Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am here on the Senate floor this afternoon to discuss, really, the farm bill but, more importantly, to discuss the current state of the farm economy in the place I call home, Kansas.

Every 5 years, we have an opportunity to develop farm policy, and this is my fourth time, I would guess, in being involved in farm bill discussions and negotiations and the passage of a farm bill. Each farm bill is developed at a time at which agriculture faces unique challenges, and rural America is in a different circumstance. Yet the farm bill is important to us. It is important to Kansans, and it is important to Kansans whether they are farmers or not. This is a way in which we provide certainty, security--a future--for the places that many of us call home.

The challenges farmers and ranchers face today are significant. They are tremendous. The ag economy is struggling, and commodity prices are low. Over the course of the 2014 farm bill--the one we are soon to replace--farm revenues have fallen by over 50 percent, and there continue to be those low commodity prices today.

In addition to low commodity prices, weather has not been our friend in Kansas and in many places across the country, especially in the Midwest with its continuing drought. So you end up with the worst of circumstances--low commodity prices and not much production.

It is important that we pass the farm bill. It is important that we provide certainty. It is important that we provide a safety net to those who struggle every day to feed, clothe, and provide energy to us and the rest of the world.

A primary motivation for which I asked Kansans to represent them here in the U.S. Senate and to represent them in Congress is the belief that rural America is a place worthy of keeping around for a while longer and I hope a long while longer. But when agricultural interests struggle and when farmers and ranchers are in difficult circumstances, every community across Kansas struggles, and, in fact, the United States of America faces tremendous challenges.

Again, you don't have to be a farmer or rancher in our State, but your community's future depends upon whether the farmers and ranchers are successful. The extended downturn in the economy has forced more and more ag producers to look for off-the-farm income. Many farmers and I would say most farmers in Kansas no longer earn a living solely by farming. Husband, wife, or both have to find off-the-farm income to keep the farm intact.

The Wall Street Journal indicates that 82 percent of income for U.S. farm households is expected to come from jobs off the farm this year. I highlight that because it is that struggle that farmers face every year, all the time, every day, to keep the farm intact.

I visit with farmers and ranchers on a regular basis, and it is apparent that the stress they are encountering is taking its toll. Many farm families are now stretched to the limit of their financial viability.

This week, the Senate has the opportunity to consider and to vote for legislation that will help address the challenges in rural America. The Senate farm bill provides a stable safety net for our farmers and ranchers; protects key risk management tools, crop insurance in particular; and ensures continued access to credit for producers, particularly for our young farmers, which is so important. You cannot borrow money from a bank or from a financial institution in the absence of the safety net that the farm bill provides. You cannot borrow money from a financial institution for a line of credit for your farm to pay for the seed or to buy the fuel in the absence of crop insurance that protects you in the loss or reduction in production on your farm.

I appreciate the strong focus in this farm bill on rural development and on conservation programs. The farm bill is mostly about SNAP, nutrition programs, but the title of the farm bill that is also important to our country is title I, which is the farm program, but you add to that conservation programs, add to that rural development programs, and this is one of the most significant opportunities we have to stand strong, side by side with those who live in rural America.

One of the primary ways that I judge whether farm policy or a farm bill is of value is the circumstances in which we allow for young farmers, young men and women who grew up on a farm, young people who want to be a farmer--do they have the opportunity to return to their home community, to their family's farm and become farmers? Is that increasing or decreasing? Again, I look at a farm bill and whether it is successful by looking at whether we are increasing the number of young men and women across Kansas and the United States who return to take over family farming and ranching operations.

The McCurry Bros. Angus farm in Sedgwick, KS, is an example of this generational operation that we ought to make sure continues into the future. I just saw and learned yesterday that this year the McCurry Bros. farm is notably celebrating its 90th anniversary. We need more aspects of American life like the McCurry brothers and other farmers and ranching operations where sons and daughters work alongside moms and dads and grandmothers and grandfathers. In agriculture, land, equipment, and livestock are passed down from generation to generation.

I care about farmers and ranchers because they are the economic future of most communities in my State, but I also care about farmers and ranchers because it is a way of life that allows us to pass on values, morals, integrity, and tradition from one generation to the next.

That opportunity to work side by side with mom and dad and the opportunity to work side by side with grandparents is a vanishing thing in our country. Agriculture is a place where it still occurs, and it has been important in the way in which our country has developed--that relationship, that passing of integrity, character, love of life, and understanding what is truly valuable in life. Knowing about farming and ranching and working with your parents and grandparents changes the way you see the world, and in my view, this country needs more of that, not less.

This farm bill is especially important now because of the uncertainty that exists related to trade. With low commodity prices and uncertain export markets now, providing risk management tools and a strong safety net through a farm bill is even more important than ever.

There are low commodity prices, poor weather, and now the uncertainty of where the United States will end up with regard to trade around the globe. We should be clear that no farm program safety net can replace lost exports and lost markets in agriculture. That is why it is critical that we successfully conclude NAFTA renegotiations and avoid a multifront trade war that will have a direct economic consequence for agriculture in rural Kansas.

In meetings across Kansas, sometimes I hear: Jerry, let's just forget the rest of the world. Let's just take care of ourselves.

But if a farmer thinks that or says that or if we think that is possible, I would say to those people: Which 48 percent of wheat acres in Kansas do you not want to plant and do you not want to harvest? We produce more in the United States in agriculture than we can consume, and we earn a living by selling that surplus to places around the globe. It is income to farmers and ranchers. It is the economic future of my State.

The trade uncertainty has already impacted markets, as countries that typically buy American-grown commodities have started to look to other suppliers, including to our competitors, especially Argentina and Brazil. Given the trade and market uncertainty, it is critical that we do our job and pass a farm bill this week as we work toward a finished product for the President to sign by the end of September, when the current farm bill, the current legislation, expires.

In that economic development aspect of the farm bill and in that rural development aspect of the farm bill, I want to mention a key provision of the Senate farm bill. I want to indicate some areas in which we can make some improvements, and I would like to do this in a highlighted way in a brief manner.

I want to talk about the importance of broadband to rural States like mine. I was excited to see that the fiscal year 2018 omnibus bill included a loan and grant program in the United States to bolster broadband across our States and bridge the digital divide between urban and rural. To ensure effective use of those Federal resources, I applaud the Senate farm bill for including critical guardrails to prevent duplication and overbuilding of broadband infrastructure for new and current USDA programs. We want to make sure those dollars are spent where there are no broadband services or where there is very little.

Access to broadband in agriculture is so important. It matters in our communities, schools, libraries, hospitals, and businesses, but to farmers in today's world, technology is the key, and broadband access determines whether your farm equipment can provide you with the latest technology and information to more efficiently and effectively and hopefully more profitably farm. Access to quality high-speed broadband will remain a necessary tool for rural communities to participate in an increasingly globalized economy.

I also want to mention something called ECP. I note my appreciation to Chairman Roberts that this bill includes an amendment that I offered along with Democratic Members in the Senate, to increase the level of support that ranchers would receive under the Emergency Conservation Program, ECP.

In 2016 and 2017, I talked about how weather wasn't our friend, but that drought then caused fires to consume thousands of acres of grassland in our State, causing great damage to cattle producers. Ten thousand miles of fence was destroyed in Clark County, KS, alone. The ECP provided assistance to producers but in many cases fell well short of providing the level of assistance needed to replace the miles of fence that ranchers lost in the fire. It wasn't just fencing that ranchers lost; it was their entire herd in many instances.

We also learned of areas of ECP that ought to be improved as a result of those fires. This legislation incorporates those provisions, and I am appreciative that is the case.

Farmers and ranchers have been frustrated by the long delays they have encountered in receiving reimbursement for building those fences under ECP. In many instances, the ranchers didn't have the money to pay for the fencing in the beginning. So this is a significant improvement, and I am grateful it is here. When a ranching family has lost everything in a fire, including cattle, fence, rangeland, and their homes, taking over a year to provide emergency assistance is unacceptable. Further, because they lost everything, many of the ranchers do not have any collateral necessary to get a loan to cover the significant costs of rebuilding fencing.

I also want to compliment the Senator from South Dakota for legislation in an amendment that he has offered regarding livestock hauling. We have a significant problem in our ranching world where, in many communities, truckers--those who haul cattle from market to market, from feed yard, to market, to processing plant--that is an important way to earn a living. The Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, has offered an additional 150-mile radius exemption for agriculture at the end of that drive.

Cattle are transported across this Nation to Kansas each year, and we need to make sure that the hours-of-service rules for those haulers allow that to occur safely and humanely, yet allow the transportation to continue to occur. I am a cosponsor of legislation to address this issue, and I hope that amendment is included in the farm bill.

Again, I appreciate the chance to have a conversation with my colleagues this evening to highlight the importance of this legislation. This is about the future of America. It is about the future of rural America.

I always look forward to working on a farm bill that allows us an opportunity to enact and improve on policies that help the farmers, ranchers, and the rural communities they live in and support. This farm bill will provide stable farm policies during a time of high uncertainty in agriculture.

I thank Senator Roberts, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, my colleague from Kansas, and I thank the Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, the ranking Democrat on the committee, for working together. I hope at the end of the day or by the end of this week we will see the benefits of their work.

I look forward to supporting this bill and continuing to work to improve the final version as it continues its march through conference with the House.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first of all, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Montana, Mr. Tester, on his amendment in support of the VA's inspector general position. I believe it is critical to ensuring oversight and accountability at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

What this amendment does and the reason I support it is that it ensures that the inspector general's office can fully vet, investigate, and examine the cases presented to them by making certain they have access to the necessary

records and documentation within the Department of Veterans Affairs. To arrive at the truth, the inspector general must have all of the information associated with any given situation to determine what is accurate and who should be held accountable.

Mr. President, I also want to express my pleasure in speaking today in regard to something I have long advocated for, and I compliment the three chairmen and women here in support of the appropriations bills of which they have jurisdiction, but we need regular order, and this return to regular order for consideration of the fiscal year 2019 appropriations process is important to the U.S. Senate. More importantly, it is valuable to the American people and valuable to my constituents home in Kansas.

As a U.S. Senator and a member of the Appropriations Committee, our duty is to fund the Federal Government in a responsible way that will wisely utilize every taxpayer dollar, which requires a deliberation to prioritize Federal spending. I also think, when we can return to regular order, we have greater ability to influence decisions made by Cabinet Secretaries, department heads, bureau chiefs, and agency heads because we can influence decisions they make because of the power of the purse string.

On the appropriations bills we are debating this week, I want to call attention to the MILCON-VA appropriations bill and the great work Senator Boozman and his ranking member, Senator Schatz, have achieved as chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee. I am very familiar with their staff, and I compliment them on their work.

This bill provides an additional $1 billion in fiscal year 2019 for the VA to provide veterans access to care in the community, and to avoid any lapse in that care, this bill provides $11 billion in advance appropriations for fiscal year 2020.

The point I am making is, we have worked hard to provide services in the community for veterans who either can't get the service or live such a distance from the VA or, now, because of the new law, when it is in their best interests to have care provided in the community. It is necessary we provide the funding to accomplish that.

We have the opportunity to provide veterans and the VA with appropriations for fiscal year 2019 that builds on the momentum the reform legislation, which just became law, the VA MISSION Act, provides. I want to make sure we do the right things because we want the VA MISSION Act to work.

On June 6, we paid tribute to one of our Nation's heroes who bravely stormed the beaches of Normandy in November of 1944. In addition, 2 weeks ago today, on June 6, Senator Boozman and I, as well as many of our colleagues, were at the White House, where we joined the President as he signed the VA MISSION Act into law.

The VA MISSION Act represents a significant achievement in providing our Nation's veterans with access to the care they are entitled to and that they deserve.

Just as I urged my colleagues to support the VA MISSION Act, I call on my colleagues to support the appropriations for implementation of the reforms contained in this legislation. It is critical we do so to make certain veterans can rely on a community care program that meets their needs and offers access to the care they deserve.

The MISSION Act delivers several critical reforms that the funding provided in this bill will enable the VA to carry out and build on. Particularly helpful for the appropriations process, it requires the Department to submit routine strategic plans to Congress and develop a multiyear budget process to better forecast future needs and requirements. It also mandates market area assessments to better understand what communities and local VAs are able to offer their veterans, allowing the VA and Congress to better identify gaps that require more resources to be filled and prevent redundancy; in other words, to provide the resources where they are needed and to make sure we don't spend them where they are not.

As my colleagues are aware, the VA has faced several budget shortfalls in recent years. We have been on the floor often, and I have spoken about this numerous times. Unfortunately, it has required our attention numerous times. The VA has been unable to estimate how much money they will need to provide care in the community through the Choice Act, and this legislation requires a process by which they can accurately forecast those needs, particularly when it comes to care in the community.

I have long believed that when it comes to the VA, it isn't a lack of funds that is the problem. In fact, we have consistently--and this bill does it again--increased their budget. Instead, it is a problem of how they spend the funds that are appropriated to them, how they manage those funds, and how the Department of Veterans Affairs is led.

I am confident reforms like those included in the MISSION Act will enable the VA to be a better steward of taxpayer funds, while also enabling them to better carry out their mission of providing veterans with the care and benefits they are entitled to through consistent, stable budgeting.

As reforms in the VA MISSION Act and the new community care programs are implemented over the next year, it is important that third-party administrators--administration entities which managed the community care program, Choice, in its old days for the VA--manage a network of community providers that serve veterans. Continuity of care is paramount to the success of VA's community care program, and we must ensure that the VA maintains veterans' access to the care they need by utilizing third-party administrators during the implementation stage of these reforms.

I remind my colleagues that the VA is not ready to manage or operate a health network themselves. Our urgency to fund the Choice Program during repeated shortfalls in the past was, in part, out of the necessity of making certain that network continued to support veterans and those third-party administrators--the services they provide. I do not believe the VA is now capable of building or replicating those networks that currently exist, and I would indicate that, at least in part, the contract with the third-party administrator is terminated on June 30, and we need assurance the Department of Veterans Affairs has a plan to make certain those contracts are extended so that care does not lapse.

This next year must be focused on the implementation of the MISSION Act and readying the VA healthcare system for its transformation. Any distraction from completing this mission is unfair to veterans who will benefit from it and puts the community care program at risk.

Our work on the MISSION Act and a community care program is in jeopardy if the Department of Veterans Affairs declines or is unable to renew contracts to keep the network in place.

We are on the cusp of real reform and transformation at the VA which will benefit veterans and their families for decades to come. I can think of no greater obligation during this year's appropriations process than ensuring veterans, and the programs that serve them, are resourced to deliver the care and benefits they deserve.

I thank the chairman, Senator Boozman, the ranking member, Senator Schatz, and their staff for their expertise and their work in making sure the appropriations process lends its support to the MISSION Act-- the John McCain MISSION Act--we enacted in the Senate and was signed by the President now just a few short days ago.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I want to talk about a couple of issues that are wrapped up in the NDAA.

First of all, there is a National Guard issue.

As we all know, the men and women who serve our Nation in the Armed Forces are among the absolute best of us, and I thank the Presiding Officer for his service. When the Presiding Officer and his fellow citizens volunteered to serve, they did so by committing themselves to defending our families, our Nation, and our way of life. Through their service and sacrifice, they earn our respect and our honor. As a grateful nation, we strive to demonstrate that respect to them. Certainly, we should demonstrate our appreciation for our military on Memorial Day and Veterans Day, but, every day, we understand that we can never truly repay the sacrifice that many Americans have made--the ultimate sacrifice.

One of the customary and powerful demonstrations is when we pay our respects through a display of military honors during a servicemember's funeral. These honors include an honor detail that presents an American flag to the deceased's family and includes a bugler, who ceremoniously plays ``Taps'' and puts a lump in everyone's throat and tears in our eyes. Unfortunately, an Army audit found that in 2014, 88 deserving veterans' funerals did not receive those military honors as they should have. One service without its deserved honors is one too many.

Even more disappointing, based upon a recommendation from that audit, we learned that the National Guard Bureau has a plan now to eliminate in eight States the coordinator position for the military funeral honors. The National Guard Bureau is claiming a marginal cost savings as the excuse to eliminate these coordinator positions; however, a cost savings is an unacceptable justification, especially if losing these positions leads to more servicemembers not receiving military honors as our final demonstration of respect for their service.

The coordinator position is a vital link between the military and the veteran's surviving family. The coordinator's primary responsibility is to determine the eligibility and appropriate honors for deceased veterans. The coordinator also trains servicemembers who perform military honors, coordinates with units and veterans service organizations within the State, and provides immediate attention to families who are in need of assistance.

Common sense would tell one that if military honors are not being rendered when they should be, as this audit found, the NGB--the National Guard Bureau--should do everything possible to make certain to reverse that terrible outcome. Instead, it is seeking to eliminate the positions that are responsible for handling the care and coordination of military honors.

Even if the National Guard Bureau reverses course, the Military Honors Program deserves protection and preservation for all of those who served. Therefore, I draw attention to an amendment I have offered in this year's NDAA. Amendment No. 2575 would protect the Military Funeral Honors Program in the Army National Guard. This is a bipartisan amendment that has been cosponsored by Senators Manchin, Crapo, and Capito. If passed, my amendment would ensure that each State would maintain at least one military funeral honors coordinator, which we hope would reduce the chances of these honors being skipped in the future.

I urge my colleagues and the committee to support amendment No. 2575 for inclusion in the managers' package and allow this amendment to move swiftly in the Senate to help fulfill our promises to our veterans and make certain they receive the appropriate honors they will have earned at the time of their passings.

Another of my amendments, amendment No. 2269--a topic about which I spoke last week--improves upon the Army's force structure stationing process. It has been sponsored by Senator Roberts as well as by Senator Gillibrand and the minority leader, the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer from New York.

Again, I express my appreciation to the Senate Armed Services Committee for its diligence in authorizing appropriations for our Armed Forces in a thoughtful and deliberative manner. This amendment attempts to take the

same approach that the Armed Services Committee is taking today-- deliberate. We want the Army to perform in a diligent way its internal process on force structure, to thoughtfully deliberate how and where it makes smart investments. That includes the stationing decisions about soldiers and families, which will have an impact on cost for decades to come. Simply put, the intent of amendment No. 2269 is to increase the rigor, transparency, and congressional oversight of the Army's stationing process regarding changes or growth in force structure.

Both the Department of Defense and the Army are experiencing a much needed period of growth. Our Armed Forces are modernizing and increasing their readiness to be in a position to deter, confront, and defeat potential adversaries in environments that are more complex and more volatile than we have experienced in recent history.

After months of speaking on this topic to Army leaders, such as Secretary Esper, General Milley, and General Abrams, I am convinced that the Army's most senior leaders agree that its current process needs improvement to become more accurate and comprehensive.

As the Army grows and modernizes, more stationing decisions will be made in the future, and the Army ought not miss the opportunity to conduct due diligence in all of their decisions and invest wisely to pay down the costs in the future. With the Army's focus on reform, transparency, and using every dollar wisely, I believe this amendment No. 2269 helps the Army maximize the value of every dollar, operate transparently with Congress, and wisely use resources entrusted to them by the taxpayer. Once again, my amendment seeks to codify the transparency they are seeking and updates to the Army's stationing process that will ensure the Army is making better, more cost- effective, long-term decisions.

The instructions to the Army in this amendment have already been prescribed by the GAO, and the Army's own regulations are based on Army testimony and correspondence where it is made clear that the Army wants to improve their process. For example, with regard to how contiguous and noncontiguous Army training areas are measured, General Milley testified before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, of which I am a Member, and said: ``It is my belief that they are rated differently . . . because it seems to pass a common sense test,'' given the geographically distant nature of the training areas off post. The fact that the Army's analysis currently considers these training areas as one in the same eluded many of the Army's senior leaders when we first began this process.

In addition, this amendment codifies Secretary Esper's February 23, 2018, commitment to improving the quality of life for soldiers and their families by considering ``community schools around the installations and the professional licensure reciprocity'' in future stationing decisions.

The Army has not incorporated information regarding tax credits, license reciprocity, education, and employment in their basing, so this amendment follows through on the Secretary's intent and guidance to address these factors that are critically important to soldiers and their families. The addition of this amendment in the criteria would encourage States to further support military men, women, and their families.

It is a recruitment and retention factor. We say the Army recruits individuals but retains families. The quality of life families experience when they move from installation to installation is paramount to each soldier's personal decision to continue serving. Our intent with this amendment is to support the Army in making decisions based on fair, open, and comprehensive data, particularly long-term cost factors that will help the Army save in future years. Those savings can be put toward training, supporting soldiers and their families, sustaining our weapons, and increasing the Army's readiness and lethality.

I ask for support on amendment No. 2269. I am convinced these changes will make certain the Army's stationing process is transparent and will help the Army maximize the value of every dollar, while operating more transparently, communicating with Congress, and more wisely using resources entrusted by the American taxpayer. This will pay off in the long term for the Army, their families, and for the taxpayers.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, in my time in the Senate, I have tried hard to make certain that rural America--rural Kansas in particular but all of rural America--has an advocate and that we work hard to make certain that colleagues from across the country understand the important issues we face in small towns across Kansas and around the country.

Today, I want to talk about an opportunity we have that I think will be most beneficial to those of us who come from places like the Presiding Officer and I do. I rise today to speak in support of Miki Bowman. She was nominated recently--she had a hearing in front of our Banking Committee--to be a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Tomorrow, our Banking Committee will consider her nomination. I want to make certain that my colleagues on the committee and certainly my colleagues here in the Senate understand how valuable Miki will be as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board and understand her qualifications.

She is a native of a small town in Kansas. She is a native of Morris County in a beautiful part of our State. She received a degree from the University of Kansas as an undergrad and a law degree from Washburn University in Topeka. She is a rural American.

Her talents brought her to Washington, DC. She served at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and on the U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee as a staffer, as well as in the office of Senator Bob Dole, one of my predecessors in the Senate.

Like many of the Kansans I have known who have come here to Washington, DC, to work over the years, she found her way back home to Kansas when she returned to her hometown and became the vice president of the Farmers & Drovers Bank in 2010. In 2017, Ms. Bowman became the State bank commissioner for our State, where she is currently responsible for overseeing hundreds of State chartered banks, trust companies, money transmitters, and other nondepository entities.

Ms. Bowman is precisely the kind of person I envision to fill the community bank representative position on the Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve Act now requires--and we worked hard to make sure this was the case--that the President ``appoint at least one member with demonstrated primary experience working in or supervising community banks having less than $10 billion in total assets.'' Well, the Farmers & Drovers Bank in Council Grove, KS, is a $175 million bank--well below that $10 billion threshold. So Ms. Bowman not only qualifies by the criteria of the statute--she is a banker--but she is also a supervisor, as exemplified by her role now as our State banking commissioner.

If those qualifications aren't enough, I have come to know Miki Bowman as a forthright, intelligent, quality individual with a demonstrated record of service to her State, her country, and to her community. Those of us who know what I call relationship bankers know how important their role is in a small town in Kansas and across the country. The perspective she brings to the table as a banker, as a regulator, as a public servant, as a mother, and as a community leader is exactly the kind of perspective I think our country and our economy need at the Federal Reserve Board.

I look forward to voting to advance Ms. Bowman's nomination tomorrow morning in the Banking Committee. I urge all my colleagues to support her confirmation when she is considered by the full Senate in the near future.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I want to speak briefly about the National Defense Authorization Act, which will soon be our topic of business.

I compliment the Armed Services Committee for their diligence and their efforts to authorize appropriations for our Armed Forces in a very thoughtful and deliberative manner.

I have submitted several amendments. I want to talk about a particular one to that underlying bill, amendment No. 2269, which is cosponsored by the senior Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, as well as Senator Gillibrand from New York and the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer from New York.

Our amendment takes the same approach that the committee takes by addressing the Army's internal process on force structure--to thoughtfully deliberate how and where the Army makes smart investments, which includes the stationing decisions for soldiers and families that have a consequence not only on those soldiers and families but also on the cost of defending our country for decades to come.

Fortunately, both the Department of Defense and the Army are now experiencing a much-needed period of time in which there is growth-- opportunities for us to spend additional dollars to defend our Nation. Our Armed Forces are modernizing, and they are increasing their readiness and lethality to be in a position to better deter, confront, and defeat adversaries in a security environment more complex and volatile than possibly anytime in our country's history, certainly within recent time. During this moment of growth, the Army ought not miss the opportunity to conduct due diligence in all of their decisions and invest wisely to pay down the cost in the future.

The Army is focusing on reform and seeking to maximize the value of every dollar, to operate transparently, and to appropriately use the resources that the Congress has entrusted to them. They are taxpayer dollars. With this focus on reform, transparency, and on using every dollar wisely, this amendment No. 2269 helps the Army maximize the value of every dollar, operate transparently with Congress, and appropriately use the resources entrusted to them.

I have been working with Army staff and senior leadership since February of this year to better understand their process, and I thank them for their efforts and the straightforward conversations we have had during this process.

Based upon our conversations and testimony, my amendment codifies the transparency they are seeking and updates to the Army's stationing process that will better ensure that the Army

is making wiser decisions, more cost-effective decisions, and are making decisions that are beneficial in the long term.

Stationing decisions are long-term decisions. They will impact the Army for many years to come. If we have learned anything from recent budget cycles, as the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Neller, said before our Appropriations Defense Subcommittee several times, it is that the only certainty is uncertainty.

The Army has the benefit of a growing budget right now, but in future years, there will surely be periods of fiscal stress and uncertainty where smart investments today will be paid forward.

Our intent with the amendment is to support the Army in making decisions based on fair, open, and comprehensive data--particularly long-term cost factors--that will help the Army save dollars in future years. Those savings can be put where they are desperately needed-- toward training, supporting our soldiers and their families, sustaining our weapons, and increasing the Army's readiness and lethality.

I appreciate the help I have had from the Armed Services Committee, and I appreciate the chairman, Senator McCain, and his staff. I also appreciate very much my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, for his efforts in this regard. I appreciate their interest in my amendment.

I will be happy to respond to any questions my colleagues may have on the merits of this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to recognize MG Joseph M. Martin and his outstanding military career, which is made evident by a significant milestone promotion to lieutenant general. Major General Martin is the commanding general of the 1st Infantry Division at Fort Riley, KS, and assumed this command in October of 2016 when he took command of the Big Red One--the Army's longest serving, permanent division since 1917.

Within days of assuming command of the Big Red One in 2016, he deployed with his division headquarters, 500 of his soldiers, to Iraq. He assumed leadership of the Combined Joint Forces Land Component Command-Iraq in support of Operation Inherent Resolve.

Major General Martin's combat leadership was remarkable in Iraq. During the 9-month deployment, he led the fight, alongside the Government of Iraq, against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria in Mosul. His efforts, and the efforts of the brave soldiers in the U.S. Army and all of our troops, led to the defeat of ISIS in Mosul and the destruction of their territorial hold. ISIS had been in control of Mosul since 2014 but were beaten back by Major General Martin and his forces. They liberated 1.8 million Iraqis, and it was a remarkable victory.

In the manner of a true combat leader, Major General Martin was one of the last soldiers to return from the mission in July of 2017. When General Martin returned stateside, he quickly demonstrated his leadership back on base at Fort Riley, and he led the 100th anniversary of the division.

He has been an outstanding partner to me and fellow Kansans on a number of initiatives to support the Big Red One. He has been involved in the communities of Manhattan and Junction City and those other communities that surround Fort Riley. It is no surprise to me that he has been selected for promotion to lieutenant general. He is a proven leader, capable of completing the most complex challenges under the most stressful situations. The Army has made the right move with his promotion and, furthermore, by placing him in a position of greater responsibility.

I am confident Kansans will join me in congratulating soon-to-be- confirmed Lieutenant General Martin on his promotion. We honor and thank him for his service.

We recognize the sacrifices he and his family have made over the last 32 years. I recognize his wife Leann and their children, Kylie and Joey, for their service over the years. Strong Army families make strong Army soldiers.

I have no doubt--none--that Major General Martin will continue to be one of the Army's best leaders, and I look forward to seeing what lies ahead for him in his career.

Congratulations, General Martin.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be back on the Senate floor this afternoon in support of the VA MISSION Act. I was here last Thursday, and, in part, I paid tribute to Senator McCain. We greatly miss him here on the Senate floor. I personally--and I know my colleagues also--wish he were here to help us determine a path forward and to find the solutions to problems. Senator McCain is an expert in caring for those who have served us in the military and taking care of our military retirees and our veterans. So, again, I use this moment on the Senate floor to pay tribute to my colleague Senator McCain and to thank him for his service to our Nation and his willingness to work side by side with me as we develop legislation that deals with the issue of community care for veterans across the country.

I highlighted last Thursday that challenges at the VA have caused Congress to respond, and that response involves Choice, legislation that now exists in which, under certain circumstances, veterans have the ability to find and be provided care within their communities. They can see their hometown physician and be admitted to their hometown hospital under certain circumstances.

The Choice Program has worked well for many veterans, just as the VA itself internally works well for many veterans. But I know from my own experience as a Member of the U.S. Senate

that Kansans have experienced significant challenges with VA programs, especially with the Choice Program, in which the bureaucracy seems to inhibit the ability of the VA to provide the care that veterans across Kansas are seeking.

I indicated last week that currently within our office, we have 80 cases in which we are dealing with veterans who are facing challenges from something they need from the VA and are not receiving. I looked at the numbers prior to that since I have been a Member of the U.S. Senate. There have been 2,650 occasions in which a veteran sought help from their U.S. Senator for something we would expect them to be entitled to based upon their service to our Nation. We are grateful to those veterans, and we want to make sure they are honored and esteemed. At the same time, we want to make sure the promises that were made to those who have served our Nation are kept.

The legislation before us that has been approved by the House of Representatives and is now in front of the Senate has been entitled the VA MISSION Act. We were actually successful in honoring Senator McCain by including his name in the title. Again, I appreciate his willingness to help create the Choice Program and now to reform and extend it.

One of the challenges I have taken upon myself is to make certain we don't simply--nothing is simple around here--just extend the current Choice Program. We have worked to reform it and improve it and make it more likely that the challenges of those 80 veterans who are seeking help from my staff or those 2,650 who have sought help from my staff are a lot less.

So I judge the efforts in this legislation with this challenge: What are we doing to reduce the problems veterans encounter in seeking the help they are entitled to? In a conversation with my staff, I asked them to give me the top 10 reasons why this legislation is a good thing; tell me what are the top 10 reasons a Member of the U.S. Senate should vote for this legislation.

Incidentally, when we pass it, it will be forwarded to the President. President Trump has indicated his strong support for this legislation, so there is every indication the President will, of course, since he supports the legislation, sign it into law and will do so prior to Memorial Day, a time in which we again pay respect to those who have served our Nation.

My top 10 list became 12, and I would guess that if given more time and greater ability to spend time on the floor, that list of 12 could be expanded to a much longer list, but let me share with my colleagues reasons that I think it is important for this legislation to be approved and to be sent to the President.

Again, I was a skeptic early on. I wanted to make certain that we did something significant and not just extend the Choice Program into the future but make significant changes. The challenge has been trying to make certain the VA does things we want them to do, that they follow the letter of the law of legislation we pass, and they follow the intent of Members of Congress. In regard to the Choice Act that passed now 3 years or so ago, it was hard sometimes to see that the VA was implementing that legislation the way it was written or the way it was intended.

No. 1 of the top 12 reasons this legislation should be approved is that this legislation makes certain the VA executes the law consistent with the intent of Congress. It mandates coordination with Congress as it develops rules and regulations under this new legislation.

The goal I expect to be successful in achieving is to prevent the VA's ability to narrow or limit the program's opportunity to serve veterans as was intended by this law and, more importantly, as they deserve.

No. 2, this legislation consolidates community care programs. There are seven different community care programs within the VA in which a veteran can access care away from the hospital--the big brick buildings that most of us have in our States; usually in the most populated areas of our States--and those seven community care programs are consolidated into one community care. That will reduce the bureaucracy at the VA but will also make it more understandable for our veterans and for the providers, including doctors, hospitals, and others who provide care to veterans today, in those community care programs--one program, not seven.

No. 3, we want to improve care coordination. By that we mean the quality of the relationship that a veteran has with the VA and what that relationship means in terms of them accessing care today and tomorrow and care related to their circumstances. This legislation requires the VA to provide a coordinator of care for veterans utilizing care in the community to ensure continuity of care and service in a timely manner. This will make it an easier task for a veteran to receive what they need, and it ensures it is done in a timely way. It also prevents lapses in care by increasing the communications between the veteran and the VA community provider.

No. 4, the legislation reforms eligibility. This is an important one. They are all important, but this one is especially important to me.

Under the Choice Act under which we operate today, the VA was instructed to allow a veteran who lives more than 40 miles from a VA facility or it takes more than 30 days for that veteran to receive his or her care at the VA--to provide, under Veterans Choice, that care in a community setting. Eligibility was defined by a narrow circumstance. However, having said that, it was never clear whether a veteran would qualify.

That 30-day, 40-mile criteria empowered the VA to make decisions that often left a veteran who seemingly should be eligible, ineligible for care in the community. This legislation removes the 30-day, 40-mile requirement and replaces it with the criteria of what is in the best interest of the veteran. That is pretty important and pretty basic. One would expect that always to be the circumstance, but the criteria is changed now to what is in the best interest of the veteran, and the VA must meet clearly defined, routinely reviewed criteria as to whether that veteran is eligible to have community care if he or she desires it. So we are reducing the discretion. The decision is still made between the veteran and the VA, but we have narrowed the amount of discretion the Department of Veterans Affairs has and left the opportunity for the veteran, when it is in his or her best interest, access to care in the community.

So it is clearly defined, and the criteria is routinely reviewed to make sure access is available and that quality standards are met.

No. 5, if it turns out that the veteran disagrees with the decision made by the Department of Veterans Affairs as to whether he or she is eligible for care in the community--whether or not it is in his or her best interest--then there is an appeal to the hospital director in that person's area. In Kansas, this would be an appeal to the hospital director at the Colmery-O'Neil Hospital, at the Dwight Eisenhower Hospital in Leavenworth, or the Dole VA Hospital in Wichita.

Today, when a veteran is denied access to care in a community, their only recourse is to call their Congressman or to call their U.S. Senator to complain and have us go to bat. While we are all willing and we welcome the opportunity to serve those who have served us, the reality is, no one--and certainly no veteran--should have to call their U.S. Senator in order to get the VA to provide care that is in their best interests.

So this now gives a different route and hopefully a much more convenient route for veterans. We wouldn't have had the 2,650 cases if we had this provision. The veteran could have the opportunity to have their decision about their care--what is in their best interests-- determined by the VA at home. So there is recourse for a veteran who is dissatisfied with the outcome.

No. 6, this provides full access for episodes of care. What our veterans have faced in using the Choice Act to date is, they will get a referral to a physician, but then the physician decides the veteran needs lab work or an x-ray. Unfortunately, that meant the veteran had to return to the VA to seek additional approval for the lab work and additional approval for the x-ray.

So we have redefined what it is the referral involves, which is they are referred for an episode of care. That means the lab work and the entire episode of care is treated in completion in

the community. No longer is the veteran required to re-call, re-request the VA to give them additional reauthorization.

No. 7, the legislation also mandates regular market assessments to determine what care is available in the community and where the Department of Veterans Affairs excels. We know the Department of Veterans Affairs has many medical programs, care, and treatments that veterans want and need, in which they excel. This gives us a better understanding--the veteran, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and us as Members of Congress in our oversight responsibilities--to know what is available within the VA and what is available in the community, and that lends itself to the determination of what is in the best interests of the veteran.

No. 8 of the list of 12 is something that is important to us as Members of Congress who have veterans who come from rural areas. We have 127 hospitals in Kansas; 88 of them are designed as critical access hospitals. It is a designation under Medicare, and it provides a cost-based reimbursement for that healthcare provider. It means our smallest hospitals in our smallest communities have a Medicare reimbursement rate that is designed to keep them in business, to keep their doors open.

Unfortunately, the Choice Act, in its current form, only requires the VA to reimburse at Medicare rates. That Medicare rate was never interpreted by the VA to be the rate that hospital received for Medicare patients, only a more standard Medicare rate. This legislation requires that the care be paid for at that critical access hospital designation rate. The same, I hope, is true for our rural health clinics, so physicians and hospitals receive the amount of money they would receive if they were treating a Medicare patient.

Why is this important? It is important because it encourages our hospitals to accept veterans into the community care program. The amount of reimbursement they would receive would be the same or similar to what they receive in caring for a Medicare patient, and our hospitals, in that circumstance, are hanging on financially by a thread anyway. It is a challenge to keep hospital doors open in our smallest communities. This gives them a reimbursement rate that increases the chance that the revenue is sufficient to cover the cost. It will encourage more hospitals to accept Choice community care patients, and it will increase the chance of those patients being alive and well into the future.

No. 9, this bill allows for access to walk-in care. Something that is changing in our delivery healthcare system is the ability to go to a pharmacy and have your blood pressure taken or get an inoculation, a vaccine. So access to walk-in care is becoming more common across our State and around the country. This allows our veterans to receive, under this community care program, care from local walk-in clinics, convenient care clinics, and federally funded health centers, giving veterans the same access to nonemergent convenience care that people other than veterans now receive.

Allowing walk-in care at your local clinic is a much more convenient and a much more cost-effective way of addressing the issue of access to care across the State of Kansas and around the country.

No. 10, this legislation provides additional funds to maintain the Veterans Choice Program during its development and implementation. One of the challenges we faced is the inability of the Department of Veterans Affairs to determine actually how much money is required to keep the Choice Program going. This legislation keeps the program in place while we transition.

I serve as a member of the Appropriations Committee, and I have chaired the subcommittee that funds the Department of Veterans Affairs. We have been worried that every time there is a shortfall in the money available for Choice, we will see the VA reduce the number of veterans who qualify for care and therefore starve the program, and the networks that have been built up with healthcare providers in the community will disappear. So this is stabilizing. It is a process issue, but it is important because it allows for care to continue during the interim as we move to this new legislation.

No. 11, it increases access to telemedicine. The VA is known as a high-quality provider of telemedicine, but this is an opportunity to expand that, especially for rural veterans or specialty care, where it is expensive for that care to be provided--and we don't have providers in every VA setting--or if where a veteran lives is so remote that getting to the Department of Veterans Affairs hospital is a challenge. The State of Kansas has lots of rural communities and long distances-- it can be a 4- or 5-hour drive.

I have been joined on the floor by the Senator from Montana, the ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs Committee on which I serve. The Senator from Montana understands very well the challenges rural veterans face in getting access to care when it is a distance away.

Finally, No. 12, we are going to work hard to foster innovation within the Department of Veterans Affairs. This legislation creates the VA Center for Innovation for Care and Payment, allowing the VA to more efficiently develop and carry out pilot programs to test and check out innovative solutions and approaches to improving the care for veterans, improving access to care, improving the cost associated with that care, and trying to find ways we can better assist our veterans in a more cost-effective way.

I again reiterate my support for the VA MISSION Act and honor Senator McCain, for whom this legislation is named. I look forward to its passage. I am encouraged by the vote that occurred as we moved forward with this bill. I think there were 94 Senators who voted in favor of it. It has broad support.

It was my pleasure to work with my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

I now yield the floor to the Senator from Montana, Mr. Tester.

Madam President, many of us this afternoon had the opportunity to see a screening of the HBO documentary ``For Whom the Bell Tolls,'' a tribute to Senator McCain. It is clearly a tribute, but it is also the story of his life and an expose of his sacrifice for his country. It is a moving story of Senator McCain's life and an inspiration to me and, I assume, to my colleagues for the commitment that he has made to always try to do right--putting his country above self.

I have had the honor of working with Senator McCain for the last several years in regard to legislation trying to improve the circumstances that our Nation's veterans face as they access healthcare within the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Senator McCain and I introduced legislation to accomplish a number of things related to this, particularly the Veterans Choice Program. Choice was passed back about 2014, at a time in which the VA was in a crisis and a time in which the veterans they were created to serve were harmed by decisions made at the Department of Veterans Affairs. The problems were highlighted in Senator McCain's home city of Phoenix at the Phoenix VA, in which a number of veterans may have died as a result of the inability to access healthcare in a timely fashion.

The solution to the problems exhibited in other places across the country--which included false waiting lists, in which the VA had determined a list that was not real but demonstrated that veterans who had no idea they had an appointment to see someone at the VA had an appointment, to camouflage the failures and the slowness of the Department of Veterans Affairs--resulted in a unanimous decision by the Senate to create a program called Choice.

Choice creates the opportunity for a veteran, under certain circumstances, to access healthcare in their home community at the veteran's discretion. This program, in my view, has significant potential to alter the opportunities that a veteran has to be cared for.

Those who served our country deserve the very best, and we want to make certain that happens both inside the VA and with a program that allows veterans to choose healthcare outside the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The Veterans Choice Program has expired since 2014. We have reauthorized it in a number of instances. I think three, perhaps four times. It needed funding, and we reauthorized the funding. Choice was a limited program in which for the veteran to qualify to receive Choice care in the community at their discretion and at their option was determined by whether or not that veteran lived within 40 miles of a VA facility or whether the VA could provide the services within 30 days of the time the veteran needed that care.

The committee here in the Senate has worked for a long time trying to reauthorize the Veterans Choice Program. It has been my position, with Senator McCain, that just to reauthorize Choice would be a significant error on our part and that in the authorization process, we should make community care work better for veterans.

I judge whether or not the VA is providing the care and services that our veterans need by what you would call casework--what we do on behalf of our constituents who have a challenge or a problem with a Federal agency or department. Our casework regarding veterans who are attempting to access care in the community has been exponential.

I checked the other day. At the moment, we have 80 cases for veterans in Kansas--not all related to this particular program but 80 veterans who contacted me and my staff and said: I need your help. Since I have been a Senator, that number is 2,650 veterans who have contacted me or my staff saying: I need your help. So when it came time for the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee to begin the legislative process of determining how to alter the program, how to reform it, and, particularly, how to extend the program, I wanted to make certain that my input was based upon what veterans were telling me about how the program did and didn't work.

Our committee passed a bill out of the Veterans' Affairs Committee months ago. That bill was passed by our committee on a vote of 14 to 1. I was the one opponent. I say that for my colleagues today--some of whom have asked my view, some of whom I hope were interested in my view, and even those who may not care. I want them to know that the bill now in front of the Senate--and the majority leader just filed the proceedings for us to have a cloture vote next week on this legislation--is legislation I support. It does do something more than just extend Choice. It creates opportunities for that program to work much better. Most importantly to me was the issue of who decides whether or not a veteran has the option of choosing community care.

The legislation that we will consider next week allows for the Department of Veterans Affairs--in a sense, the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs--to remain the gatekeeper. The VA has the opportunity to make the decision about who gets to have community care, but different than today, when the only criteria is 40 miles or 30 days. We create access standards in this legislation that the VA must abide by in determining whether or not a veteran can have care in the community, and that is a significant difference.

We had all kinds of challenges with the 40 miles and 30 days. We changed the definition of what a facility was in order to get the VA to allow individuals to have access to care at home. People may recall that the VA wanted to count the 40 miles as the crow flies. In addition to other challenges that the VA put in front of veterans, we have eliminated those and created a standard by which the VA must abide. So while the gatekeeper remains the Department of Veterans Affairs, it is not in the total discretion of the Department of Veterans Affairs. They must abide by criteria, and if the veteran believes he or she is denied care in the community, that veteran has the opportunity to appeal based upon a number of standards, including best medical interest of the veteran.

We are changing a program in which the VA made decisions that often denied veterans the access to care in their community that veteran asked for, and we are saying: You now asked the VA for permission. The VA has to make a decision to grant or deny that permission, but they can't do it solely at the discretion of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. They must abide by criteria. That is a significant improvement.

Secondly, if you feel like you have received the wrong decision, you can appeal that decision.

Today--and we have plenty of examples of this in Kansas--when a veteran is denied community care by the Department of Veterans Affairs, their only appeal is to their Senator or their Member of Congress, in which we then have a new case to once again try to work our way through the Department

of Veterans Affairs: Why did you deny this veteran his or her choice to have community care?

This bill is a significant improvement. It satisfies the concerns I had; my view that early on, we were mostly just trying to extend Choice as it was--as it is, and now this replaces it with really a circumstance in which veterans have rights, have standards the Department of Veterans Affairs must comply with.

In addition to the issues of who can access care, who is the gatekeeper, and determining the standards, this bill merges and modernizes all community care programs and puts them all in one category at the Department of Veterans Affairs instead of multiple programs. It simplifies it.

We have had too many instances in which, if you didn't access care under one program, you might be able to apply for another. This changes the circumstances that so many of my veterans have complained to me about, in which they get an authorization from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and they are allowed to see a physician in their home community, but then when they need lab work or an x ray--something that should be related to that visit--they have to go back to the Department of Veterans Affairs to get additional consent. This is more in the line of necessary procedures that should follow: one authorization that includes the things that are medically necessary for that appointment with the physician or that admission to a hospital. It just makes sense that these other things would be necessary if that physician whom the VA referred you to believes them to be necessary. It establishes a framework for the VA to build a high-performing healthcare network, and it implements new coordination so the veteran and the VA work together to determine what is in the best interest of that veteran.

It is something I have cared about a lot. We required that in the original Choice Act; that the healthcare provider be paid Medicare rates. Those of us who come from rural States recognize there are various rates under Medicare, and for our smallest hospitals, they are entitled to cost-based reimbursement. That is not happening under the current legislation, the law today. This legislation corrects the problem, keeping the circumstance more likely in which our hospitals and doctors would be financially able to see a veteran and provide that care.

This is not privatizing the VA. The VA serves a valuable and useful role. Many veterans choose to have care at the Department of Veterans Affairs, at their hospitals, and at their clinics. Again, it is the veterans' choice where he or she wants to go.

For those of us who come from rural places, the distances in which a veteran must travel, in many instances, have eliminated the ability for that veteran to ever access care from the VA. The VA has programs that are important to veterans--traumatic brain injury, amputation, things that may not ever be as available or as desirable in the community.

This legislation is supported by every veterans service organization I know of. We have come to the point in which it is time for us to pass this legislation. Memorial Day is approaching. The President has asked this legislation be approved prior to Memorial Day. We think it is appropriate to honor those who served our country at this point in May, where Memorial Day is around the corner, to provide the care they are asking for.

The other aspect of why it is important for us to move on the legislation now is that the funding for Choice and community care has diminished. I serve on the Appropriations Committee that funds the Department of Veterans Affairs, and it is necessary for us to get the money in place. The VA is already rationing care for those veterans who use Choice today, and this legislation puts the necessary dollars in place for Choice to continue in its new reformed and improved status.

It would be a shame for us to miss this opportunity. It would be wrong for our veterans. It would diminish the number of people who access care at the Department of Veterans Affairs and do so at a time in which the needs are great for those who have served our Nation.

Again, referring to my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, we would honor him if we answer this call to do our duty to see that our veterans are cared for, that promises are kept.

I appreciate the response that was given when the bill was suggested to be named in honor of Senator McCain. Both the House chairman and the House committee, along with Senator Isakson, the chairman here, and Senator Tester, the ranking member, have agreed to do that. This legislation is now known as the McCain Mission Act. Our colleague, for whom there are so many reasons to pay honor and tribute to, would receive another honor for his service to our Nation but of equal importance, his service to other veterans.

For so many reasons, it is time for us to act, to pass the McCain Mission Act, and do so with the promptness that has followed long deliberations to try to get it right.

In my view, too often the U.S. Senate, the Congress, politics, and government, in general, just put a bandaid on to get by. This legislation is significantly different than doing something to get by. It would improve the quality of life for those who serve our Nation. We should honor them, as we honor Senator McCain, prior to Memorial Day, at the end of next week.

I thank you for the opportunity to address the Senate.

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

Mr. President, thank you very much.

I come to the floor again today to visit a moment about S.J. Res. 57. It disapproves the CFPB guidance on indirect auto lending. This is a piece of legislation I introduced, and I appreciate the strong and valuable assistance I have had from the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey, and certainly the chairman of the Banking Committee, the Senator from Idaho, and other colleagues.

I want to talk just a moment about process, the use of a CRA, and the fact that the CFPB utilized what they called guidance as compared to a rulemaking process.

I want to make certain that my colleagues understand that Agencies and Departments still would be encouraged to put out guidance to ensure appropriate compliance with the law. This CRA resolution ought not have a chilling effect on guidance because guidance is a useful tool. It can be helpful to those who are being regulated, but it needs to be issued for traditional purposes--guidelines for complying with Federal law.

One of the CFPB's errors in issuing this guidance in this instance was that they proceeded down the path of an aggressive enforcement action in search of market-tipping settlements. If enforcement action is desired on the part of the agency, then a full rulemaking process ought to be conducted, and that is what the CFPB did not do. The CFPB used the guidance as an enforcement weapon instead of guidance in its more traditional and helpful purpose. It is important that we in Congress reorient the guidance process back to its intended form by ensuring that the CFPB cannot replicate its mistakes with regard to indirect auto lending.

The authors of the Congressional Review Act that we are operating under on this resolution, Senators Nickles, Reid, and Stevens, in the Congressional Record of April 1996, said: ``The authors are concerned that some agencies have attempted to circumvent notice-and-comment requirements by trying to give legal effect to general statements of policy, `guidelines,' and agency policy and procedure manuals.''

Even in 1996, my previous colleagues were concerned about what actually transpired at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Clearly, the CRA was passed in 1996 with the understanding that agency guidance had been used inappropriately.

It is important for Congress to reassert its role in policymaking from the executive branch. All Members of Congress ought to be committed to conducting oversight over the rest of the Federal Government. Failure on the part of Congress to hold Federal agencies to account when they stray from their statutory and congressionally intended jurisdiction means we will get de facto legislation being originated in the executive branch. This effort is about making certain that the form and function of the Federal Government is accountable to the American people.

Kansans hold me to account for the actions I take in Washington, DC, on their behalf. In turn, they expect me to hold other components of their government to account. Congress is the link between the American people and the Federal Government. I will continue to use the position that Kansans have entrusted to me to make certain I am representing their interest in Washington, DC, and can do so only by working with my Senate colleagues to oversee and correct mistakes made by other branches of the government. Today, we will do that with the adoption of S.J. Res. 57.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am here to lend my support to a measure that I have had the honor of working on with the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey, and I have worked side by side with the chairman of the Banking Committee--of which I am a member--the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo. I very much appreciate the leadership that both of those individuals and my other colleagues have provided over a long period of time on this issue.

Dodd-Frank was passed as a result of the concerns that many had across the country and here in the Congress regarding the financial challenges that our Nation faced resulting from mortgages that were sold. It really was a Wall Street crisis that, in so many ways, became challenging for Main Street, with Main Street having the consequence of having the difficulties presented to them based upon what happened on Wall Street, and in so many instances, consumers ended up paying the price. But as we tried to correct the problem when Dodd-Frank was passed, it got way beyond the culprits--those who were culpable for creating the financial crisis in our Nation--and began to penalize those who had nothing to do with them.

One of the creatures of the passage of Dodd-Frank was the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and one of the aspects of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was their effort to regulate indirect auto lending.

I think the chairman, the Senator from Idaho, did a great job of explaining this resolution. Today, we have the authority to reject the decision that was made by the Consumer Financial Protect Bureau, and I hope my colleagues will join me in doing so. I have introduced this resolution to accomplish that.

Senator Toomey has made clear by his efforts that this guidance that was issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is subject to a CRA, and that is our mission today--to accomplish the passage of that

Mr. President, thank you for your remarks on the floor earlier this afternoon. I rise to have the Senate consider and to have a conversation about S. 140, a package of three bills that will have positive benefits on Indian Country.

Two bills in the package--the Senator from Arizona was talking about one of them. Two bills in this package, S. 140, the White Mountain Apache Water Rights Quantification Act, sponsored by Senators Flake and McCain, and S. 249, a bill to provide that the Pueblo of Santa Clara may lease for 99 years certain restricted land, sponsored by Senators Udall and Heinrich of New Mexico, have already received unanimous consent from the Senate.

The third bill in the package, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, was attached as a message from the House to S. 140 in January. I am the sponsor of this legislation in the Senate, which should be noncontroversial in a chamber where Members of the Senate profess to be supportive of Tribal sovereignty. This concept has been around since 2005, and I became interested in this topic and introduced legislation in 2013--now 5 years ago.

I suppose all of us, from time to time, may introduce legislation that is a messaging point or a talking point. In this and in most every other case, when I introduce legislation I work hard to see that it becomes law. I work in a bipartisan way to bring Republicans and Democrats together and for rural and urban Members of the Senate to work together. This is an example of that. There is nothing about this legislation that is a messaging to Tribes or to others. It is not an introduction of a piece of legislation designed to make a point. It is a piece of legislation designed to become law.

This bill has passed the House and is now pending here in the Senate today. I hope to use this opportunity to convey to my colleagues that this legislation is not a radical proposition but rather a restoration of the sovereign status of Tribal governments. Indeed, by moving forward with this legislation, we can enshrine the status quo that existed for 70 years after the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, until the National Labor Relations Board stripped Tribes of their government status under the NLRA. By making explicit that Tribal governments are distinct and sovereign and capable of making their own decisions, we will correct a decade-old error made by the NLRB.

(Mr. YOUNG assumed the Chair.)

The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act is simple and narrow. It amends the NLRA to exempt tribally owned entities operated on tribally owned lands--no more, no less. Businesses owned by individual Tribal members or operations off Tribal lands still remain subject to the scrutiny of the NLRB.

Many of those who have expressed opposition to this bill will say: I support Tribal sovereignty--but. If you have to qualify your support for Tribal sovereignty in order to protect your own interests instead of the Tribes, then, no, you really don't support Tribal sovereignty. Tribal sovereignty is something we believe in. Tribes of Native Americans--those who inhabited this country before our ancestors arrived--were granted sovereignty over their own businesses decades or generations ago.

Senators have voiced on the Senate floor that this is not about sovereignty but about an attack on labor. That is simply not true. One accusation is that this bill is truly an attack on labor because it doesn't provide exemptions from other Federal legislation. If my colleagues are objecting to this bill because of its narrow scope, then will they support making it broader? I think the answer to that is clearly no. If they are serious about that, then let's have a conversation.

I am not new to Tribal issues. My introduction to this topic began when I was elected to the Kansas State Senate a long time ago now. I was a freshman member. I happened to have a law degree and was assigned by the leadership of the State senate to conduct negotiations and to chair a committee on Indian gaming in Kansas. I spent the next 2 years in front of a Federal district judge, negotiating an agreement under IGRA for Indian gaming in Kansas.

Other examples of our efforts include the passage of general welfare exclusion legislation with Senator Heitkamp of North Dakota that passed this Senate and became law several years ago now. Again, it was trying to make clear that Tribal decisions made on behalf of Tribal members are much better decisions than those made by Congress but especially by those made by agencies and bureaucracies--in that case, the IRS; today, the National Labor Relations Board.

We have also worked on other issues related to Tribal interests, including a Carcieri fix and the ability to bring land into trust-- issues that are important to Tribes across the country. My point is, this is another piece of legislation in a series that the Senate has pursued in which we are doing right by those who preceded us as our ancestors settled in America.

I don't think that the critics of this bill want Tribal governments exempt from the other statutes either. No, the objection isn't about the sovereignty granted by this legislation. It is not that it doesn't go far enough; it is what it does grant sovereignty for.

I would ask my colleagues: If the Senate denied Tribal sovereignty in this instance, what Tribal rights are going to be targeted next? The point is, if you are for sovereignty, you are for sovereignty in all circumstances, and you don't have the ability to choose. It is based upon a legal and moral obligation that we have to Tribes here in the United States.

Others have criticized this legislation. They have said that non- Tribal members cannot vote for Tribal governments, and therefore this is different from States. Again, this legislation puts Tribes in the same position, under NLRB, as States and other local units of government--but that is not true either. A person living in the District of Columbia, who works in Virginia, is subject to Virginia labor laws without having a say in forming those laws.

In 2013, there was an issue of Tribal sovereignty on the U.S. Senate floor. It was broader than that. It was VAWA--the Violence Against Women Act. I supported its reauthorization, which included new authorities for Tribal governments to protect Native American women when they are harmed by

non-Indians. With VAWA's passage, Congress placed our trust in Tribes to exact justice in the circumstance of domestic violence and violence against women.

The point here is that we rightly determined that Tribes should have the ability to punish Indian and non-Indian violent offenders, but today it is being argued that we can't trust them to treat Indian and non-Indian employees justly.

I remember the allegations against my colleagues who voted against VAWA were that they were not supportive of Tribal sovereignty. Those who oppose this bill today are subject to exactly the same criticism.

There is also an assumption being made that employees of tribally owned entities are being treated poorly or will be treated poorly if this legislation passes. The majority of Tribes are located in rural areas, where the labor pool is often inadequate. It is to the Tribes' advantage to treat their employees fairly in order to retain them. As a matter of fact, many Tribes have the highest wages and provide the best benefits in their region. Tribal jobs are coveted because prospective employees know what they stand to gain by their employment.

The idea that Tribal government enterprise workers should be treated as commercial rather than governmental workers doesn't hold up. A Tribal casino worker is no less of a government employee than an employee of a State-owned-and-operated enterprise that includes liquor stores, ski resorts, and, yes, casinos.

In 2015, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee held legislative hearings on the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act--the legislation we are considering today--and testifying before the Committee was Robert Welch, chairman of the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians in California. Despite being a unionized Tribe--employees of the tribally owned facilities are union members--Chairman Welch testified in support of this bill.

Many Tribes welcome labor unions. That is fine. The point is, it is their decision. The Tribal decision is where this issue rests. The point of this legislation is it is up to the Tribes to decide, not the

Madam President, I would like to take a few moments of the Senate's time this evening to recognize servicemembers who take time away from core missions serving our Nation to support Members of Congress to facilitate a healthy and balanced exchange with the Department of Defense. We work in an environment in which we are surrounded by these dedicated individuals in our Armed Forces. They educate us, prepare us, and do their very best to make sure the members of this body can strive to do their work in the most effective way possible. The vast majority of their efforts go without proper acknowledgement. I speak today to ensure that we recognize one of the hardest working and dedicated individuals among them, LTC Charcillea Schaefer. As an American soldier, she has dedicated her life to serving our country, and for the past 3 years, she has successfully supported me and other Members of Congress.

I have been able to work with Charcy by virtue of the U.S. Army Congressional Fellowship Program. Through this program, she was assigned to the U.S. Army's congressional budget liaison office, where she worked alongside Senate appropriators and Army leaders in the Pentagon. Charcy directly improved the relationships between Members of Congress, their staffs, and Army leaders with her ability to build trust and gain confidence among those who relied on her. Her accurate and timely responses to the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies had a significant impact on the subcommittee's ability to establish priorities and craft appropriations legislation that better serves our military, their families, and our veterans.

Charcy was skilled in translating the military construction needs of the Army such as military hospitals, barracks, and clean energy initiatives. She also helped Members understand the impact new construction and facility upgrades would have in direct support of combatant commands and their missions. Charcy was influential in assisting the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies support one of our Nation's most sacred and cherished treasures, the Arlington National Cemetery.

Charcy is trustworthy and dependable, she made a difference, and I am grateful for her support.

On behalf of Kansans and the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, I offer sincere gratitude to Charcillea Schaefer of Centreville, VA.

Charcy, ma'am, thank you for a job well done. I wish you nothing but the best in your future endeavors and service to our Nation.

Mr. President, judges and litigants in our State of Kansas have been anxious to have the vacant positions in our State filled. One of those two vacancies in district judgeships is the longest open vacancy in the country, and today we accomplished the filling of one of those positions with the confirmation of John Broomes.

I rise to express my pleasure to my colleagues and to Mr. Broomes--my pleasure for his willingness to be considered for this position, to be nominated by the President, and now to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate--and to express my pleasure to my colleagues for seeing his qualifications and experience and capabilities and making that confirmation happen just a few moments ago. He is a highly qualified individual, he is a well-respected attorney, and he has the intellect and legal mind and legal experience to receive this lifetime appointment as a Federal judge.

I take these lifetime appointments very seriously, and I want to make certain that, as a Kansas Senator and as a U.S. Senator, I am doing my part to put highly qualified and soundly principled judges in place to serve Kansas and the country. John Broomes meets these qualifications. In my conversations with him over the last year, he expressed a judicial philosophy that is dedicated to the interpretation of the law as written, recognition that no person is above the law, and treatment for all litigants in a fair and legal fashion.

I appreciate Mr. Broomes' naval service to our country. His willingness to serve is a mark of his character and his love for our Nation.

I want to highlight a note from a distinguished professor at Washburn Law School in Topeka, KS. He indicated in his letter that he found Mr. Broomes to be ``the most gifted legal mind he has ever encountered. Equally important, he is an honest and principled person and among the very best lawyers I know.'' Dr. David Pierce, a law school professor, is a highly regarded member of the faculty and chairman of the Washburn business and transactional law program, and his confirmation of my view of John Broomes is very fulfilling to me. It gives me great confidence that we have made a wise decision today.

Mr. Broomes served as a law clerk to U.S. Magistrate Judge Donald Bostwick and U.S. District Court Judge Monti Belot, and their reputation and experience add to Mr. Broomes' qualifications.

I met Mr. Broomes' family, and I was so impressed with him as a father. I was impressed with his wife and their children. He has a reputation as a solid, decent, and conscientious person and a man with a conscience. He also has a reputation for expertly managing cases and solving complex litigation. He has been a valuable attorney to the Hinkle law firm, a highly regarded law firm in Wichita, KS. That firm is known for employing associates and having partners who meet the qualifications that we would want in a judge. He focuses on business and natural resources law, and that knowledge of those kinds of cases will be very valuable to litigation that is heard in my State.

Mr. Broomes was unanimously confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee in December, and I appreciate the support my colleagues have demonstrated on his confirmation today.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dustin Ellsberry, an intern in Senator Sullivan's office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.