of August. I traveled the State from corner to corner, putting 5,600 miles on my truck. I talked to lots of people, and I listened to even more. In addition to those conversations, last week, farm groups, commodity groups, and farm organizations made a call on Washington, DC, to highlight what I am highlighting today. Included in those visits were those who sell farm equipment in Kansas and across the country. Yesterday morning, before coming to Washington, DC, I spoke to an agricultural outlook conference in Kansas City. Today, I just walked across the street from visiting with bankers from the Kansas Bankers Association who are in the Nation's Capital as well today. The message I bring to my colleagues is that agriculture is in serious condition. Input costs have risen dramatically. The things that farmers buy in order to put a crop in the ground and to harvest that crop have escalated amazingly in a way that is so damaging, while the price they receive for what they grow has diminished. So the cost of seed, fertilizer, diesel fuel, natural gas, interest costs--all of which are significant components of the farmers in Kansas and the country--they are at a point in which there is no profitability in most circumstances for agriculture today. I would add that my couple of visits in Kansas with farm equipment manufacturers--we manufacture lots of farm equipment--and in places like Salina and Abilene, the circumstances of those businesses are in dire shape because farmers no longer can afford to buy the equipment they manufacture. The issue here is the farm bill. We neared expiration of the 2018 farm bill. It was clear we needed to write a new farm bill and get it completed. It hasn't happened. It is past due. That is not unusual, but in this circumstance this year, it is significant. Decisions not to get a farm bill done have come home to roost, and the families of farmers and those farmers and ranchers and the communities in which they live, work, and provide the economic viability of the community and at the same time produce the food, fuel, and fiber that America and the world need--those days of the capability of doing that are waning because of input costs, and you add to that the drought that has been suffered by many parts of my State. Farm income has declined 43 percent over the past 5 years, and net farm income is expected to be 27 percent lower this year than it was in 2022. Our agricultural trade deficit--something we always were proud about, as we exported more than we imported in agriculture--is a $42.5 billion deficit. We import more than we export. It puts our farmers even more at risk, and it threatens the stability and security of our national economy. So my plea to my colleagues is this: There aren't many weeks left between now and when Congress recesses for the month of October. We return in November and December, and we ought to use this opportunity to pass at least an extension of the current farm bill and at the same time, make certain that assistance is provided to the farmers to get them through the circumstance they are in. By the time we get a farm bill passed and by the time we get that assistance--that safety net that comes in title I of the farm bill--actually to farmers, it will be too late to address the challenges Kansas and American farmers face today. The goal in my remarks today is to bring the awareness of this issue to my colleagues and indicate that the direction we need to go is two- prong: pass an extension of the farm bill, which provides certainty and the ability for lenders and borrowers, bankers and farmers to come together and make long-term decisions. It is time for farmers to renew their credit line, and without the passage or extension of the current farm bill, the ability for a banker to make that decision to benefit the farmer begins to disappear. So we need a farm bill in place even if it is the current one, but the current one is insufficient to meet the needs of the disaster that is occurring in the incomes of farmers across the country. Last week--I think it was Thursday afternoon--Senator Stabenow and I visited here on the Senate floor--I point in that direction over there--and we had a conversation. Senator Stabenow indicated that she recognizes the challenge that farmers--the dire circumstances they are in today. Subsequent to that, I have met with and had conversations with Senator Boozman from Arkansas, my colleague who is the ranking Republican on the Agriculture Committee, and with John Hoeven, the ranking member of our Ag Approps Subcommittee. I want all of us to work together to accomplish what I just described: long-term extension and a shorter term disaster assistance plan. Those conversations have begun, and I am hopeful that before year's end, we will be able to do our work. Sometimes I get complimented--not very often, but sometimes I get complimented, and when I do, it is often for my efforts. While I am willing to do all the efforts that are necessary, in this case, efforts are woefully inadequate, and results are critically important. Mr. President, I look forward to my colleagues and I moving forward on farm bill legislation and disaster assistance short-term needs being met. I offer myself to work with Republicans and Democrats, rural and urban, to see that we get those goals accomplished. In closing, the current farm bill is not adequate to provide the relief or safety net of our Nation's farmers, nor is it reflective of the current state of the farm economy. With financial pressures building across the agriculture industry due to increased production costs and weakened market prices, the overall financial situation of the farm economy is bleak. The status quo is unacceptable. We must pass a long-term farm bill this year, and we must also consider immediate relief for farmers with a supplement. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee and the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, of which I am a member and have been its chairman, as we continue the appropriations process and find a solution so that it can be included in our work before year's end. Our farmers deserve and need better, and in the absence of successful farmers, the places that many of us call home--the future is bleak. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I, like many of my colleagues, spent a lot of time in our home States during the month of August and early September, and I am ready to come back and go to work. I am pleased to report that I had a number of conversations about things that we are doing and not doing with the citizens of the State of Kansas. I traveled from east to west and north to south, from Elwood in the northeast corner to Sedan in southeast Kansas, to St. Francis and Sharon Springs in the far western part of our State, southwest corner, to Liberal, KS. And I rise today to speak on behalf of many Kansans on a couple of topics. I would tell my colleagues: Many of my constituents are angry and afraid of potentially losing their homes, farms, and businesses, and their land as a result of the Department of Energy's proposed National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor. During August, Kansans from across the State--but particularly those who are in line for this corridor--raised their concerns with me about this proposal and that it would give way to a large-scale Federal Government intervention in rural America, in rural Kansas. One women in Downs, KS, shared how her home sits within the proposed corridor, and she is fearful of how the proposed transmission line would impact her family. By designating this corridor, the Department of Energy opens up the door for potential officials from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to steamroll State regulators by overriding their decisions on whether or not to site electric transmission lines. The Federal Government should not be in the business of condemning land for eminent domain, especially for a transmission project that was rejected by a State regulator. Kansans know these decisions should not be made by folks in Washington, DC, who live hundreds and hundreds of miles away. That is why I am introducing legislation with Congressman Tracey Mann, my successor in the First District of Kansas, to prevent the Federal Government from possessing landowner's property without their consent for these transmission projects. In addition to this legislation, I have also been engaged with the Department of Energy, who has assured me they will continue to accept comments and take them into consideration through the next phase of this proposal. After an unacceptably short comment period, it is critical the Department of Energy fully understands the objections my constituents have with this proposal. Protecting the Kansas way of life involves standing up for our smallest towns and for family farms, many of which have been passed down generation to generation. As these proposals move forward, I will continue to work to defend Kansas agriculture, small businesses, and the rights of property owners across our State from Federal overreach. We must--we must--make certain that the Federal taxpayer dollars are not used for eminent domain and that decisions about electrical transition siting be left in Kansas, not in Washington, DC.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, this afternoon Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, in his remarks to a joint session of Congress, reiterated to Congress; to us, the Senate; to the American people; and, really, to the world his determination to defend his country from terrorists supported by Iran who seek the elimination of the Jewish State of Israel. The United States must continue to provide Israel with crucial military and diplomatic support to make certain the dangers Israel faces can be deterred; and that, if possible, they are defeated, defeated those efforts to terrorize Israel. The horrific attack by Hamas 9 months ago remains vivid in our thoughts. A few weeks after that attack, I was in Israel to visit with the Prime Minister, to hear firsthand the circumstances that Israel and its citizens faced. In addition to those killed, the widespread instances of sexual assault and taking hostage of elderly and infants--under these circumstances, no person, no person of conscience, can fail to understand the desire to eliminate Hamas as a threat to the people of Israel. Our continued assistance to Israel is in our own national interest because the threats our friends face are also threats faced by the United States. This conflict may seem distant from our shores, but make no mistake that those who seek Israel's destruction, aspire to harm American citizens wherever they may be, including here at home. Madam President, 12 Americans were taken hostage by Hamas on October 7, and 8 still remain held in captivity. Many hostages have died in captivity these last 9 months, making it imperative that Hamas immediately free our citizens. Hezbollah continues to menace Israel on the northern border with fire being exchanged daily, forcing the evacuation of thousands of Israelis. With more than 100,000 rockets aimed at Israel, Hezbollah, like Hamas, is a direct threat to American citizens living there. It is true there; it is true beyond Israel. The intelligence community's worldwide threat assessment released this year found that Hezbollah ``maintains the capability to target U.S. persons and interests in the region, worldwide, and, to a lesser extent, in the United States.'' That assessment warns that that group will ``continue to develop its global terrorist capabilities.'' Our government--the United States of America--must commit, alongside our allies and our partners, to degrading Hezbollah's capabilities as a matter of international security. As we saw, as recently as last Friday's drone strike on a Tel Aviv apartment building, the Houthis in Yemen also pose a significant regional threat. Their slogan, of course, includes ``Death to America, Death to Israel.'' Their capabilities are expanding and have disrupted shipping through the Red Sea by launching attacks on cargo vessels. In response, the U.S. Navy has worked the last 8 months to reestablish the freedom of navigation. All these attacks--these three groups--what they have in common, with their varying ideologies, is the support that is provided to them by Iran. It is financial aid. It is weapons. It is training. Iran sustains these groups at the expense of our friends in the region and at the expense of our own security and well-being. Almost exactly 1 year ago today, I stood on this Senate floor--I stood here in the Senate--and called on President Biden to enforce the bipartisan sanctions Congress had passed to choke off the resources Tehran uses to fund its activities. The regime has plotted terrorist attacks on our soil and threatens to assassinate former President Trump along with other officials from his administration. With its nuclear program now only weeks away from producing nuclear weapons, it is all the more imperative to take measures authorized by Congress. Israel's existence is nonnegotiable, and our shared adversaries must not doubt the resolution of American support. That is one reason why I viewed it as critical to pass the national security supplemental earlier this year, which provided Israel with $26 billion to bolster its military. Standing with Israel goes beyond a one-off piece of legislation, and I would remind my colleagues that we have begun the appropriations process here in the U.S. Senate. And I will continue this year to advocate for military assistance that strengthens Israel's abilities to defend itself. As the committee begins to mark up 12 bills for the next fiscal year, I remind my colleagues that it is important we quickly advance our appropriations legislation because of what is at stake for our Nation and for our allies and for those who support our friends. Support for Israel goes beyond Israel's security. That is an important goal in and of itself. But I remind my colleagues that support for Israel is support for the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote scheduled for 1:45 p.m. commence immediately.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, the Senator from Arizona, I want to speak just briefly about the vote that we just cast but, more than the vote, the topic that it represents. The pier constructed to deliver aid to Gaza is a failure, was a failure, and it was a very expensive failure, and it has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. It was an idea poorly conceived and poorly executed. It is unsustainable to maintain, and it is not fulfilling its purpose. It should be dismantled, and there are already plans underway to eliminate the pier after remaining aid has been distributed or removed. Our U.S. forces, as they were in this instance, were called upon to deliver aid to areas of the world that are plagued by violence or areas that are hostile to the United States. And my complaint about the planning is nothing to distract from my admiration and respect for those who serve our country, and that continues in those individuals in the military who have served in the effort to try to provide aid to the people of Gaza. But this is not an isolated instance in which the United States and its military are asked to serve. The United States has previously assisted Iran after a devastating earthquake. This year U.S. forces delivered aid to Haiti, which is racked with gang violence. The capabilities of the U.S. military and the generosity of the American people to help innocent victims, no matter who they are or what government rules over them, is a testament to America's goodness and to American power. The point I want to make is the War Powers Resolution allows Congress to remove forces ``engaged in hostilities without specific authorization.'' I want to caution my colleagues against utilizing these authorities and setting a precedent that Congress can or should intervene any time we simply don't like the entity, the people, who are receiving the aid. I wholeheartedly respect Congress's ability to utilize war powers when appropriate. There is no greater responsibility we have than deciding when to send our sons and daughters to take part in a war. This decision should not and must not be allowed to reside with the President, with the executive branch alone. Yet, too often, it is exactly what we do, ignoring our obligations as Members of Congress. The Framers of our Nation determined that war is to be declared by Congress. And in too many instances and way too often, we fail to live up to our constitutional responsibilities. I believe there are many more opportunities more pressing and more damaging to our troops than just this failure of the pier, where Congress could and should intervene. At this moment, for example, the U.S. sailors are engaged in kinetic activities against the Houthis without any such authorization. Just like the Gaza pier, the Biden administration has placed servicemembers in harm's way without any strategy for success, at significant cost to taxpayers and finite defense munitions. This pier demonstrated President Biden's ham-fisted approach to the Middle East. Why should we allow him--but the point is broader than that. Why should we allow him--or any President--to continue missions that are adrift and have no prospect of a solution? It is a failure on Congress's part to assert our constitutional obligations in matters of war. Today's vote was a step--a step, I think, in the right direction--but we have much more to do to carry out the responsibilities we were elected to. I have said this on the Senate floor many times: When Congress looks the other way, when a President of either party issues executive orders or rules and regulations that make no sense under the law that was enacted that they are operating under, it is important, I think--again, I have said this on the floor before too many times-- people just want the result they want, and they don't care about the process by which they get it. And the process is what protects our freedoms and liberties. The process is what the Constitution is about, and we ought to be fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities, certainly when it comes to the ability to have members of our military in harm's way. Our freedoms and liberties are determined by that. The Framers understood that this country should not have a king and that the powers are vested in the legislative branch, not the executive. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, it was just a few weeks ago that I stood in this position on this floor and raised concern about how the Biden administration was undermining the law and restricting the ability of veterans nationwide to get healthcare closer to home. Since then, 19 of my Republican colleagues have joined me in calling on the Biden administration to quickly reverse course and to lift these restrictions on community care that they have put in place, to the detriment of many of America's veterans. One of those veterans, in my home State of Kansas, is Myca. Myca is an Air Force veteran and a single mother and a community leader. She does not have health insurance, and she relies upon the VA to help her manage her autoimmune disorder and many other health issues. Myca lives about an hour from the closest VA clinic, which is small and has a limited amount of services, and she lives more than 3 hours from the nearest VA medical center. In her own words, she said: I don't know what my health would be like or where I would be if I did not have my VA healthcare benefits in the community. Congress passed and President Trump signed the MISSION Act 6 years ago to expand and protect the right of veterans to seek community care. Community care offers veterans across the country--and is particularly useful in States like many of ours that are so rural, certainly in States like mine--a much needed lifeline. Often, it is the distance that causes a veteran to choose that he needs or she needs care in the community. Sometimes, it is expertise and specialty. However, in all instances, the Department of Veterans Affairs is making it harder for veterans like Myca to get the care they are entitled to under the law in the community. In President Biden's administration, community care has come under attack, and veterans--many of them--are paying the price. In January, the Department's Under Secretary for Health commissioned an outside panel to examine community care spending. After being provided with select data and briefings, the panel recommended that VA save money by, among other things, reducing community care referrals for veterans seeking emergency, oncology, and mental health care. There is not enough mental health care anyplace in the country. How could we restrict--why would we restrict, why would the VA restrict-- access to mental health care in the community? These veterans are among our most vulnerable and high-risk veterans in the VA patient populations. Since those recommendations were issued in the spring, veterans have been reaching out to me. As I have indicated on the floor before, many of the things I know about what is going on in veterans' lives come by the conversations I have with veterans or my staff has with veterans or phone calls, emails--the suggestion that something is not right in the way the VA is caring for a veteran. It often ends up in casework, and we try to solve the individual problem for the individual veteran. We also ought to solve the system problems, and this is one that is now systematic. It is not the circumstance that an individual veteran is uniquely being denied care in the community. It has become a systemwide effort to reduce the opportunities veterans have to access care in the community. I am sure my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats--if they talk to their caseworkers, our staff, people who deal with veterans' issues, you will see the same thing is happening in your community with your veterans. Most recently, I spoke about this on the floor when it turned out the VA had denied a cancer patient the last two cancer treatments where he has received the first 58 but was told he had to return to the VA--more than an hour away, to the VA hospital--to receive the 59th and 60th cancer treatment. And, most recently, I think if you would check with the folks in your offices who know these things--and I would guess many of my colleagues have heard this themselves--time and time again, someone who has had chiropractic care in the community is being denied the opportunity to continue to see their chiropractor and told: No, if you are going to have chiropractic care, you must have it at the VA hospital. We are also hearing, beyond our own constituents, from whistleblowers within the VA, people who work at VA medical facilities, and they are telling us--they are telling me--that they are facing increasing pressures from the VA leaders to keep veterans in VA medical facilities, whatever the choice is of the veteran. Incidentally, at the same time, the VA has actively indicated they are going to reduce the number of employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs, working in VA medical centers, by 10,000. I am grateful to my colleagues who join me in opposing these policies, and I appreciate that effort. Let me take this step with just a little bit of history. At a point in time, not too many years ago, we had veterans dying within the VA system because they couldn't access the care. Phoenix comes to mind. And, as a result, Congress responded and passed the Choice Act. The Choice Act said: If you live a certain number of miles away from a VA hospital--a VA facility--you can access care at home with your own physician, your own hospital. The VA was very reluctant, very reticent, and very difficult in the implementation of the law passed by Congress and signed by the President. And so we tried it again with the MISSION Act, a few years later. And one of the main provisions of the MISSION Act says that if it is in the interest of a veteran, he or she can have care where they choose to have it. And the best care of the veteran is defined not by the VA. Let me say that more clearly. The best interest of the veteran is not defined by the Department of Veterans Affairs but by the veteran and his or her healthcare provider. So the choice under the law rests with the veteran, not with the VA, and yet the VA is once again undermining the law and trying to make certain that those choices that a veteran, he or she, can make are not made by the veteran but made by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The veteran who wants chiropractic care at home, who has seen the same chiropractor for years, is told: No, we don't care what you want; we want to do it our way. These policies are very damaging and could put us back in the same position in which the life and well-being of veterans across the country are impacted, are affected, and damaged. I would again ask, along with my colleagues--which I hope is much broader than just a Republican set of colleagues; I hope my Democratic colleagues and my Republican colleagues--I hope all of us will insist that the Biden administration follow the law. It used to be that Republicans and Democrats came together when an executive branch decision was made that intruded upon the legislative branches' lawmaking authority. We need to get back to the days that, whether it is a Republican administration or a Democratic administration, if they are not following the law, they are not following what Congress has told them do, and we ought to all object. And we certainly ought to object to what the Biden administration is doing at the Department of Veterans Affairs to restrict the capabilities of people who are making choices-- those who served our country who are making choices that this is in their best interest. And we don't need the Department overruling a choice about that decision. I hope we will work together. I hope the Department of Veterans Affairs will change its ways. In the meantime, I am worried about veterans across Kansas and across the country whose decisions about their own well-being are undermined by those who decide something better is for them. Let's let our veterans, who served our country, make a choice in consultation with their healthcare provider about what makes the most sense. Sometimes it is miles. Sometimes it is quality of care. But that choice, regardless, ought to be made by the veteran. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, 10 years ago, a wait-time scandal at the VA Medical Center in Phoenix, AZ, led to a nationwide access and accountability crisis for the VA healthcare system. Many of us responded to that, worked to find a solution, and we ultimately passed something called the Choice Act. Subsequent to that, we made improvements in what we learned from the Choice Act's implementation and usage by veterans and its consequences to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and we enacted the MISSION Act, which was signed into law 6 years ago this month. The MISSION Act expanded the ability for veterans to seek care in their communities and made VA healthcare more accessible, convenient, and veteran-centric than ever before. The MISSION Act has also contributed to significant increases in enrollment of veterans, utilization and reliance on VA care, and improvements in quality and trust among veterans. For veterans--particularly those in rural States like yours and mine--the ability to get care closer to home can be life-changing and lifesaving. Unfortunately, recently, VA leaders have been taking alarming actions to limit the choices that the MISSION Act affords veterans in Kansas and across the country. It is unfathomable that the VA would consider leaving veterans with fewer options--fewer options--to seek the care they need. Yet I have seen a dramatic increase in community care-related casework requests from veterans and VA staff in recent weeks and whistleblowers in their conversations with me, and I know that many of my colleagues have experienced the same thing. A lot of what I know about what is going on in veterans' lives and how the VA is doing is from the conversations I have with veterans in what we as Senators and Members of Congress call casework--someone who brings us a problem with the hope that we can make a difference and find a solution. Our casework in this area has escalated dramatically. A number of these casework requests involve--one of them, for example, involves a veteran with cancer. I mentioned this in a hearing in which VA officials were in front of our Veterans' Affairs Committee just in the last couple of weeks. But this veteran with cancer--he and others who have cancer, chronic pain, or mental health concerns are among the most vulnerable, high-risk veterans in the VA's patient population. In one case, the VA canceled the community care authorization for a veteran in Manhattan, KS, about an hour away from Topeka, where there is a VA hospital. The issue here is, this veteran--one, why did they cancel the care? Two, this veteran had completed 58 of 60 cancer treatments, and the VA canceled the last 2 in his hometown and told him he needed to find chemotherapy at the VA in Topeka, about an hour away. The VA wanted him to drive back and forth to Topeka for his remaining treatments. The VA, when I told them the facts, saw that something is wrong here and adjusted to allow him to have his treatments--the last 2 of the 60--where he had been receiving the first 58. But it is only one example in which the VA is rolling back the opportunities for veterans who are already receiving care in the community to continue to receive that care. These kinds of decisions would be alarming and unacceptable to me and many of my colleagues I think at any time, but it is particularly concerning right now--and it is why I am on the Senate floor today highlighting this issue--it is particularly concerning right now given that the VA recently implemented a strategic hiring pause in the VA healthcare system and is actively working to reduce the VA workforce by 10,000 employees. It defies my understanding, how the VA expects to limit choices for veterans in the community--in other words, forcing them into a VA direct care system--while at the same time working to reduce staff in that direct care system that are actually available to care for those veterans. Independently, these policy goals are cause for concern. Together, they risk the welfare of veterans and the VA's workforce nationwide. I would encourage my colleagues to take a look at the casework that their staffs are working on on behalf of veterans in their States and see if they are not experiencing the same thing that I am seeing, which is more and more veterans saying: Senator, Jerry, Senator Moran, can you help me? I have been receiving care in the community. I like the way I am receiving that care. I like my provider. Yet the VA is pulling the rug out from under me. These actions could cost some veterans their lives and drive other veterans away from VA healthcare benefits that they have earned and deserve. I have had several veterans tell me: I like what I am getting in the community so much, I am going to pay for it out of my own pocket. Veterans can do better. The VA can do better. The VA must do better. But I don't think this is just a happenstance. I don't think that the facts or the circumstances I am describing to my colleagues are just something that seems to be happening at the VA. It is a concerted effort by VA leadership to bring community-care veterans back into direct care at the VA. As my colleagues may recall from the MISSION Act, what the law says is a veteran, in many instances--in most instances--is entitled to care in the community if he or she--the veteran--along with their provider, decide it is in the best interest of the veteran. That decision is not made by the VA whether a veteran is entitled to care in the community; it is made by the patient--the veteran--and the provider--the doctor, the nurse practitioner, the physician assistant. Yet there is a concerted effort in VA leadership to deny veterans that care and insist that if they are going to receive care, they receive direct care within the VA healthcare system. I am a fan of the VA healthcare system. I support it. I work hard to make sure that it has the capabilities--their assets, the necessary resources--to do its job. But I also know that there are circumstances, particularly in rural areas or certain kind of specialized treatment, in which it is the right thing to do to allow a veteran, with his or her desire, and his or her provider saying this is in the best interest of my patient to have care provided in the community. This is a really important issue. The VA struggled to provide care for veterans in the past. Many improvements have been made. We have given veterans a choice. But the VA has no right, no ability, to undermine the choice that a veteran makes. I call on the VA to immediately reverse course. The VA has, of course, explained to me their rationale, in some ways deny that there is any concerted effort or any policy change; but the circumstances are so evident, so prevalent, that I absolutely believe that the VA's policies, the encouragement of their staff, is to do something contrary to the law. The VA needs to reverse its course, reaffirm the right of veterans-- those who have served our country. They have the right to seek the care that they need and desire in the community in which they live or where they believe the best absolute care can be provided to them under their current healthcare circumstances. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I am here on the Senate floor today to call attention to my colleagues. I want them to recognize--and, really, Americans to recognize--the significant crisis that is happening not only in my home State of Kansas but across the country. All of us face this in our home States. The independent and community pharmacies in our Nation have been struggling for years to survive, and their situation, unfortunately, is deteriorating rapidly. Independent and community pharmacies play an invaluable role in the healthcare of our country and especially in rural communities, like those in my home State. For many Americans, the local pharmacist is not just a convenient healthcare provider, but it is also someone with whom they feel most comfortable in receiving medical advice. I remember my dad, into his nineties, declined to go see the doctor because he knew they would find something wrong with him. But when he had a cup of coffee at the drugstore, he talked with the pharmacist, who provided him with healthcare, occasionally putting a blood pressure cuff on his arm and suggesting to my dad: Ray, you need to go to the doctor. They are really important people in our communities, and they are highly trusted; and their advice is invaluable as we try to make certain that all Americans are more healthy. Local pharmacists know their patients, their health situations, and even their families, as is the norm in tight-knit rural communities. The service occurring at a local pharmacy is not simply one for physical medication but offers the relational aspect so often missing in today's healthcare system and, in fact, in today's world. Community pharmacies do not just dispense medications. They build relationships with their patients, and they offer a familiar face and trusted adviser, extending value far beyond their role as just a provider of medication and prescription drugs, although that is their profession. But despite their irreplaceable role in America's rural communities, from 2003 to 2021, the number of independently owned retail pharmacies declined in rural areas by 16 percent. Through the COVID pandemic and in its aftermath, local pharmacies have been hit hard by the same difficulties our entire healthcare system and infrastructure are facing: high inflation, nonexistent workforce, and supply chain shortages. However, in addition to these factors experienced by many, pharmacies face additional significant challenges that threaten their solvency and are forcing an increasing number of independent and community pharmacies to close. The growing challenges with the 340B Drug Pricing Program and actions of participating manufacturers are reducing the revenues for contract pharmacies. While 340B was created to ensure low- income and uninsured patients have access to discounted drugs, pharmacies have relied upon the program for revenue via contract pharmacy arrangements, a policy that Congress ought to codify within the 340B statute. Another factor is the actions of pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs. We have three committees in the U.S. Senate, all which have passed legislation dealing with PBMs, but none of those pieces of legislation has come to the Senate floor--PBMs that, unlike any other sector of the healthcare industry, have operated without oversight and regulation for years. The obscurity of their industry allows PBMs to argue that they are helping to keep prescription costs lower for patients while ensuring a higher reimbursement for pharmacies. Recent studies, investigations, and real-life experiences of our independent and community pharmacies and their patients tell us the exact opposite is true. I hear this from my pharmacists across Kansas. It used to be, early in my days in the U.S. Senate and even in Congress, that the gathering place in the community and a nice enjoyable place to visit was the community pharmacy, the community's drugstore. Today, if you enter the drugstore as an elected official, you will hear the difficulties those pharmacists are facing in their profession and in their business. Part of that is the story of PBMs and the PBMs' clawbacks from reimbursements already made to the pharmacists, rebates that did not reach patients and went instead to the PBMs. Vertical integration and unfavorable terms offered to 340B contract pharmacies have become increasingly frequent and the common practice of PBMs. In addition to actions taken by the PBMs, local pharmacies also recently have been forced out of or are unable to serve TRICARE beneficiaries. Two years ago, TRICARE began a new contract with Express Scripts, the subsidiary owned by Cigna. The new Express Scripts contract offered to interested pharmacy participants offered reimbursement rates that were far too low for many of our pharmacies or pharmacists to accept. The pharmacists did not have the ability to negotiate the reimbursement rates with Express Scripts. It was a ``take it or leave it.'' Without negotiations and unable to afford the offered reimbursement rates, countless numbers of local pharmacies in Kansas could not participate in the new TRICARE network with Express Scripts. In addition to the community pharmacies' desire to serve veterans, Active- Duty military members, and their families, the costs associated with TRICARE prevented them from doing so. When the costs of acquiring and dispensing a drug are higher than the reimbursement rates, a business--a pharmacy--simply cannot make that math work and stay solvent. Yet we continue to ask our community pharmacists across the Nation to do that each and every year, to make that situation work year after year. While perhaps you can get by for a year or maybe two, you can't get by year after year after year. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Nation's independent and community pharmacies are facing a crisis, and if Congress does not act, a significant number of local pharmacies will be forced to close. We frequently discuss the high rate of rural hospital closures, but rarely do we ever discuss the parallel crisis of losing rural pharmacies at this increasingly alarming rate. I am told by the Kansas Pharmacists Association that 32 percent of community pharmacies across the country are considering closing this year. Unfortunately, I know that 32 percent includes a vast number of Kansas pharmacies. As of 2021, Kansas is one of four States with the most counties lacking sufficient access to a pharmacy. What I am saying is that there is already a problem of access. But with the trend that now presents itself, more and more Kansans--more and more Americans--will have less access or no access to a pharmacy. Today, many of our healthcare needs are met by prescription drugs, and yet that will not be an option for many Americans. So often we take for granted the healthcare infrastructure we have in our Nation, from hospitals and community health centers to specialists and pediatricians and primary care practices. No matter where an individual is seeking care, one place that is a common denominator for the entire healthcare system is the pharmacy. Independent and community pharmacies in Kansas and across the Nation are the one place where a patient can go to fill their medication, see a friendly face, and know that local access to care is there for them when they need it. We are asking for miracles from the community and independent pharmacies to remain solvent through a barrage of unfair situations, none of their own making. They deserve better than what we are asking from them. And just as they offer lifesaving services to Americans, Congress ought to heed the warnings from community pharmacists and offer lifesaving policies and legislation to them. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, on the last Monday in May, our Nation sets aside the day to remember, honor, and pay respects to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in our Nation's military. Flags are flown at cemeteries, and families visit the graves and war memorials. They are sharing and reliving memories of the ones we have lost. This Memorial Day will be different for the family of U.S. Army SGT John O. Herrick. Nearly 80 years ago, Sergeant Herrick was killed off the coast of Normandy, and his body was never identified. The ending to his story was left unwritten until earlier this year, when his family received word that their soldier would soon be coming home 80 years later. During World War II, Sergeant Herrick was assigned to Company B of the 149th Engineer Combat Battalion in the European theatre. He was on board Landing Craft Infantry 92, alongside 200 other servicemembers on the way to Omaha Beach, when the craft was hit by an underwater mine. Everyone on board was killed. At the tender age of 19, on June 6, 1944, during the D-day landings, Sergeant Herrick paid the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation's freedom. Sergeant Herrick--a young boy from a small town, Allen, with a population of about 100--is memorialized on the Normandy American Cemetery's Walls of the Missing. When I was there, I saw his name. There are many heroes like Sergeant Herrick whose names are only remembered in the hearts of their descendants and etched in stone at places like the Vietnam Memorial wall and the white crosses at Arlington Cemetery. Remembering and honoring the sacrifice of these heroes is not only the right thing to do, it is really important for our Nation. Hopefully, it pulls us together, not pulls us apart. We must never forget the great cost paid by our servicemembers and their loved ones as they fought fascism in Europe, tyranny in the Pacific, or terrorism in the Middle East. Their sacrifice has protected our freedoms and our Union. One way the stories of these fallen servicemembers is being preserved is through the Veterans Legacy Program, which works to uncover the stories of fallen servicemembers and make them available to the public. The Veterans Legacy Program provides grants to educational institutions and community organizations to conduct historical research on veterans buried in national cemeteries and to share those veterans' stories through an educational program. To help further the mission of the Veterans Legacy Program, I introduced, with Senator Mazie Hirono, my colleague from Hawaii, a bill entitled Honoring Veterans' Legacies and Burial Benefits Enhancements Act. This legislation would establish a nonprofit that would be able to accept private donations that would be used to fund the Veterans Legacy Program, operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Furthering the mission of the VLP will help to create and preserve a collection of the stories of our Nation's heroes. How we memorialize and how we honor our veterans when they have passed sends a message to their families and to our current and future servicemembers that we value the past, the present, and the future sacrifices made by those in military service. Doing so not only honors our fallen servicemembers but encourages another generation of Americans to model their lives after Sergeant Herrick and others who gave their lives in devotion to country. When Sergeant Herrick is laid to rest later this year on Veterans Day, in Emporia, KS, where Veterans Day was first celebrated, hopefully his life and his story lives on in our hearts and is remembered, retold, and revered on this and every Memorial Day to come. Mr. President, I will say what I said to my dad when I called him from the World War II Memorial shortly before it was dedicated. I called home to Plainville, KS, to say to my dad: I am at the World War II Memorial. Dad, I want you to know this memorial--built in your honor--causes me to tell you: Dad, I respect you. I appreciate your service. And, Dad, I love you. This Memorial Day, I no longer can say that to my dad. Incidentally, on my way back to the Capitol from that visit, my phone rang. It was my dad. He said: Gerald, you left me a message. Could you repeat it? I didn't understand it. I can't repeat it to my dad any longer--he is no longer living--but we can use this Memorial Day and every other day to say just exactly what I said to my dad then, a World War II veteran: Dad, and to every servicemember and to every veteran, we respect you, we appreciate your service, and we love you. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, this week, we remember--and I join my colleagues here on the Senate floor to do so publicly--we remember our law enforcement who have died in the line of duty. This week every year, we pay tribute to those who serve in the uniform and as a result of that service, come to a tragic death. I offer my condolences to the people of North Carolina, the families of the officers just described by the Senator from North Carolina. In my role as a Senator, I have chaired and have been the vice chair of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds our national law enforcement officers--the DEA, the ATF, the FBI, the U.S. Marshals. A deputy U.S. marshal was killed in North Carolina just recently. It is an honor, a privilege to be able to be associated with those who are willing to sacrifice so much for the benefit of all of us and particularly those in the communities in which they live. We honor that sacrifice, that dedication, that service to our communities. We know police officers put their lives at risk and their families know they put their lives at risk every day to protect our communities in our country. While this week is a time to remember those who have passed, it is also important for us to express gratitude to those who currently serve. During this week, we will memorialize 282--282--individual law enforcement officers, 282 heroes who during the last year gave their lives serving their community. One of those heroes was Kansas Officer Jonah Oswald. In August of last year, Officer Oswald was fatally shot while responding to another department, a neighboring law enforcement's request for help. Officer Oswald was just 29 years old, a husband, a father--father to two young boys. He had served for 4 years in the Fairway, KS, police department. Fairway is a small suburb of Kansas City; population, 1,170. He knew the importance of serving his community. He knew his community. This morning, Ben Overesch spoke at the National Police Week memorial ceremony in Kansas, and he said this about Officer Oswald: Jonah understood the danger before him and without hesitation he showed up, over and over again, to meet it. Jonah policed with an enthusiasm that was hard to match. He was always vigilant. He was always eager for opportunities to help citizens of Kansas and Officers alike. He was employed by Fairway, but the citizens of Prairie Village, Mission Hills, Westwood, Roeland Park, Mission, and others around us were helped by Jonah more than they will ever know. He was not so enthusiastic out of vanity, or want of glory, or aggression. He believed in service, and in the nobility of the profession. He believed in right and wrong. He was filled with the hope that good will triumph over evil. We must remember not only his sacrifice, but his example daily. Words spoken this morning in Topeka. Thank you, Officer Overesch, for those remarks, and thank you to Officer Oswald for your service. All too often, we forget about the many important roles that our law enforcement officials have within our communities. This extends beyond relationships between police officers and individual citizens. It is about relationships between law enforcement and key institutions in our communities--our churches, our hospitals, our schools, and our businesses. During this National Police Week and throughout the year, we must remember that law enforcement needs our support--and not just during tough times. It is our duty--really, we have the opportunity to be grateful, but it is our duty as citizens, as lawmakers, as Members of the Senate to support our officers, to provide them with resources and acknowledge the incredible sacrifice that is made every day. Now more than ever, it takes a special kind of person to be a law enforcement officer. Whether sheriff's deputies or detectives, local police, Tribal police, highway patrol officers, beat cops, Federal agents, the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, we hold up those who wear the badge. We honor them today, as we should every day. To them, we say: Our respect is for you. You represent the extraordinary examples of how we see America at its best. May God bless our law enforcement and their families. May they be safe from harm as they defend and protect the communities in which they serve and live. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I return from a weekend at home. And last week, on the floor, I spoke about the same topic, and I rise today to again discuss the legislation that is now pending before the U.S. Senate, a long-term, 5-year reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. I appreciated the opportunity to work with you and others on the Commerce Committee as we worked our way through this process. I think we have been at this about 14 months, and the time is for us to bring this to a conclusion. A long-term reauthorization must be a priority. It should be a priority as it was in our subcommittee, and, certainly, it should be a priority of this Senate. I am disappointed to learn, just a few moments ago, that it appears that the House of Representatives is set to vote on a 1-week extension. I hope that we do not utilize that development in the Senate to delay our consideration and passage of the legislation. Perhaps, that is the way for the House next week to finish the work, but as we often do here when there is extra time, we take every moment and much more than what is really available. After 14 months of negotiations, the most recent extension expires Friday of this week, May 10. It is time to come together and pass a long-term FAA reauthorization. I am the ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, where I worked closely with Chairs Cantwell and Duckworth and Ranking Member Cruz to balance the priorities of the FAA, the aviation community, its academia partners, and the flying public in a bill that demonstrates Congress's commitment to aviation safety and excellence. This legislation strengthens the standards for air safety, bolsters the aviation workforce, modernizes American airports in urban and rural settings, promotes innovation in American aviation, and enhances consumers' air travel experience. My home State of Kansas is steeped in aviation history and will continue to contribute to the greater industry as a result of the passage of this legislation. The FAA reauthorization safeguards the Essential Air Service Program, ensuring that rural communities and small airports are connected to the national airspace system, increasing business and tourism and access to educational opportunities and employment throughout the country-- invaluable to States like mine, States like Kansas. This allows small airports in rural communities to continue to have regional air service. Previous FAA reauthorization bills created the Aviation Workforce Development Grant Program, aimed at strengthening the pool of pilots and aviation maintenance workers. The text of agreement expands this highly competitive grant program to grow the aviation workforce and is broadened to open eligibility for aircraft manufacturing workers. Whether you are an airline looking for a pilot or an airplane manufacturer looking for a worker, there is great demand in our country for those who have those technical capabilities, that engineering experience, and those who love the joy of flying. Bolstering this grant program means increased competitiveness, which only drives innovation and will create more opportunities and economic development for our State and my colleagues' States. Every place you go, people are looking for workers. In America, we are known as the place in which aviation is king. Aerospace is a driving force in our country. A workforce is critical to its future. Similarly, this bill encourages research on how best to introduce emerging aviation technologies in the airspace, including electric propulsion and hypersonic aircraft. As the ``Air Capital of the World,'' Kansas is the leader in new aviation research, development, and technologies. These are significant components of our educational system in our community colleges, technical colleges, and our universities. This legislation also provides a unique opportunity, not only to address current demands of the industry, current technical needs, but also to address the future ones. The FAA oversees the world's busiest and most complex airspace system in the world, managing approximately 50,000 flights and 3 million passengers every day. In order to address shortcomings in air safety and modernization, Congress must do its job and pass a reauthorization bill that is tailored to the needs of the aviation community and the flying public. Recent incidents and near misses have made clear the urgency of this responsibility. No matter what else we do, we need to make certain that flying is as safe as it possibly can be. This bill also makes considerable investment in modernization of the National Airspace System and FAA's systems for oversight. As air traffic increases and new manned and unmanned aviation technologies are deployed, this bill provides essential updates to the FAA and to the NTSB's regulatory mandate. This bill addresses the need for additional numbers of air traffic controllers. With an eye toward the future of aviation, this bill invests extensively in research and development around advanced materials, including at Wichita State University, innovative fuel research, and emergent aviation technologies. The bill equips the FAA to meet its mission, to provide a safe and efficient operating environment for civil and commercial aviation in the United States. Beyond innovative safety and workforce solutions, the bill provides the aviation industry, academia, and regulatory Agencies with the resources needed to maintain and extend America's leadership in aviation. The path to a long-term FAA reauthorization has not been easy; nor has it been a short one. But this critical legislation can no longer take a backseat. Delaying this important legislation any further only exacerbates the challenges that the American civil and commercial aviation industries face and essentially condones bad behavior and lack of incentive by Congress. Madam President, I hope that we do not use--if the House does pass a short-term extension, I hope we do not use it as an excuse to not proceed further today, tomorrow, and Friday to complete our work. It is time we come together. It is time we get this bill done. It is past time for us to come together and get this bill done. The flying public and our aviation industry partners want it and our country and our citizens deserve it and need it. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the bipartisan, bicameral agreement reached for a long-term Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization. You would know, as a member of our committee, that we have worked hard to bring the FAA aviation community together to make certain that we do not end up with a result of one more extension after extension after extension, and that we can provide some certainty for the FAA in fulfilling its mission. When I became the ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, I stated the importance of passing a long-term reauthorization and pledged to work with Senators Duckworth, Cruz, and Cantwell, as well as my other colleagues on the Commerce Committee, to get a comprehensive agreement completed. I want to thank the leaders of both the Senate Commerce Committee-- Senators Cantwell and Cruz--and the House Transportation Committee-- Congressman Graves and Congressman Larsen--for their months of work to get us to this point. I also want to thank my counterpart on the Aviation Subcommittee, the chairman of that subcommittee, Senator Duckworth of Illinois. She has been a pleasure to work with, with a commitment to aviation and experience to back up that desire to see success in this effort. Multiyear reauthorization is vital for long-term planning and growth in the civil aviation industry, including the maintenance and modernization of aviation infrastructure and technology. Continuous short-term extensions are detrimental to the Agency, industry, and to the flying public. This week and next week, Congress must come together to ensure our current extension of the Federal Aviation Administration, which is until May 10, will be our last--no more extensions. Last October, the Senate recognized how critical the FAA is to the country and evidenced that recognition by voting 98 to 0 to confirm Mike Whitaker as the FAA Administrator. If the United States is to remain a leader in the aviation and aerospace domain, it is critical we provide the FAA with the resources and tools they require. The aviation sector has seen close calls and near misses plague our Nation's air space, in addition to quality control concerns. Recent incidents indicate now--now more than ever--that our aviation system needs certainty and stability, and that is provided, in part, by a long-term authorization of Congress. The original Senate legislation was drafted after eight committee and subcommittee hearings, and I am pleased that many of my priorities were included in this legislation. Kansas will have an important role to play in advancing our aviation industry, including research and development and hypersonic flight and testing, as well as AAM and UAVs. This legislation also includes my priorities to, one, bolster the aviation workforce, improve the FAA backlog, promote women in aviation, expand travel access for people with disabilities, attract air service to small communities, support staffing and training for air traffic controllers for the first time in decades, address new aircraft entering the air space, expand advanced air mobility, and safeguard essential air service programs. I encourage my colleagues to, once again, find a collaborative way to move forward to address FAA reauthorization. We manufacture lots of airplanes in the State of Kansas. We are the air capital of the world. More general aviation aircraft than anyplace in the world are manufactured there, as well as commercial aircraft. And I sometimes think that if I have any reputation as being an advocate for aviation, it is probably because we manufacture so many airplanes. And that certainly is true. But I also would highlight the importance of an airport and airplanes to small communities across Kansas, not just in the manufacturing that is centered around South Central Kansas. But every community and their airport are an essential way in which that community has a brighter future. Airports and aviation, including commercial air service to small airports, are hugely important to the wellbeing of States like ours. The American people deserve the safest. In fact, that is probably the most important component of what we can do here. It is to ensure, as best we can, the safety of the traveling and flying public. There is no future of aviation and aerospace in Kansas or elsewhere if citizens of our country and around the globe are not feeling safe and secure to fly. The American people deserve nothing less than the safest and most efficient aviation system in the world. Our bill provides critical safety enhancements, grows America's aviation workforce, invests in infrastructure at airports in urban and rural communities, sets clear priorities for advancing innovation in aviation solutions, improves the flying public's travel experience, and ensures a healthy general aviation sector for years to come. Again, I thank my colleagues on the committee for working to accomplish this moment. I look forward to the vote that takes place a little later today, and I encourage my colleagues to work hard to see that we get this completed in the next few days. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, my colleagues, we live in a dangerous world. Fellow Americans and Kansans, we live in dangerous times, and the world is a real challenge. The national security crises abroad and here at home are increasing. They are ever increasing. Iran launched a full-scale attack on Israel. Hamas has stated its intent to wipe Israel off the map. Russia continues its brutal aggression in Ukraine. And China is rapidly modernizing its military and using companies to spy and track Americans. Each of these conflicts is interconnected, and it would be naive to send aid to Israel but take a pass on supporting Ukraine, Taiwan or our other allies. It is vital the United States be a steadfast and reliable partner in the midst of so many dangers that threaten the world and our own nation's peace and prosperity. In a joint FOX News op-ed with former Secretary Mike Pompeo, we stated: The preservation of freedom requires enormous effort; indeed, liberty demands the marshaling of every resource necessary in its defense against those who would see it destroyed. Vladimir Putin has chosen to pursue the reconstitution of the Russian Empire according to his own vision of Russian history. He has made clear that his aspirations go beyond Ukraine and that he views NATO as Russia's enemy. Under Putin's leadership, Russia is increasingly collaborating with other nations that oppose us--Iran and our most powerful adversary, communist China. Allowing the war in Ukraine to fester will only prolong and deepen the instability already wrought, and it puts at greater risk the 100,000 U.S. servicemembers defending NATO's borders, including those from Fort Riley in Kansas. I have said, from the beginning, the world is a better and safer place if Ukraine wins and Russia loses. Ending the war on terms favorable to Kyiv will leave Ukraine and the NATO front in a stronger and better position to deter further Russian aggression. Just a week ago, Iran launched a full-scale attack on Israel from its own soil. Through an impressive and coordinated effort with the United States and other countries, Israel successfully defended itself from the barrage of missiles fired at it. It was a victory for Israel, but Iran has demonstrated that it is capable and willing to act on its desire to eliminate the State of Israel. Standing with Israel and Ukraine also means standing with our Indo- Pacific partners. We cannot be tough on China and weak on defending Ukraine and Israel. The Pentagon describes China as the most ``comprehensive and serious challenge'' to U.S. security. The Japanese Prime Minister stood before Congress, just a few days ago, and reaffirmed that ``Japan is already standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States.'' The United States must send the message that we are committed and that we are standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies in the Indo-Pacific. The bill that we are about to debate, discuss, and presumably vote on allows the United States to respond to immediate needs as China increases its military provocation of Taiwan, while also modernizing our own U.S. fleet to compete in the Pacific. It is in America's--it is in America's--vital national interest to assist Ukraine in repelling Russian invasion, assist Israel in driving out terrorism, and assist our Indo-Pacific partners in standing up to China's threats. We must project strength. Failure to do otherwise undermines our credibility, and that undermining of credibility, unfortunately, resonates around the globe. That credibility was already damaged after the administration's disastrous and chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Additionally, in this funding package, a majority of those funds provided to Ukraine--and those provided in previous packages--will be directly injected back into the U.S. economy. There has been a significant amount of misinformation on this bill, and that is important to clarify: 70 percent of funding in the Ukraine bill--$42 billion of the $60.8 billion--will be used to replenish U.S. stockpiles and develop, produce, and purchase U.S.-made weapons, including weapons from production facilities in Kansas and the Kansas City area. This package also requires the administration to develop a strategy to support Ukrainian victory. The American people deserve to know the objectives of supporting Ukraine, our interests as they relate to this war, the cost of not satisfying those interests, and an estimate of the resources that are needed. The supplemental will deliver on all of these aspects. There is no path forward for Ukraine; there is no path forward for Israel or for Taiwan if the United States of America disengages in the world. The pricetag is significant. But in the absence of taking a stand now, we have to take a stand tomorrow. Do what we need to do today or pay a price later, and later will be even more costly, but these costs must be shared with our NATO allies and our partners elsewhere in the world. I commend NATO and the European nations that have, up to now, pledged more support to Ukraine's cause even than our own country has. Europe has pledged more money than the United States; yet it is critical to rapidly fulfill these commitments, such as through the delivery of necessary equipment like air defense systems, to help Ukraine better withstand Russia's onslaught. I am reluctant--and so are many Kansans--to spend more money or to be engaged further in the world, especially with a crisis at our own southern border. I share my colleagues' frustrations that we were unsuccessful. We came close, but we were unsuccessful in including border policies in this package. The crisis at the southern border is a grave national security threat. There are lots of reasons to be concerned about people coming across our borders, but I would highlight, in this conversation, it is a security threat. The administration's continued inaction at the border is particularly frustrating when the administration has many of the tools that it needs to improve the situation. I will continue working to pass legislation to protect the border, but at the same time, we must work to bolster our national security in the areas that we can agree upon. We can't wait for a new administration or a new Congress to try and pass perfect border legislation, if such a thing exists. Some of the national security challenges we face are not strictly military in nature and reflect the changing nature of what conflict is. What does ``conflict'' mean today? Our adversaries use technology companies to collect vast amounts of personal data from Americans. This information can be used to control or influence each of us, often without our even realizing it is happening. This bill takes the first step to protect U.S. data, but significant work is left to ensure America's data is secured by a Federal comprehensive data privacy and security law. The challenges we face, unfortunately, will not just go away. They will not resolve themselves on their own, and the preservation of freedom requires enormous effort. I have always believed that our greatest responsibility as American citizens is to make sure that those who follow us live with the freedom and liberties that were guaranteed by our Constitution and that were fought to protect and defend by those who sacrificed, many of them who sacrificed their own lives. This week, we have an opportunity to deliver on that effort--to do, to live up to our responsibilities as Americans to be a steadfast and reliable partner. I am grateful to my colleagues in the House for their work in getting the National Security Supplemental passed and sent back to the Senate. I underscore to my colleagues in the Senate the importance of doing the work we were elected to do. Americans who will be directly impacted, they are paying attention--but so are our adversaries and allies. I hope we are successful in fighting for and defending the liberties and freedoms of America and Americans and in protecting and helping to secure the remainder of the world. It is in our benefit--in America's benefit--to do so. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I appreciate what I heard from the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Capito, and I am pleased to follow her and precede a number of my colleagues as we address the issue of the crisis at our southern border. I want to highlight something I heard her say and reiterate myself, this is a national security threat. There are many reasons to care about what is going on at our borders, and certainly you can take a look at the issue of sovereignty and the nature of our country. We need to enforce our laws, fentanyl and drugs, human trafficking, but sometimes overlooked is the reality of what a security threat a border like we have between the United States and Mexico is--but really all of our borders. They create a threat to the safety and well-being of the American people, the citizens of our country. And, yes, we have to deal with the growing drug and crime emergency. It is exacerbated. I have been talking to a number of law enforcement officers in Kansas--sheriff departments and police officers--and there is no question but what they see in Kansas, the challenges are exacerbated by the lack of security, the lack of law enforcement at our borders, and they see the consequences of that activity in human trafficking and drugs. It is important for us to talk about and focus on all of the things related to our national security. In my view, it is the primary responsibility of the Federal Government to make certain that Americans are safe. And I was on the Senate floor several weeks ago highlighting something I think is hugely important to our national security: the passage of the emergency supplemental. The consequences of the lack of passing that legislation has consequences to the people of Ukraine and the people of Israel and the Middle East, the safety and security of other countries in the South Pacific, but I highlighted then and would highlight now the passage of that emergency supplemental has a consequence, a negative consequence if it is not passed, on the safety and security of the American people. And so when I was here to highlight the importance of that legislation and the need to proceed, I also highlighted the consequences of ignoring our border. And I want to say, once again, that our border is a national security issue. So while we focus on the things that we normally think about national security, sometimes we forget this dangerous circumstance that has been created. I have been to the border a number of times, numerous times. On my last visit, I watched as Border Patrol agents apprehended Chinese nationals attempting to come into our country illegally. That, in and of itself, ought to cause us to have great concern. Under Secretary Mayorkas's watch, the U.S. Border Patrol has apprehended 336 individuals on the Terrorist Watchlist. Remember the Terrorist Watchlist and the people who came here on 9/11 and the consequences of us failing to exclude them? But 336 have been apprehended from that Terrorist Watchlist, and that doesn't include the ones whom we have not caught. It suggests to us, suggests to me and I hope to us, that there is a real serious issue about our national security as a result of our country's failures, this administration's failures, on the border. In fiscal year 2023--a year ago fiscal year--in that year alone, the men and women of U.S. Customs and Border Protection had approximately 2.5 million encounters along that southern border. These historic levels of crossings at the southern border have put an astronomical-- just a tremendous strain on our immigration system and seriously compromised, as I say, compromised our national security. Not every immigrant is a criminal, but the sheer number of migrants at the border enables those with evil and malicious intentions to enter our country undetected and to harm Americans. This historic failure is not an accident. Migrants making their way to the United States, often through the assistance of organized criminal organizations, know our laws and the current lack of enforcement of those laws. This administration has created these conditions and has done little, if not--really nothing to dissuade migrants from making that dangerous journey to our borders. Migrants know that the administration has resisted detaining those who crossed the border illegally. They know that this administration has resisted hardening border infrastructure, and they know that the administration's abuse of the parole system will increase the chance of remaining in the United States if they can get across. All of those factors lead us to where we are today. Last fall, I questioned the Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Secretary Mayorkas. We had a joint Appropriations Committee. The hearing was on our national security, and the topic was the supplemental I referenced in my remarks several weeks ago on the Senate floor and just a moment ago. And when I asked Secretary Mayorkas if he was willing to work on areas of immigration reform where there is bipartisan consensus--certain issues I believe in regard to border security would receive 60 votes on the Senate floor and be signed into law--the Secretary told me that he wanted comprehensive reform. I have been in this body, the Senate. I have been in the House before then. We have talked about immigration changes. We have talked about border security. Those two things go hand in hand, in my view, and we know where this insistence that we have comprehensive immigration reform ends. No evidence in my time in the Senate and no evidence in my time in the House that if we have to do everything--the evidence is that we do nothing, and that is what I told the Secretary. I would tell him that again. If you are unwilling to work with us to find the things we can agree on, then nothing is going to happen to protect our borders, and our immigration system remains so flawed. There is value, of course, in comprehensive reform--things that deal with all issues top to bottom--to ensure the needs of safety for the American people and the importance of that to our economy. But, again, my experience and my time in Congress is that if we keep waiting for comprehensive reform, the result is we do nothing. Secretary Mayorkas has an obligation to use the tools Congress has already provided to enforce legislation that has already passed. Waiting for comprehensive reform is an excuse for the Secretary and for the President, President Biden, to do nothing. Mayorkas's inaction on the border and his leniency toward enforcing the law has resulted in what we see, the crisis we face today. We keep waiting to reach the tipping point in that crisis, but that, I think, has long passed. Migrants are living on the streets of New York. We have lost thousands of Americans to fentanyl poisoning, and our borders have been exploited by our enemies. My point is that America is in jeopardy in many ways. We face tremendous challenges around the globe, and our adversaries and enemies are aligned to do us harm. And one of the places that we cannot look the other way is our border and our border security. It is too great a risk and too much of an opportunity for death and destruction to come to the United States of America. The Biden administration has made it clear, over the last 3 years, that securing our border is not a priority; it is not a priority of theirs. And now it is up to the Senate to hold the administration accountable for those failures, the failures at our southern border, again, that affect our national security, the No. 1 priority of the Federal Government. Every State is a border State, and the American people deserve a secure border. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I rise today to recognize Watco Executive Chairman Rick Webb, who recently was inducted into the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association's Short Line Hall of Fame. Watco is a transportation and supply chain service company headquartered in Pittsburg, KS, with a 40-year legacy of excellence in industrial transportation. Rick Webb has been, and continues to be, an integral part of that legacy. Rick's father, Dick Webb, founded the company in 1983, and Rick began working on the Watco team while he was finishing his degree at the local Pittsburg State University. He joined the family business full time after graduating in 1984, taking on a diverse portfolio of responsibilities including operations, marketing, hiring personnel, and raising capital. In 1987, Watco purchased its first short line to primarily serve its own railcar repair shop. In 1998, Webb became Watco's chief executive officer, taking the reins from his father. After two decades of service as Watco's chief executive, Rick turned over leadership to Dan Smith and took on the role of executive chairman, where he continues to steward the growth of the business and the family's customer-first model of service. Rick Webb has been with Watco from the beginning, and during his tenure with the company, it has grown from one facility to more than 190 locations operating in four countries. That growth is in no small part due to Rick Webb's leadership. Rick is the kind of person you want to follow. He is the kind of person you can always take at his word. When I think about what it means to be a Kansan--a person of good character, strong integrity, authenticity--Rick is that person. But I cannot talk about Rick's character without recognizing the person who played a tremendous role in shaping him. Kaye Lynne Webb, his mom, helped build Watco and raised a son of the highest caliber. She is an amazing woman and an integral part of the Webb family and the company. Knowing Rick and the quality of his character, I was pleased to learn that he was inducted into the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association's Hall of Fame on March 25, 2024. An article in the Pittsburg Morning Sun notes that the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association established this award in 2020 to acknowledge ``visionaries and stars who through their dedication, commitment and achievement best exemplify the qualities of innovation, entrepreneurialism, perseverance and service that have advanced the short line railroad industry.'' Rick has met and continues to exceed this standard. The same article highlighted the current Watco CEO Dan Smith's praise of Rick for his consistency as a leader. The article included the following description of Rick by Smith: He's truly a great man. I would say that he's the best teammate I've ever had; he's the best coach I've ever had; he's the best friend I've had. Throughout his time at Watco, Rick has been driven by an unrelenting desire to serve the best team possible to serve customers in the best manner. Rick has carried with him the belief that if you want to learn how to grow the top line, you listen to your customer, and if you want to learn how to grow the bottom line, you listen to your team. Rick's business knowledge and Kansas work ethic have earned him many accolades over the years, including being named the 2010 Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year in the Central Midwest Region and winning the 2022 Railroad Innovator Award from Progressive Railroading magazine. In addition to Rick's induction into the American Short Line Hall of Fame, the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association has honored Watco with the Veterans Engagement Award for their dedication to veteran recruitment. I want to congratulate Rick and the entire Watco team on their successful accomplishments and achievements. It is certainly nice to have a great businessman and a great business in Kansas called Watco, but even better, it is great to have a person of Rick's caliber, his character, and his interest in the community. Many towns the size of Pittsburg, KS, and many communities in Kansas, generally, have a set of people who are always involved in whatever good happens in the community. Rick Webb and his family have been consistent in their support for the Pittsburg and Southeast Kansas communities and for their support for Pittsburg State University. I look forward to seeing their business continue to flourish as they fulfill the mission of serving their customers, their employees, and elevating the standard for short line railroads for Kansas, our Nation, and the world. But I especially thank him for being the kind of person he is and how much difference he makes in Pittsburg, in Kansas, in the country, and the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, today, I rise to honor the life and mourn the loss, the passing, of a fellow Kansan, Phil Howe. Mr. Howe lived most of his life in Manhattan, KS, and he loved his hometown. He was an active member of the community, a local businessowner, and a proud Kansas State University Wildcat. The only place he may have loved more than Manhattan was his family's farm. During his younger years, Phil spent time at that farm. The farm was near Chapman and Solomon, where he enjoyed farming and fishing. Phil attended Sacred Heart Academy and graduated in 1950. Afterward, he attended Kansas State University and completed a degree in business administration. Phil was also an active member of Beta Theta Pi Fraternity. After graduating from Kansas State University, Phil married his wife, Margaret, and they were married for 57 years, until Margaret's passing 10 years ago. Phil's career started at the Union National Bank, where he worked as a consumer loan officer. With years of banking experience, Phil decided to charter his own bank, to go out on his own, and, in 1969, the Kansas State Bank was opened. It was chartered and opened in a trailer home and now has grown to a nearly $1 billion enterprise. His interests in business did not stop with banking. Phil was elected to serve as president of the Griffith Oil Company and founded both Master Medical Company and Baystone Financial Group. Years later, Phil served on the board of St. Mary's Hospital. He was an active member of the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce and sat on the dean's business advisory council for Kansas State University. Phil established foundations to help people across the Manhattan community and across our State of Kansas. Through the Greater Manhattan Community Foundation and the foundation's Youth Empowerment for Success Fund, he helped impact many, many lives, especially young people. I would see Phil at Manhattan Rotary Club meetings. And I know I speak for many when I say Phil will be greatly and sadly missed. Robba and I are praying for his family, his friends, and loved ones during this time. Robba attended the services this morning at Seven Dolors Catholic Church in Manhattan. Mr. Howe was a respected businessman and community leader, the kind of person every community in Kansas wishes there were just more like him. More importantly, Phil was a kind and caring man of character and of faith--just what our State, our Nation, and world so desperately need today. I offer these remarks with the greatest amount of respect and gratitude for a life well lived.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, today, I want to recognize a lifelong Kansan who dedicated nearly 40 years of his life to volunteering in his community. Carl Chalfant has led, served, and provided for his community and family as a dad, grandfather, first responder, and city administrator. Carl was born on a dairy farm near Lancaster and attended Cloud County Community College where he met his wife of 48 years, Vickie. Together, they have two daughters and five grandchildren. Lots of boys and young men dream of having the heroic job of a police officer, firefighter, or paramedic when they grow up. Carl didn't just settle for one of those jobs; he did all three. It is important to note that in rural states like Kansas, many communities don't have the resources to staff and maintain full-time first responders. Instead, most rural communities will purchase equipment, like a fire truck or ambulance, and members of the community will volunteer to be trained as first responders and serve as an on-call, volunteer EMT or firefighter. This is how neighbors look out for each in rural communities and how Carl came to be a hero for many of his neighbors and friends. I want to share a brief history of Carl's service as a first responder, mostly in volunteer capacities. EMT--starting in 1986, Carl served as an EMT in Marshall County, Jefferson County, and recently retired from being an EMT in Washington County. Firefighter--Carl started volunteering for the local fire department in 1976. He served as the assistant chief in Marshall County until 1990, at which time he moved and served as the volunteer fire chief in McLouth. He retired from firefighting in 2013. Police--Carl worked as part-time police officer for Marshall and Jefferson Counties for a little more than 10 years. His daughter recalls how his many volunteer activities earned him the title of a ``weekend warrior.'' And these were just Carl's volunteer or part-time jobs. Carl has worked in a number of positions for communities across Kansas and is currently the city administrator for Washington, KS. For many folks across Kansas, Carl has been the one to shop when things were scary or dangerous. He has saved countless lives through his service to the community. Serving others is a way of life for Carl and a character trait he has passed on to his two daughters and five grandchildren. Whether helping students at 4H events, girl scouts, or the local theatre, you can often find Carl and his whole family pitching in to help out. After decades of service, Carl has retired from being an EMT, but nevertheless is still an active member of the community. He sits on the Kansas Rural Water Association as a board member and is an active member of the Masons. Carl's decades of service, commitment, and leadership have impacted hundreds of lives. He is an inspiration to others, a hero to his family, and brings a smile out of everyone he meets. Thank you, Carl, for your contributions to your community and the State of Kansas. I hope you enjoy retirement and spending more time with your loved ones.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, first day of spring, National Ag Day, a perfect time--a fitting time--to address the Senate on something that I think is really important and something that is frustrating to me and to the people I represent. American agriculture is at a crossroads, a pressure point. Things are really challenging for those who provide our food, fuel, and fiber. There is record-level volatility in the farm economy, and farm income is falling by the most significant amount of all time. We ought to be providing certainty to those who provide our food. I was troubled to read a report that the Senate Committee on Agriculture--its chair--indicated that there is a level of comfort with scrapping negotiations for a new farm bill and continuing with the outdated, now at least 5-years-old, policies from the past. In that same article, surprisingly, disappointingly, Secretary Vilsack expressed his support for that decision. Our farmers deserve and, even more importantly, they need better. Agriculture is an incredibly difficult industry, as farmers and ranchers face challenges from weather events, economic shocks, and supply chain shortages. Added to these challenges are the inflationary policies that have raised the prices on farmland and, ultimately, at the grocery store. This includes soaring input costs, which are up nearly $100 billion since the last farm bill, which covers interest on loans, livestock feed, fertilizer, labor, fuel--to name just a few of the things that farmers need to produce that food. Looking back at 2023, USDA, or the Department of Agriculture, forecasted that America's farmers and ranchers would see farm profitability fall by $42 billion nationwide, nearly a 25-percent drop compared to 2022. So during the life of the farm bill, USDA is estimating that profitability will decline by $42 billion. This is just unsustainable. Farmers can't manage these circumstances. These challenges don't just impact farmers, but, ultimately, they impact American consumers trying to feed their families. For Kansas, agriculture is our State's largest economic driver, with a total output contribution of $81 billion into the State's economy and supporting more than 250,000 jobs, which is about 13 percent of our entire State's workforce. Beyond crops and animal husbandry, Kansas agriculture is at the forefront--forefront--of producing renewable energy, critical research and education, and furthering sustainability and conservation practices throughout Kansas and worldwide. Kansas is also a leader in animal health science. As part of the animal health corridor, Kansas has the largest concentration of animal health interests in the world. Last year, Manhattan, KS, welcomed the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, or NBAF. This is a state-of- the-art facility that protects and will defend our Nation's farmers and citizens from potentially severe zoonotic and biological diseases. In addition, Kansas and many places of the country continue to experience weather challenges. In Kansas, there is a wide array of those challenges, but most oppressing is the drought. We need to address drought through mitigation and resiliency. On Monday of this week, yesterday, I was in Liberal, KS, for the 2024 Ogallala Summit. Ogallala is an aquifer that, in about the western third or western fourth of our State--along with five other States, six other States--is a huge component of the agricultural economy. This event, this conference I attended in Kansas, brought stakeholders from across the High Plains region and beyond to discuss and learn about water management practices. How do we do better in preserving our assets? And how do we conserve and utilize more efficiently that great asset? Key conservation research and education programs are authorized in the farm bill, including USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, which provides technical assistance and conservation programs, like the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. In previous farm bill years, I have led the effort to maximize that program, called CREP, on the Upper Arkansas River Basin to reduce the amount of groundwater used for irrigation, improve groundwater levels, increase stream flows in the Arkansas River, and protect water quality in our region. The program is working, but we need additional tweaks, changes in the law, which is why I introduced the CREP Improvement Act, which would provide additional flexibility for family farms to better utilize the program. In Kansas, landowners view access to the Ogallala as their lifeblood and the core of their rural communities and are committed to conserving and replenishing the Ogallala. These are just a few sections. In fact, throughout the last year or more, we have been working with both Republican and Democrat Members of the Senate, particularly Senator Bennet of Colorado, to figure out what more we do. And we have introduced several pieces of legislation, all with the anticipation that that legislation would be considered at the same time the farm bill was considered and potentially be included in the farm bill. But the recent announcement by the chair of the committee indicates that we are going to abide by the status quo--no conversations, no additional efforts. I have been an aggie since I came to Congress, including my days in the House, where I chaired the subcommittee on farm commodity programs, and I have been through numerous farm bills. And they are always hard, and they are always late, and we never get them done easily. But this seems different to me, for the first time saying: What we have is what we get. There are many provisions that affect agriculture that need to be addressed in a new farm bill, and it is important. I underscore how valuable, how important it is to pass a farm bill in the House and Senate and send it to the President. We must deliver a farm bill that provides certainty of risk management programs to help farmers and ranchers weather the storm, and we must rework revenue protection programs to provide a critical safety net that works with market challenges and allows farmers, particularly young farmers, to borrow the money to stay in business. If we fail to pass a farm bill, we are passing up opportunities to grow alternative fuel production through policies that encourage investments in biofuels for aviation, for example. Our global competitors are outspending the United States year after year by billions in agriculture research. The Senator from Illinois and I have legislation designed to increase the support for agricultural research, which we hope--at least I hoped--would be a part of the farm bill. And we will be left behind in your investments for research if we don't meet the needs of the day. A farm bill would include investments in education for our land grants and our Agricultural Research Service, which provides cutting- edge science and tools to allow farmers and ranchers to do more with less and contribute to our national and food security. A good point, the farm bill is a component of our national security. The farm bill maintains critical authorizations, as well, for reauthorization of global food aid programs. Through these programs, America's farmers and ranchers proudly provide U.S. grown commodities throughout the world as a lifeline to many who are in war-torn regions or recovering from economic or natural disasters. Global hunger, unfortunately, is real and threatens the future of millions of people every day. I join three others of my Senate colleagues, another Republican and two Democrats, in cochairing the Senate Hunger Caucus. And you just look around the world at Russia's invasion of Ukraine, around the Middle East, Africa, and Haiti, and we see starving people. From a young age, most of us--each of us--were taught that it is our duty to help those in need. So many in Kansas have answered that call time and time again. A Kansan, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, created Food for Peace. Senator Bob Dole worked to expand our Nation's efforts to provide food for the most vulnerable populations through the Dole-McGovern--or McGovern-Dole--Food for Education Program, and Senator Pat Roberts prioritized these programs in previous farm bills. Kansans have taken this moral responsibility to heart, and we must do our part by reauthorizing these programs in a farm bill considered this year. The time is now to show leadership--to show leadership for America's farmers and ranchers. Tough decisions are ahead of us. The farm bill is always difficult, but we have always been able to come together and accomplish our goals. We should not walk away from the process. It is a dereliction of duty to the farmers and ranchers of America. I hope that we, as leaders, can get back to the table and produce a farm bill that provides meaningful and real relief for Kansas producers and protects our country from the challenges that we face around the globe. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I come to the floor today as we debate really difficult, challenging, and serious issues. I am reminded that I didn't seek to be a U.S. Senator to do what we have been doing month after month--mostly spending each day dealing with confirmations and nominations. These issues we are debating and will ultimately vote on this week have consequences well beyond the things we have been normally dealing with in the U.S. Senate. Secretary Gates, a fellow Kansan, warned of the government's dysfunction at a moment in history in which he argues that our Nation ``confronts graver threats to its security than it has in decades, perhaps ever.'' I agree with this assessment. We live in a dangerous time in a very dangerous world. I underscore to my colleagues the importance of doing the work we were elected to do. Americans will be directly impacted by our decisions but so will our adversaries and our allies. The United States must be a steadfast and reliable partner in the midst of so many dangers that threaten our Nation's peace and prosperity. The dangers are certainly to other people--other people within the world and other nations--but what we are dealing with are threats to our own national peace and prosperity. The national security crises abroad are challenging, and they are ever-increasing. China is rapidly modernizing its military, with the goal of being ready--ready--to invade Taiwan by 2027. Putin continues Russia's aggression in Ukraine, putting strain on European allies and on food supplies around the world. Iran is providing support for terrorism that is attacking our ships and bases and killed three servicemembers last month. Hamas has stated its attempt to wipe Israel off the map, even saying the terrorist attack on October 7 was just--was just--the beginning. North Korea's expansion of its nuclear arsenal places risk to us here in our homeland. In a joint FOX News op-ed that I penned with former Secretary Mike Pompeo, we stated this: The preservation of freedom requires enormous efforts; indeed, liberty demands the marshaling of every resource necessary in its defense against those who would see it destroyed. Putin has chosen to pursue the reconstitution of the Russian Empire according to his own warped vision of Russian history, and he has made it clear that he has aspirations beyond Ukraine and that he views NATO as Russia's enemy. Under Putin's leadership, Russia has increasingly collaborated with other nations that oppose us--Iran, Syria, and our most powerful adversary, communist China. Allowing the war in Ukraine to fester will only prolong and deepen the instability already wrought, and it puts at greater risk 100,000 U.S. servicemembers defending NATO's borders, including those from Fort Riley, KS. It is in America's national interest to assist Ukraine in repelling Russia's invasion. I thought about wearing a tie the color of Ukraine's flag. We see those every once in a while. I thought to myself, that is a mistake. While this has something to do with Ukraine, this is really about America, about the United States of America. We are doing what is necessary for our own well-being and our own preservation. Ending the war on terms favorable to Ukraine will leave Ukraine and NATO's front in a stronger and better position to deter further Russian aggression. By treaty--by NATO agreement--we have no choice that should Putin take the next step and invade a NATO member country, we will not just be supplying aid, but we will be supplying military young men and women. Allowing the war to continue is damaging. Allowing Ukraine to not be successful is damaging our own security and well-being. We must project strength. Failure to do so undermines our credibility, and that resonates around the globe. A large majority of the funding provided in this legislation to Ukraine--this legislation that says it is to Ukraine--has really been directly injected back into the United States economy. This bill provides $35 billion to replenish American stockpiles and develop and produce and purchase American-made weapons. This is not a blank check for Ukraine. It is not a blank check for Israel. It is not a blank check for Taiwan. There is nothing free about this. We are spending a lot of money. It is hugely expensive. However, in the absence of spending this money, we are going to be spending more later as the world continues to crumble. There is no path forward for Ukraine, there is no path forward for other countries that are looking for a brighter future, if the United States is disengaged from the world. I wish it wasn't true. I remember the first graduation speech I gave as a new Member of Congress. It was to a small town in West Central Kansas. And I said: Growing up, all we paid attention to was the price of grain at the grain elevator. What we had to know and what affected us in our lives in rural Kansas was something very local. I wish it was still that way. But we have no--no--alternative. We must engage in the world to protect our own selves. It isn't free, and it is spending a lot of money. But it is less expensive than the alternative. The price tag is overwhelming. The debt is damning to the future of our Nation. But in the absence of taking a stand now, we have to take a stand tomorrow. And that stand will be even more costly. The disastrous, chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, one of the saddest days or few days of my life--certainly in my life as an elected official--was watching the way things unfolded there. Certainly, it was damaging to people who were there, but it also has been damaging to our country in huge and significant ways. The whole world watched as a void in leadership resulted in the death of American servicemembers and stranded thousands of our Afghan allies--those who helped our service men and women, stranded them behind enemy lines, perhaps to their certain death. I was critical--and remain critical--of the Biden administration for the manner in which we came out of Afghanistan. And many of my colleagues--especially Republican colleagues--joined me in that criticism. But our failure to support our allies and partners around the world is a replication of what happened and what we did, what we didn't do, when we departed from Afghanistan in such an unthoughtful and haphazard way. We have an opportunity to partially remedy the situation by passing legislation to protect those Afghan citizens who helped save the lives and promote the success of American servicemembers. As we debate how to proceed in this national security supplemental, I would take this moment to remind my colleagues of the importance of a bill--the Afghan Adjustment Act--as we seek to attain a vote on an amendment to this bill to assure that those Afghan allies are not forgotten. As Kabul fell to the Taliban--and while I can certainly see the importance of this to those Afghans, this issue comes to me as a Member of this body who spends and devotes time to our veterans, to our military men and women--our veterans extended the creed ``leave no man behind,'' as they helped their Afghan partners flee to the United States for safety. I don't have the ability to undo what the Biden administration didn't do or what it did. I don't have the ability to change the outcome of their inept ability to lead on a global stage and defend the country. But we as Members of Congress can rein them or push them in a certain direction. The reality is the decisions made by the administration in Afghanistan have come back to haunt us. We sent a message to the world. In my view, it is the same message we would send if we failed to pass the emergency supplemental--hopefully--as amended. The administration continued its inaction at the border, and it is terribly frustrating. This administration has many tools it needs to improve the situation at our borders and, particularly, our southern border. I am disappointed we couldn't move forward on border policies as part of this package and to mandate the President to enforce the law. But it turned out there was no path forward on the border deal that would get the necessary votes in the Senate. And we wanted to succeed in having a border provision that not only worked and addressed seriously the problems on our border, but we also wanted to send a message to the House of Representatives that it is a piece of legislation that they could support. And, unfortunately, we never got there. Senator Lankford demonstrated leadership. He did what he was asked to do. I was in those meetings in which we talked about having a border provision of serious and significant magnitude before we moved forward with help to any other country. I continue to believe that that is the right course of action. But now it doesn't seem to be a course that we are able to succeed and put into effect. It will take a different Congress and a different administration. Kansans are right to be upset when their government does not enforce the laws, and they are right to be upset when we spend too much money. I am reluctant, as many of my constituents are, to spend more or to engage further in the world. But while I and many Kansans are angry and frustrated, our enemies abroad are on the march. There is not a day that goes by that I don't worry about what is happening elsewhere and not so much about what is happening elsewhere to people who are there but what happens in our own country if we don't deal with those circumstances today. It is always easier, I suppose, to look the other way. But often, when we do that, the end result suggests that we should have looked right in the face of the problem and taken it on. Our enemies are on the march. I try never to use my membership of the Senate Committee on Intelligence to say I know something that nobody else knows. I certainly never want to suggest to Kansans that I know something that they don't know. I trust their judgment and believe in them. But China, Russia, Iran, Iran and its proxies, North Korea are collaborating to weaken, to harm, and to attempt to make the United States abandon its leadership role. There is some morality to the decisions we make here. And I suppose there is an argument that can be made about the morality both ways, regardless of what we do. Morality--there actually is a right and wrong. I think we forget that in our country. Some things are right, and some things are wrong. And we try to finesse so that we never have to make the decision about which ones are which. I suppose right and wrong comes from, really, your soul, who you are as a person, how you grew up, what your parents taught you, what you learned in church or synagogue. I care about how my constituents feel. I indicated to my colleagues recently that we spend so much time doing next to nothing here, why do you take me away from my family, and why do you take me away from Kansans where I love to be? I would always prefer to be in Kansas. But every so often, there are issues that come before us that seem to be ones that explain why we are here. This is one of those moments in which we are finally escaping the drudgery and dissatisfaction of doing little. When I came to the U.S. Senate, I was welcomed here by then-Majority Leader Harry Reid. Senator Reid was polite and pleasant to me and always was; but on that day, on the first meeting as a new Senator here on the Senate floor, in that well, he said: Jerry, welcome. How do you like being here? My response was to Senator Reid: I was really honored that Kansans gave me the chance to do this job. But, sir, it doesn't seem like we are ever going to do anything. There is nothing about my life that would suggest that I would be a Member of the U.S. Senate; nothing in my background, nothing in my family. I wanted to come to the Senate to do something; to do something right; and to do it well. Senator Reid's response to me was: Jerry, you just need to understand, we are not going to do anything. You just need to know that. Here, I had just worked my way to the U.S. Senate only to discover that the job description was: ``Let's not do anything.'' So I tried from that day to take what Senator Reid said and use the opportunity that I have been given by Kansans to do something--to do something right; to do something in cooperation with my colleagues; and to provide meaning for all those days away that me and my colleagues are away from home and family. When this is all over, I think we all want to actually do something that matters. Today, I tell my colleagues and my constituents and Americans that the challenge we face will not resolve themselves, and the preservation of freedom requires an enormous effort. It is a special place we live in--a special place we call home. And the freedom and position that we enjoy, we too often take for granted. It has been a while since--in fact, many in this body--many in Congress--no longer have served in the military. We tend to forget what that burden of serving means. We owe something to those who served. We owe something to a generation of hard-working men and women who have come before us. In my view, we owe them to live up to our responsibility to preserve what they have defended and protected and made available to me, to Americans today, and to our generation, our children and grandchildren, and Americans that we will never know. I believe in ``America First.'' But, unfortunately, ``America First'' means we have to engage in the world. Taking a sober view of history, there should be no doubt of the importance of the outcome in Ukraine, the Middle East, in China, in the South Pacific, and what it means to the United States. I go back to what Secretary Pompeo said with me in that FOX News opinion piece: The preservation of freedom requires enormous effort; indeed, liberty demands the marshaling of every resource necessary in its defense against those who would see it destroyed. I am not the articulate individual that President Reagan was, but he said it well, perhaps better, than what I and Secretary Pompeo said. President Reagan said in his first inaugural address--his first inaugural address to become President: The crisis we are facing today does not require of us the kind of sacrifice that . . . so many thousands of others [have been] called upon to make. It does require, however, our best effort and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds, to believe that together with God's help we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us. I am tired of telling people when they ask me how I am--I say: Well, I am fine. My family is fine. The world is a mess. You can't differentiate the two. Your family, you can't be fine if the world is crumbling. That is me, not Reagan. President Reagan concluded: Together with God's help, we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us. And after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans. I reserve my time.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, today, I want to honor the life and mourn the loss of Judge Frank Nebeker, who was not only the first judge of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims but also the court's first chief judge. In Kansas, we know the value of community and helping others, and Judge Nebeker took these traits to heart as a dedicated and long-serving public servant for more than 70 years. He began his legal career in 1956 as a trial attorney in the Internal Security Division of the Department of Justice. From there, he took on multiple jobs and roles within the executive and judicial branches of government. In October 1989, he was nominated to the Court of Veterans Appeals by President George H. W. Bush. The court was created in 1988 under President Reagan to allow veterans and their families to appeal benefits decisions from the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Board of Veterans Appeals. This court was the first of its kind and provided a forum for veterans and their dependents to advocate for themselves when they disagreed with VA. It currently consists of seven permanent judges and two temporary judges. Judge Nebeker served on the court from the first day it opened until November 2000, when he then became a ``Recall-Eligible Senior Judge.'' He still continued his public service to veterans and periodically performed recall service until December 2022, when he fully retired from the court. Judge Nebeker was a powerful and influential advocate for veterans. He lived a life of purpose and loved bettering the lives of those who have sacrificed for our country. He often held education programs for attorneys and appellate judges throughout the country in his pursuit to improve the lives of veterans and military families through the next generation of public servants. He is an example for each of us to follow as we seek to care for our veterans. I know his legacy will live on in the court and in the community and people he loved. My prayers are with his family, friends, and colleagues.

Mr. MORAN

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