Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to address my colleagues about a circumstance in Kansas and, really, in the country, the pressing need for reform at Haskell Indian Nations University following serious allegations and finding of wrongdoing by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Education.

Haskell University is a university located in Lawrence, KS. Haskell is the sole Tribal Nations University in the country and was established by the Department of the Interior for the purpose of maintaining the Federal Government's trust responsibilities and treaty agreements to the Native Americans.

Haskell University serves as a custodian of Tribal culture, offering students the opportunity to receive tuition-free higher education in an environment that understands and prioritizes indigenous values.

Yet despite its critical importance, Haskell has faced significant challenges. Haskell's campus, which once served as a sanctuary for Native American art and history, has for years been neglected by the Bureau of Indian Education. Various buildings on campus, many which serve as U.S. National Historic Landmarks, are in disrepair or no longer in use.

Many of the residential buildings on campus are not equipped with heating, ventilation, or air-conditioning, and the campus is not--not-- compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

It is the responsibility of the Bureau of Indian Education, as described in the Indian Education Act of 1972, to ``insure continued and expanded educational opportunities for Indian students.''

Yet the BIE has failed to maintain Haskell's infrastructure or to provide a safe campus for students and employees.

Since 2017, I have been working to bring attention to the BIE's mismanagement of the university, and on multiple occasions, I have called on leadership at the Department to address the wide array of problems and challenges at Haskell.

In 2022, serious allegations were reported to my office regarding improper treatment of students and the wrongful termination of an employee at Haskell Indian Nations University.

In response, I contacted the Director of Indian Education, urging the BIE to address these issues. Although the BIE, of course, assured me in March of 2023 that changes would be made to alleviate my concerns, we continued to hear and continue to hear from students and staff reporting the problems and reporting that those problems that were reported back then were not being addressed adequately.

In October 2023, I was informed of a confidential, on-campus investigation into the issues at Haskell. In April of 2024, a report was released due to an investigation by a government watchdog Agency, which revealed serious problems, including failures to adequately establish and follow policies regarding sexual assault, wrongful termination of employees, and intimidation of faculty and students.

With these findings, I called for a systemic overhaul within BIE, but as has almost always been the case, the Department of the Interior chose to delegate the responsibilities to an Assistant Secretary and refused to directly address the issues at hand.

Since April 2024, I have made repeated requests to meet with Deb Haaland, the Secretary of the Interior, to discuss these issues. Every attempt for a discussion was rebuffed.

This ongoing neglect is unacceptable. It is past time for real change at Haskell.

To address these issues, last month I released a draft piece of legislation to provide a Federal charter for Haskell Indian Nations University and to remove the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Education from direct oversight of the university.

The legislation will empower Haskell with self-governance, providing an organizational structure that reflects its mission, community, and needs of its students.

The marker bill calls for the establishment of a new governing body at Haskell, a board of regents composed of Native American leaders, educators, and community members who will be directly accountable to the students, staff, and to the Tribes that Haskell serves.

The board would manage the university's budget, make decisions regarding academic programming, faculty, and facilities, ensure that the institution is providing a high-quality educational experience for students that attend Haskell University--an educational experience that they deserve.

I appreciate the support from the Haskell Board of Regents, the president of the board, Brittany Hall, said this:

These challenges underscore the critical need for a more

tailored governance model empowered by a U.S. Congressional

charter--one that enables the University to thrive while

better serving its students and communities.

By moving Haskell outside the purview of BIE, we remove the bureaucratic ambivalence that has hindered the university's growth and damaged in significant ways its potential.

I would like to request that members of the Native American, Lawrence, KS, and higher education communities submit feedback to my office or to my colleague who is leading this effort in the House of Representatives, Congressman Tracey Mann, on the proposed legislation to ensure this bill effectively addresses key issues. We are looking for comment and input.

The history of the Federal Government's treatment of Native Americans is filled with broken promises. We should not allow Haskell, a cornerstone of Native higher education, to become another promise we fail to keep.

The students who walk through the doors of Haskell deserve better than the inefficiency and mismanagement and the neglect they have faced under the current governance system.

I look forward to working with all stakeholders to refine the draft legislation and request my colleagues join me

in my efforts to secure a prosperous future for Haskell University.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, this afternoon I rise here on the Senate floor to recognize a fellow Kansan, to honor the life of a soldier, a servant, a great man, Olen Mitchell.

While Olen was born in Oklahoma, Kansas is the place he called home, and we are honored to call him our own.

Growing up in Western Kansas teaches you a lot about discipline, service, and hard work, and I know that Olen's time in Elkhart and Hutchinson, KS, taught him valuable lessons. The values he learned in Western Kansas provided him with a love of country and taught him to love his neighbors as himself. His character was further defined alongside thousands of other young men like him who fought in World War

Mr. President, today, I want to recognize Salina, KS, native Jeff Reh upon his well-earned retirement after more than four decades of dedicated service.

Jeff is a graduate of Kansas State University and American University Washington College of Law. While pursuing his degrees, Jeff worked as an intern on Capitol Hill for Senator Bob Dole, worked at the Pentagon, and, tapping into his entrepreneurial spirit, started a consulting business during law school.

Jeff's career then led him to join the oldest active firearm manufacturer and one of the oldest continuously operating companies in the world, Beretta.

Initially working as a consultant to Beretta USA Corporation, he played an

integral role in Beretta successfully signing a contract to make the M9 the service pistol for the U.S. military in 1985. Jeff was brought in- house to be the general counsel for Beretta USA in the mid-1980s, a position he held until his retirement 41 years later.

After the Maryland Legislature passed strict anti-gun legislation that prevented Marylanders from purchasing legal firearms manufactured in their own backyard, Jeff helped Beretta USA relocate its manufacturing plant to Gallatin, TN.

Jeff was instrumental in the founding of the Hunting and Shooting Sports Heritage Foundation in 1999 and served as chairman of its firearms litigation support committee.

Since 2002, Jeff has served on the board of governors of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearm and ammunition industry trade association, and since 2007, served as vice chairman of the board. He also served on the board of directors of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, the industry's ANSI-accredited standard setting organization, for 23 years, including 6 years as chairman and 4 years as vice chairman.

Beretta is renowned in the industry for superior quality and performance. According to his peers, the same can be said of Jeff. He is a man of high caliber. Not only is he a skilled skeet shooter and an avid upland bird hunter, but Jeff is also a loving husband, father, and grandfather. Jeff's passion and professional commitment is highly respected among those in the firearm industry.

As Jeff enters this next chapter in his life, I congratulate him and wish him, his wife Vickie, and their entire family all the best.

Madam President, I have served on the House and now Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee since I came to Congress, so about 14 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and about 15 years in the U.S. Senate. It has been a privilege to serve as a member and, from time to time, a leader of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs and, preceding that, the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

For the last 4, almost 5 years, Senator Jon Tester and I have led the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Not only did Jon and I both raise daughters and grow up in rural America, but we both share the same sentiment that there is no one we hold in higher regard than our Nation's veterans. This shared sentiment has allowed us to work together for those we respect so much.

I will certainly miss the starting of our hearings in which Senator Tester always said, ``Hello, Jerry.'' And you could hear that from time to time as we met going down the Senate halls.

I have worked with Jon on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs since 2013, and we have introduced and sponsored and cosponsored many, many pieces of legislation together. His leadership on the committee in recent years has resulted in major pieces of legislation that have now become law, that provide support and opportunities for veterans, their loved ones, and their caregivers.

Some of those landmark and historic pieces of legislation include, in the 115th Congress, VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018--a lot of words that really boil down to what we call the MISSION Act--designed to help make certain that services for veterans, wherever they live and whatever kind of services they need from the VA, are available to them.

In later Congresses, the Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2020; Commander John Scott Hannon Veterans Mental Health Care Improvement Act of 2019, implemented and designed to make certain that we

reduce and eliminate the number of veterans who commit suicide; Fairness for Korean DMZ Veterans Act of 2019; a COVID fix for GI bill benefits to make sure our veterans, during COVID, were able to maintain their educational benefits while their schools were shut down.

Later in the 117th, the Joseph Maxwell Cleland and Robert Joseph Dole Memorial Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act; the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022--what we refer to as the PACT Act-- designed to make sure those who encounter toxic substances in Southeast Asia and in Iraq and Afghanistan were eligible for benefits and healthcare; the Colonel John M. McHugh Tuition Fairness for Survivors Act of 2021.

Just within the last few days--in fact, within the last week--the Senator Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act, an additional veterans' benefits improvement act.

I rise today here at my seat on the Senate floor to express my gratitude for the time that Jon has spent in his career in improving the lives of veterans and reforming the VA system that millions of veterans rely upon.

Jon Tester has made a lasting impact on thousands of individuals, their families, and their caregivers, those who serve veterans, and those who are veterans, and their family members. He has made a lasting impact upon their lives and well-being and helped us keep our commitment to our promises that have been made to those who serve in our military.

I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize Senator Tester's team for their extraordinary work. We all know in the Senate the importance of having a strong staff that researches well, that is intentional with our constituents and values what we do.

I would like to thank: Tony McClain, who is from Salina, KS, and who has led this committee for many years; Dahlia Melendrez; Carlos Fuentes; Elizabeth Mackenzie; Janko Mitric; Faye Fernandes; Bill Van Saun; Tess Wrzesinski; Abby Roubal; Weston Haycock; Liz Timmons; Cameron Kroetz; Katie Adams; and Jackson Haney.

Your work--each of you--your work on this committee didn't go unnoticed. Thank you for your kindness that you extended to me while you were serving the chairman of the committee. Thank you for your kindness to me when I was the chairman of the committee and you were serving the ranking member. We know that without your help, without your willingness to work with our staff and our team, we would not have been able to provide the benefits and critical resources that our veterans deserve and earned.

Finally, Jon Tester, certainly I say this on my behalf, but I say it also on behalf of the other Members of the Senate, certainly the other members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and especially on behalf of our Nation's veterans, thank you. Thank you for your leadership, your friendship, and your dedication. Thank you for serving, as you did so well, our Nation's heroes.

Kansas Aviation

Madam President, last month, we celebrated National Aviation History Month. We celebrated that across America, and I want to make certain that we recognize the air capital of the world and the State of Kansas and their contributions to the aviation industry both historically and still today.

My home State of Kansas is an aviation hub. It has a rich history in aviation manufacturing. This tradition dates back to a gentleman named Albin Longren, who developed Kansas's first aircraft, the Longren Flyer, which was fully designed, produced, and successfully tested in Topeka in 1911, less than a decade after the Wright Brothers' first historic flight.

Clyde Cessna went on to develop his pioneering aircraft, the Silverwing, in 1911, which was designed and built in Kingman County, KS. Clyde Cessna, Lloyd Stearman, and Walter Beech partnered to found the Travel Air Manufacturing Company, which would later be spun off into three companies with global recognition--the Cessna Aircraft Company, Stearman Aircraft, and the Beech Aircraft Company, all of Wichita, where they were headquartered.

Cessna, Stearman, Beech, and over a dozen other aviation entrepreneurs in Wichita produced 120 airplanes each week at the outset of Wichita's aviation dominance in the late twenties. It was then that Wichita earned its title as ``Air Capital of the World.''

During World War II, tens of thousands of Kansans contributed to the war effort by working in aircraft plants, making nearly 26,000 planes, including over 1,600 B-29 Superfortress heavy bombers.

Following the war, the Boeing Company started testing midflight refueling using the B-29 Superfortress and eventually delivered the KC- 135 Stratotanker to the U.S. Air Force in the fifties--still one of the premier midflight refueling aircraft for the U.S. Armed Forces. Many of these tankers are stationed at McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita and some at Forbes Field in Topeka.

Other than agriculture, the aviation and aerospace industries in Kansas support more jobs than any other sector, including more than 65,000 aerospace and defense jobs across more than 450 world-class suppliers.

Kansas is the global leader in general aviation, producing 35 percent of all general aviation aircraft in America and supplying 75 percent of all general aviation aircraft since the Wright Brothers' first flight at Kitty Hawk in 1903.

If you fly on a private plane, you are flying on a plane that was either built in Kansas or the parts were manufactured in Kansas.

At the end of November, Bombardier, which has its defense headquarters in Wichita, KS, delivered its first Global 6500 to the U.S. Army in support of its next generation of intelligences surveillance, and reconnaissance, the ISR platform. One week later, Wichita State University's National Institute for Aviation Research received a Boeing 747-8i as part of a strategic partnership with Sierra Nevada Corporation on the Air Force's ``doomsday'' program. I would also like to highlight that NIAR, the National Institute for Aviation Research, a component headquartered on the campus of Wichita State University, was recently ranked by the National Science Foundation as the number one research and development expenditure university in the country for aerospace engineering.

Our State is also diversifying its aviation and aerospace work with companies like General Atomics and now has 17 Kansas manufacturers working on NASA's Artemis program.

We are also developing essential components for commercial space providers such as SpaceX, United Launch Alliance, Sierra Space, Rocket Lab, and Blue Origin.

Additionally, Kansas is home to Crew-9 astronaut Nick Hague of Hoxie, who is currently stationed at the International Space Station.

Museums across our State highlight our history, highlight our future. They include the Kansas Aviation Museum in Wichita, the Amelia Earhart Hangar Museum in Atchison. I also should highlight the importance of Amelia Earhart being one of the Kansans who is a significant component of our aviation history and whose statue now resides here in the U.S. Capitol. There is a B-29 Museum in Pratt; the Mid-America Museum in Liberal; and the Cosmosphere--world renown.

Incidentally, when I talked to the Artemis astronauts, they brought up the topic and said: ``Do you know that you have the best space museum in the world in Kansas?'' And they were talking about the Cosmosphere in Hutchinson. It showcases the rich aviation history. They point to the continued legacy of excellence in aviation and aerospace in Kansas and represents a bright spot for our entire nation.

I wouldn't want to talk about aviation without talking about Kansas. Kansas has played a key role in cultivating America's leadership in aviation and is home to thousands of engineers and manufacturers who have supported America's aviation heritage now for more than a century. We are, and we will continue to be, air capital of the world not only because we build airplanes, but because we have leaders and students driving the industry forward with innovation, ingenuity, and a relentless pursuit of excellence.

We will continue to be the air capital of the world because we have the educational institutions across our State

to train and educate engineers, flight mechanics, the whole array of the people necessary for the industries that are located in our State and that will soon locate in our State to have a highly trained, educated, motivated workforce for aviation today and in the future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am sorry that I am here at this hour of the day on Monday, the beginning of what we hope to be the last week of this congressional session, as we recess for about a week before returning for the new session of the U.S. Congress.

I am here this evening to hope to express my hope that things that have not happened that have created challenges for farmers and ranchers across Kansas and around the country are addressed in legislation pending before the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives.

We have made mistakes, errors. We have failed in a couple of significant ways this congressional session in regard to the appropriations process and the consequences that the failure to pass a farm bill has upon farmers across my State and around the country.

First of all, I am saddened that we have not completed the appropriations process, the 12 appropriations bills that should have marched across this Senate floor and across the House and already been sent to the President.

In the Senate Appropriations Committee, of which I am a senior member, we passed all but one of those bills and reported them to the Senate floor with no further action. As a result of that, one of the items that has not occurred is that there is no appropriations bill dealing with agriculture that is ready for the President's signature or that should have been signed by September 30, earlier this year.

Secondly, the Senate Committee on Agriculture has not provided us with a renewed, improved farm bill. We are operating under an extension, and I would expect, before the end of the week, we will extend the farm bill one more time.

As a result, we are combining the effort to meet the needs of farmers and ranchers in this process by which we will pass a continuing resolution funding the Federal Government, presumably, to March; and included in that continuing resolution is what we call disaster assistance.

The disasters that occurred across the country--Helene, Milton; the damage that was done by tropical storms in Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee--and the storm damage in many places across the country are to be addressed this week in an addition to the continuing resolution that funds the Federal Government. I support that.

There are significant challenges to people that have occurred through no fault of their own. One of those challenges is to farmers and ranchers, who, through no fault of their own, have no farm bill-- therefore, no safety net--and who have no opportunity to address the needs as they go to their bankers--their financial bankers--to plan for the new year--no farm bill in place to provide a safety net and, without passage of disaster assistance, no assistance to help them get through the planting season for agriculture commodities across the country.

So before the end of this week, we need to do serious and significant work. And the point I want to make tonight is that, without the inclusion of assistance to farmers and ranchers in the continuing resolution, I will not vote for the continuing resolution. I despise voting for them regardless, all the time. I have because I so oppose government shutdowns. But in the absence of solving the challenges that farmers and ranchers meet--through disaster assistance, through financial assistance to those farmers--the CR will not attain my vote.

So the negotiations are ongoing, as I understand it. They were to have been completed, perhaps a long time ago, but they were certainly to have been completed last night and filed. It has not happened yet, and the deadline is December 20, before there is a government shutdown.

The circumstances that we face is no--let me repeat this so I can make it perhaps clearer. Without a farm bill, there is no safety net. The safety net that was present under the old farm bill, even if extended, does not meet today's current challenges that farmers face.

The cost of inputs--fuel, fertilizer, seed, labor, land values, interest rates, in particular--have skyrocketed, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has determined that ``on the farm'' income will be down more than 43 percent over what it was when we passed the last farm bill, now 6 years ago--no farm bill to meet the needs, no farm policy to meet the needs of the challenges that ranchers and farmers have.

And then, unless we provide the disaster assistance--the natural disaster assistance that is so needed--and, again, I mentioned States that have had hurricanes. I will highlight that, in the State of Kansas, we have been in a drought for the last 4 or 5 years. This is the most severe year yet.

Seventy-nine percent of Kansas agriculture experienced drought across our State, most of it in severe fashion. This past year, Kansas wheat farmers experienced their smallest crop since 1961, largely due to lack of moisture.

So you add these things together--terribly high input costs, low commodity prices, and then if you have no commodity to sell because you couldn't grow anything--one of my staffers told me, when I said: You should be home for harvest earlier this year.

He said: Jerry, we plant wheat; we don't harvest wheat.

And that is exactly what happened across the State this year and, unfortunately, for past years.

Some will say we have crop insurance to deal with this issue. Crop insurance is hugely important to producers around the country, but it doesn't work when there are multiple-year disasters because the average for which you can receive compensation is based on previous years.

So we have never figured out--RMA, the Department of Agriculture have never figured out--a crop insurance product that meets the needs of farmers who, year after year after year, have less production.

The point I want to make is, this is a real circumstance that has huge consequences, not only on the farmers of Kansas and other States across the country but upon the need to meet our hunger needs around the world and the need to meet the nutrition and safety and well-being of Americans across the country.

Again, I ask my colleagues to make certain that the continuing resolution include assistance to agriculture producers and it be done in a way that actually meets their needs. And then, let's make certain we get a farm bill done--again, already late, but can we get it done early in 2025?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall vote scheduled at 5:30 begin immediately.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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. 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.

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