Medical Research News
There are no records to display that match the provided criteria.
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) introduced a Senate resolution today to recognize the contributions of American entrepreneurs and officially establish National Entrepreneurs’ Day as a federally recognized observance day. The Moran-Booker Senate resolution aims to have Congress identify the third Tuesday of every November as National Entrepreneurs’ Day.
“National Entrepreneurs’ Day celebrates the individuals who are the foundation of our country and strength of our economy,” Sen. Moran said. “We recognize that innovative new businesses are critical components of economic growth, and devoting one day a year to celebrating startups is a small step toward securing future economic success and a better tomorrow.”
“Today and every day of the year, entrepreneurs deserve to be honored and celebrated for their contributions,” Sen. Booker said. “National Entrepreneurs’ Day recognizes the role these innovative individuals play in fueling our economy and expanding opportunity in New Jersey and communities across the country. Now more than ever, we need their entrepreneurial energy to inspire the next generation of business leaders.”
This year, National Entrepreneurs’ Day is celebrated today, Nov. 17, 2015. National Entrepreneurs’ Day was established in 2010 by David Hauser and Siamak Taghaddos, co-founders of Grasshopper, an organization that helps entrepreneurs to establish a phone system for their businesses, and Amir Tehrani, entrepreneur and co-founder of The Legacy Foundation, a nonpartisan educational organization that promotes free enterprise. The group successfully petitioned President Obama to proclaim National Entrepreneurs’ Day as a holiday in 2010.
###
Ahead of Veterans Day, Senate Passes Bill to Fund Military Construction and VA
Funding Increased by Billions, Yet Systemic Failures at the VA Remain
Nov 10 2015
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) – a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee – today voted in favor of the bipartisan bill (H.R. 2029) funding military construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The bill, which passed the Senate 93-0, includes funding for a number of Kansas military construction projects, prevents the transfer of terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to the United States, and through an amendment offered by Sen. Moran prohibits the use of funds to relocate senior VA executives.
“This bill reaffirms our commitment to support our Armed Forces and take care of nation’s veterans,” Sen. Moran said. “A strong national defense is critical to our security and is the federal government’s primary constitutional responsibility. I am committed to supporting our military personnel in Kansas and across the country, particularly against this administration’s unlawful pursuit of transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the United States. The closing of Gitmo shouldn’t happen without Congressional approval and certainly shouldn’t be done through an executive order. A critical national security decision deserves critical thought.”
Regarding his amendment to prohibit funds to relocate senior VA executives, Sen. Moran added, “VA executives should not be taking advantage of benefits intended to help recruit and retain much-needed medical providers and other key personnel serving at VA facilities across the country. We need leaders in the VA who are willing to take a stand, identify the problems, and get on the right path to resolve these systemic issues so that veterans have a Department of Veterans Affairs worthy of their service.”
This bill is the first stand-alone appropriations measure amended and passed in the Senate since 2011. It provides nearly $8 billion above last year’s funding level and is $1 billion above the president’s budget request. Since 2009, funding for the VA has grown by nearly 73 percent. Congress remains committed to our nation’s military personnel and veterans, but systemic failures continue to disrupt service to veterans and access to care they deserve.
Background on Kansas Military Construction Projects:
- • $2.4 million – Army National Guard’s Automated Combat Pistol/MP Firearms Qualification Course
- • $4.3 million – Army National Guard Modified Record Fire Range
- • $2.9 million – Air National Guard Smokey Hill Range
- • $4.3 million – KC-46A at McConnell Air Force Base
Background on Amendment to Prohibit Funds to Relocate Senior VA Execs:
The amendment prohibits the use of funds for the Home Marketing Incentive Program (HMIP) or the Appraisal Value Offer (AVO) program for the relocation of senior VA executives. A September 2015 VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report found that senior VA executives were using the relocation program to provide more than $400,000 in questionable moving expenses. The Acting Inspector General reported that employees “inappropriately used their positions of authority for personal and financial benefit” when they forced transfers of lower-ranking officials and then filled the vacancies themselves. To learn more, click here.
###
Moran-Toomey-Blumenthal Amendment to Prohibit Funds to Relocate Senior VA Execs Passes Senate
Nov 10 2015
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) – member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee – and U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (R-Penn.), along with Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-Penn.) offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2016 military construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) spending bill, which was included in final passage (93-0). The amendment prohibits the use of funds for the Home Marketing Incentive Program (HMIP) or the Appraisal Value Offer (AVO) program for the relocation of senior VA executives.
“Unfortunately, systemic dysfunction and lack of leadership at the VA continues,” Sen. Moran said. “We do not need more damage control – we need to hold VA personnel accountable for their actions. This amendment will ensure senior executives at the VA are not taking advantage of benefits intended to help recruit and retain much-needed medical providers and other key personnel serving at VA facilities across the country. We need leaders in the VA who are willing to take a stand, identify the problems, and get on the right path to resolve these problems so that veterans have a Department of Veterans Affairs worthy of their service.”
“According to the VA’s own Inspector General report, a perverse culture of gaming the system was rampant at the Veterans Administration for many years,” Sen. Toomey said. “While the VA was embroiled in major scandals that resulted in veterans stuck in long lines for care, some senior VA executives used their position of authority for their own personal financial benefit. The Moran-Toomey-Blumenthal-Casey amendment is a bipartisan effort to help stop some of the abuses that these senior federal workers used to line their own pockets. Pennsylvanians care deeply for our veterans and we are all outraged that taxpayer dollars to the VA have been inexcusably pocketed by bureaucrats.”
“This bipartisan step prevents VA abuses that game the system and sabotage accountability-- misusing taxpayer money and taking away resources needed to continue supporting our veterans,” said Ranking Member Blumenthal. “These reforms follow recent revelations that show the clear need to require stronger accountability, but this step cannot be the end of such efforts. We must continue to make sure that supporting the men and women who have dedicated their lives to our nation remains the top priority.”
A September 2015 VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report found that senior VA executives were using the relocation program to provide more than $400,000 in questionable moving expenses. The Acting Inspector General reported that employees “inappropriately used their positions of authority for personal and financial benefit” when they forced transfers of lower-ranking officials and then filled the vacancies themselves.
Following the IG report, the VA suspended the AVO program, the Veterans Benefit Administration (VBA) Under Secretary Allison Hickey resigned, and the House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Jeff Miller held a hearing on Nov. 2, 2015, where Principal VBA Deputy Under Secretary Danny Pummill admitted that the VA has an “accountability problem” and if the VA does not hold people accountable, “we can’t make a culture change.” The witnesses who were senior executives in question were subpoenaed for the hearing, but refused to answer questions under their Fifth Amendment rights.
Although the VA suspended the AVO program, there is nothing preventing the VA from reinstating it. The amendment focuses on senior executive service positions to avoid a direct impact on the recruitment and retention of medical professionals who often transfer and relocate within the VA system.
###
Sens. Moran, Collins and King Express Frustration with Ambiguity in VA Report on Continuity of Care
Senators Want Answers on Future of ARCH Program, Care for Veterans
Nov 05 2015
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) – member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee – along with U.S. Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Angus King (I-Maine) today expressed frustration with Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) plan for the Access Received Closer to Home (ARCH) program in a report delivered to Congress to consolidate all non-VA provider programs.
“Rural veterans in Kansas and across the country face significant challenges when accessing health care through the VA system,” Sen. Moran said. “The ARCH program has served as a bridge to access care for veterans in rural America. With more than 90 percent of veterans participating in ARCH overwhelmingly satisfied with the program, the VA should build on the program’s proven success. We will continue to press the VA until they commit to providing the uninterrupted access to quality health care our veterans deserve.”
“The ARCH program has made a real difference for our veterans in Maine and across our country. I remember one of our veterans telling me about breaking his hip last winter at the height of a terrible winter storm. Instead of enduring a painful and bumpy ride for more than four hours to get to the VA hospital in Augusta, he was able through the ARCH program to receive care at his local hospital, Cary Memorial in Caribou, Maine. He also had the benefit of being able to receive care closer to where his family and friends live,” said Sen. Collins. “We will continue to urge the VA to articulate a clear vision for the future of this critically important program and work to ensure that all veterans receive the health care they need close to home.”
“In a rural state like Maine, veterans can sometimes be forced to travel several hours just to get care at the closest VA facility, turning something like a simple check-up into a serious challenge, especially for older or disabled veterans. That’s not right, and it’s unfair to the men and women who bravely served our nation,” Senator King said. “The ARCH Program brought that care closer to home, and as veterans can attest, it’s been immensely effective in helping them access more timely and convenient health care services. Rather than sunset an enormously successful program, the VA should be looking for ways to expand ARCH – or, at the very least, use it as a model for how the Department can better deliver health care to veterans across rural America.”
On Oct. 23, 2015, Sens. Moran, Collins and King urged VA Secretary Robert McDonald to commit to maintaining medical services veterans receive through ARCH and to build on the demonstrated success of the program as the VA developed the consolidation plan mandated by Congress. If the VA sunsets the program as proposed in the report, the consolidation plan leaves many questions and details that must be explained to ensure there is continuity in care for veterans who currently utilize the program.
Since 2011, the ARCH pilot program has been operating in five rural sites across the country. ARCH serves rural veterans by giving them access to health care from a community provider close to home instead of traveling several hours to seek care at a VA facility. The inclusion of a two-year extension of the ARCH program in the Choice Act helped to make certain rural veterans were able to continue accessing timely, high-quality care closer to home.
Sens. Moran, King and Collins have been advocates for improved accessibility to health care for rural veterans through the ARCH program. In 2014, they sponsored the Choice Act, which implemented significant reforms at the VA and created the Choice Program – a pilot initiative based in part on the success of ARCH.
###
Sen. Moran Voices Opposition to WOTUS Rule
Nov 04 2015
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) today voted in favor of S.J. Res. 22 along with 52 of his Senate colleagues to reverse the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “Waters of the United States” rule, which greatly expands the scope of federal authority over waterways in the United States. Earlier this week, Sen. Moran also voted in favor of the Federal Water Quality Protection Act (S.1140) to stop the regulation’s implementation and force EPA to go back to the drawing board and stay within its constitutional and legal authority.
Mr. President, thank you and I thank the Gentlewoman from Missouri for yielding to me and I appreciate my colleagues, both my colleagues from Missouri and Kansas, joining us here on the Senate floor this afternoon.
You know, I wonder if there are folks out in the country who might not be a baseball fan and are wondering, with all the challenges our country faces, why these four Senators have gathered on the Senate floor to talk about baseball. But the reality is, this is an example of what can happen when we work together.
There probably is no – we’re divided here between Republicans and Democrats in support of this legislation and that’s easier, much easier to overcome than the fact that Missourians and Kansans are working together. There has been a long rivalry between our two states, much of it done with a smile, but some of it done with a little more intensity than just that smile of Kansas versus Missouri or Missouri versus Kansas, and the good news is that the Royals and their championship is one more piece of evidence that that rivalry when it comes to important issues, when it comes to the ability to work together for the benefit of Kansas City and Missouri and Kansas.
I guess my colleagues ought to know that Kansas City: there’s Kansas City, Missouri, and there’s Kansas City, Kansas, and suburbs of both those cities on both sides of the state line and, as a community, these communities have come together to make sure good things happen and the Royals is just one more example. It is something that matters to Kansans, whether they live close to Missouri or whether they live close to the Royals stadium.
The first overnight visit I ever made to Kansas City – and I grew up about 350 miles west of the stadium – my first visit to Kansas City that I actually spent the night in this big city was to watch the Royals play ball in the old stadium. And I, all my life, have talked about, “come on, Royals.” And you can walk through the room in our house – television is on – the Royals are playing and that expression out of my mouth is always “come on, Royals.” It’s something we all grew up with wherever we lived in the state of Kansas. You almost can find almost no fan of baseball in our State that’s not a Royals fan.
And there’s something also about this Royals baseball team. Throughout my lifetime, hearing the voice of Denny Matthews and Fred White as they called the games in Kansas City and around the country, it gave you a sense – and still today gives me a sense – of peace; that there is something still right in the world; that baseball is still played, teams come together.
And it’s something that, most of us grew up in our early days being on a softball or baseball team and baseball brings us together and so, while I recognize, my colleagues and I recognize the importance of many issues that our country faces that we’re dealing with in the United States Senate and in the Congress in Washington, D.C., there is something comforting to know that still America can come together on a pastime, on a sport, on an activity that still means so much to so many Americans.
And so we celebrate with this resolution and ask our colleagues to join us in approving this effort in honoring the 2015 World Series Champions. It was an amazing, amazing season. This was something that hasn't happened since 1985. So 30 years ago, in Kansas City, the Royals played in the World Series and won.
I still envision my wife and her deceased father, her now deceased father. Robba and her dad, who – my wife grew up in the shadow, on the Missouri side of the state line, in the shadows of the “K,” the Kauffman Stadium. And I can still envision what that was like for a little girl to grab ahold of her dad's hand and come to a Royals game to watch baseball. Again, it brings families together on an almost weekly basis over a long season in Kansas City, and it’s been true in our family.
So, we’re here today to commend the great things that happened during this season. Since the last time the Royals were champions many, many Kansans, many Missourians, many Americans have grown up and gone off to college, served in our country's military, gotten married, started their own families since the last time Kansas City won a championship and there is great pride. And we are here to affirm how good it feels to have that success once again.
It is pleasing to be an American where baseball is a way that we live our lives and it brings us together. It’s great to be a Kansan who are so proud of the Kansas City Royals. And it’s great to represent many folks in Kansas City who know life as something that is surrounded, that surrounds them with the Kansas City Royals.
This was a special, special year, a special team, and they loved playing the game. They exuded confidence. They never lost focus. Having fallen 90 feet short a year ago, the Royals players were relentless this year in their drive to get back to the World Series and it was a joy for all of us to watch them accomplish that and finish that job last weekend against the New York Mets.
So, I join my colleagues in congratulating the Royals team, the Royals fans, Americans who enjoyed this sport and saw great sportsmanship on a baseball field and we’re thankful to Mr. Kauffman and now Mr. Glass, and their families who have invested their efforts and time – their commitment to the Kansas City Royals. We appreciate the General Manager Dayton Moore and the manager Ned Yost and commend and congratulate them on this amazing accomplishment and we hope we don't have to wait another 30 years for another national championship involving the Royals and their crowning again.
Once again, we’d say, “come on, Royals.”
Mr. President, I yield back to the gentleman from Missouri.
Frustration with WOTUS Rule
Nov 04 2015
Mr. President, this week has been devoted legislatively to discussing and considering legislation affecting an EPA regulation called “Waters of the United States”. It is one more example of executive overreach by an increasingly unaccountable federal agency.
I want to speak about our efforts here on the Senate floor this week and again encourage my colleagues to continue the effort to make certain this overreach is responded to by Congress. The courts have spoken, but we want to make certain that we do our job.
One of the criticisms I hear so regularly from people who support this regulation is that: “Don't you care about water quality? Don't you care about clean water?” I absolutely think it is important to protect our Nation's waterways. If you are a Kansan, water is life; water is the future of your community. Water matters greatly, but we are not against clean water.
Agriculture producers, which dominate my state, across the area of Kansas, they are strongly opposed to this regulation, but they are certainly not opposed to the efforts to keep our water supply safe and clean. Most Kansas farmers and ranchers hope to pass their land and their operations – their farming operations – on to their kids and grandkids. It serves their interests to preserve the land and water in which their family farms are tethered. It’s not the Washington lobbyists and the environmental radicals who are telling Americans that if you oppose this regulation, you are opposed to clean water. That’s what they say. Kansans care greatly and farmers – particularly landowners – who want their children to enjoy their farm or ranch in the future care greatly about clean water.
It’s the EPA's abusive regulatory path, characterized by fines, penalties, potential civil lawsuits against landowners that gives us major cause for concern. The federal government should not dictate to citizens how they manage their private lands.
I believe there are better ways to promote water quality than with threats of severe fines, penalties or even jail time. One of the ways that we see this effort take place is through the Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service. NR[CS] promotes soil and water health not by mandates and threats from Washington, but through collaborative voluntary approaches that encourage conservation through incentives and on-the-ground technical assistance for those landowners.
Unlike the EPA, that seems to view agriculture producers as untrustworthy partners who must be forced into caring for the land, NR[CS], as well as the USDA Farm Service Agency’s efforts, are successful in large part because they operate under the recognition that farmers and ranchers are devoted stewards to their land.
Policies like Grassroots Source Water Protection Program and the Environmental Quality Incentive Program are examples of voluntary approaches that incentivize innovation, and provide technical assistance, and more broadly promote clean water through localized, cooperative efforts. Compare those approaches to what we are debating on the floor today and earlier this week—an overly broad, overly complex, overly ambitious regulation drafted by an agency that has shown a complete unwillingness to listen or to work with landowners.
This regulation is pretty straightforward. If it’s water, EPA has the authority to regulate it unless it decides it doesn't want to. Again, what this regulation says basically is if it’s water, EPA has the authority to regulate it unless EPA decides they don’t want to do it.
First, EPA declares that all “tributaries” are waters of the United States. Tributaries are defined as anything with a bed, banks or an ordinary high-water mark regardless of the frequency or duration of the water flow. This kind of definition is so broad and all-encompassing that the EPA can assert jurisdiction over streams and ditches that may flow only for a few hours following a rainstorm.
This regulation also controls waters that are “adjacent” to any water that is under EPA's jurisdiction, including 100-year-old floodplains. And if somehow water could still escape the EPA’s long shadow, its broad definition, they came up with yet one more way to regulate it. The regulation states that if waters aren't adjacent or they’re not tributaries, they can still regulate if there is “significant nexus” between the waters EPA wants to regulate and navigable or interstate water. What that means is that every drop of rain can be regulated because every drop of rain always ends up some place in a body of water that’s navigable. All EPA has to do is establish some connection between the two and they’ve granted themselves the authority to regulate the waters.
With its significant civil fines and criminal penalties for those not in compliance, you can see why so many Americans are concerned. Last year, EPA went on a public relations campaign of sorts to convince stakeholders and to convince people across the country that they only meant to clarify, not expand, the regulation. Instead of lecturing, the EPA should have listened. The EPA should have listened to the overwhelming feedback they received from constituents, including many in Kansas who attended a meeting in Kansas City. The EPA should have scrapped the rule and started over.
Now we have learned that not only did the EPA ignore the outcry of the American people, but also disregarded the technical experts at the Army Corps of Engineers who described the rule as “not reflective of the Corps’ experience or expertise.” Again, the Corps is the agency that the EPA is to work with to develop the rules. They are the experts and they say this rule is not reflective of the Corps’ experience or expertise. The Corps says it is not accurate. The Corps says it is not supported by science or law. The Corps says it is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision. The Corps says it is regulatory overreach.
It is obvious that the regulation exceeds the EPA’s legal authority under the Clean Water Act. It is equally obvious that the EPA intended to run roughshod over anyone who disagreed.
Mr. President, The “Waters of the U.S.” regulation is, in short, a breathtaking abuse of power and it is something Congress needs to address.
For too long, Congress has looked the other way when this executive or any other occupant of the White House exceeds their congressionally mandated legal authorities. Somehow in our country, Republicans looks perhaps the other way when there is a Republican President and Democrats look the other way when there is a Democrat President and the reality is that Congress needs to play its constitutional role in determining what the law is and prevent the abuse that comes from a White House that exceeds that legislative authority day after day.
This decision – the EPA's regulations – ignores two Supreme Court opinions. It ignores a time-honored understanding of what the law does and does not permit in the way of regulation as evidenced by numerous legislative attempts to reject by Congress and to amend the Clean Water Act that the Obama Administration does by regulatory action. It ignores the serious repercussions for farmers and ranchers, for electric cooperatives who provide electricity to people across my state, to the oil and gas industry that provides jobs across Kansas, to the homebuilders who provide homes for Kansans and many other small business owners in our state and across the country. And it ignores the concerns voiced by so many more including state and local officials across Kansas and our nation.
At the end of the day, if the goal is to promote clean water and responsible land management, there is a much more effective method to do so as evidenced by the voluntary cooperative efforts within USDA that respect private property rights, incentivize conservation rather than criminalize landowners and don't threaten to do irreparable harm to our country and to the jobs Kansans so desperately need.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to block this regulation and to force the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to work with state and local officials and those affected by the regulation in promoting real waters of the United States. We must protect those waters. We should do it much differently than the Environmental Protection Agency proposes.
Sen. Moran Expresses Frustration with Systemic Failure, Lack of Support for Community Mental Health Centers
Oct 30 2015
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), member of Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee (SVAC), questioned Government Accountability Office (GAO) Health Team Director Dr. Debra Draper and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Chief Consultant for Mental Health Services Dr. Harold Kudler this week during a committee hearing on “VA Mental Health: Ensuring Access to Care.”
Five years of GOA investigations on the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) have resulted in similar findings and recommendations outlining systemic VA failures. Sen. Moran questioned Dr. Draper on whether the VA has accepted GAO recommendations and taken action to remedy failures and deficiencies. Unfortunately for our veterans, Dr. Draper indicated the VHA has not made much progress, which is why the VHA was placed on GAO’s “high-risk” list this year.
Despite GAO recommendations to remove VHA from the “high-risk” list, little has changed within the VHA to correct the wrongs that have harmed veterans across the country in preventing access to care, even though the Veterans Choice Program was created to support veterans by offering the choice to receive care in the community.
Highlights from the first round of questioning may be found here:
Sen. Moran (1:28-2:12) – “As someone who has examined the Department of Veterans’ Affairs for the last five years…What is it that we can do to get out of the cycle of inviting you to come and report on your GAO studies?...How do we get out of the cycle of we’re just hearing the same – it’s a different topic each time but it’s the same set of circumstances that veterans find themselves in?”
Dr. Draper (2:12-2:25) – “I would love to report something differently. I know that we sound like a broken record sometimes, but these are the common themes…going back to the reasons we’ve put VHA on a high-risk list this past year.”
Sen. Moran (4:39-4:45) – “Is there evidence that it’s being pursued, the path to get off the high-risk category?”
Dr. Draper (4:45-4:47) – “We haven’t seen a lot of progress yet.”
Highlights from the second round of questioning may be found here:
Sen. Moran (2:39-4:25) – I certainly wouldn't disagree with the need for quality care but I also know that no care or care that's delayed, the quality of that care is zero…The VA ought to be utilizing Choice to meet the needs as best we can on veterans who are either because of time or distance in capable of being currently for within the VA…For years, before the passage of the Choice Act, I've been trying to convince that the V.A. that they have an opportunity in my state of Kansas to contract with community mental health centers…And across our very rural state, it's the only place in many instances that there is any access to health care. And our effort pre-Choice and post-Choice have been pretty fruitless in accomplishing that…Is there someone that you could direct to meet with me and with representatives of Kansas mental health centers to have a direct conversation after all these years and in light of the passage of the Choice Act to do that?...It seems to me that we’re missing an opportunity…I just need you to help me put the puzzle together…”
Dr. Kudler (4:40-4:48) – “There’s a special team that’s been developing the business rules…and I will make that happen.”
###
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) spoke on the U.S. Senate Floor and issued the following statement to express his opposition to the two-year budget agreement. Sen. Moran has repeatedly voted against lifting the debt ceiling and believes it is irresponsible to increase spending without serious cuts to entitlements:
“Congress’ borrowing power is firmly rooted in our constitutional tradition, and the debt limit is an important tool to force us to maintain, or in recent years, regain a grip on fiscal responsibility. Congress may be able to suspend the debt ceiling, but it can’t suspend reality.
“Expenditures on entitlements – Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – continue to rise as more Americans retire and fewer workers replace them. As a result, over the next few decades, our debt will grow to more than three times the size of our entire economy. During my time in Congress, I have voted against lifting the debt ceiling because it is irresponsible to lift it without serious changes to the way we spend money. This budget deal does far too little to put us on the path toward fiscal solvency.
“The debate on government spending is often seen as a philosophical or academic, or an opportunity for more partisan point scoring here in Washington. The reality is our out-of-control government borrowing and spending is a moral issue, and it has very real consequences on the lives of Americans. Each time Congress lifts the debt ceiling without genuine and substantial reductions in spending, it undermines our nation’s long-term economic health and reduces the ability of our children and grandchildren to pursue the American Dream.
“The time to correct our failures is now. We know what is going to happen if we don’t act, and it is immoral for us to look the other way. The consequences of failing to tackle our debt crisis are far greater than failing to lift the debt ceiling yet again.”
Click here to view Sen. Moran’s speech on the U.S. Senate Floor.
###
On the Appropriations Process
Oct 29 2015
Mr. President, I spoke a few moments ago on the Senate floor and as I was leaving, I was made aware of an article in which the minority leader, Senator Reid, was quoted. And I wanted to come highlight something I want my colleagues to hear and know.
What the Senator from Nevada indicated was – the article begins: “Having secured the goal of getting a budget deal addressing the debt ceiling and sequestration cuts.” The article says the Democrats are now looking forward to the appropriations process.
As an appropriator, so am I. I am interested for us to have the opportunity, if this budget agreement passes, to make decisions about the priorities of spending within those budget numbers. But what is so troublesome to me is that the indication was that President Obama and Democrats stand firm against efforts to target environmental regulations and other contentious riders.
Quoting the Senator from Nevada: “We're holding hands with the president, we're all holding hands. We are not going to deal with these vex[ati]ous riders. We feel comfortable and confident.” He goes on to talk about the agreement.
Mr. President, this is a Congress that’s supposed to deal with contentious and vex[ati]ous issues. Why does anyone have the opportunity to say “it’s off the table”? It happened in these budget agreements in which we were told dealing with mandatory spending is off the table. And yet it is one of the most important issues we need to address, and you ought not start negotiations by saying we’re not even going to talk about an issue. In this case, “off the table, not subject to discussion” is the issue of contentious or environmental regulations.
Mr. President, Congress – Republican and Democratic Members – ought to care about the power of Congress, which is granted to us by the Constitution in our representation of the American people. We need the days in which the Congress and Members of Congress are not wedded to a Republican President or a Democrat President just because they happen to be Republicans or Democrats. We need to make decisions based upon what is good for the country, not whether we are backstopping a President who happens to be a member of our political party. Where are the Members of Congress who say about congressional authority, the constitutional grant of power to act on behalf of Americans?
Mr. President, We need not only to establish priorities as a Congress when it comes to the spending process, but we need to make decisions when an agency or a department exceeds their authority, when they operate in ways that are contrary to what we believe is in the best interest of the country, in circumstances in which they are doing things that lack common sense. The role of Congress is to direct the spending. It’s granted to us by the Constitution of the United States. And we’re saying that, while we are pleased we have a budget agreement, we will not stand for Congress determining whether or not the money can be spent in a certain way, whether it can be prohibited from being spent in a certain way. We’re taking vex[ati]ous riders off the table.
Mr. President, this is our responsibility. It is just as important for us to determine whether money should be spent at all as it is for us to determine how much money can be spent on a government program. And it’s particularly true, I don't think there is any question, but that this administration has been the most active – many of us would consider it active in an unconstitutional way – in the development of regulations, of policies, of the bureaucracy of what the departments and agencies are doing. This is an administration that cries out for congressional oversight, not for someone who says it is not even on the table to be considered.
And I would think that Republicans and Democrats both ought to have an interest in determining how money is spent as well as whether we should tell an agency, a department: they can't spend that money at all. Many of my Democrat colleagues have indicated they support a number of riders, including ones that are considered environmental.
Waters of the United States is one that I have been told numerous times that my colleagues on the Democrat side of this Congress support the rider that is in the appropriations bill. Numerous times I have been told that many Democrats support reining in the regulations that are coming from the Department of Labor related to a fiduciary rule. But now we hear that vex[ati]ous environmental riders are off the table. We ought not allow that to stand. It’s not that I expect every rider that I am for to receive approval of Congress, but, boy, those votes ought to be taken. That’s our responsibility and majority rules.
Again, the circumstance that we now find ourselves in, this is nothing that we are even going to talk about. And it’s troublesome to me that those of my colleagues who have expressed support for those riders and I guess I should explain to Kansans and to Americans, “riders” is a provision, language in the appropriations bill that oftentimes says, “no money can be spent to implement this idea, to implement this regulation.”
It is an absolutely important responsibility for Congress. It’s not unusual. It’s not something outside the boundaries of what we are supposed to be doing. It is absolutely a significant component of our responsibility and now those who claim they’re for a rider – say, the Waters of the United States or the fiduciary rule that the Department of Labor is promulgating – we have colleagues who say they are for that. Now they will be able to say: “well I am for it, but I just never had a chance to vote on it because it was off the table.”
I would again ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: don't fall into this trap in which we are here to support ad hoc, at every instance, the executive branch just because they happen to be a member of our political party.
When there is a Republican President, I hope to abide by those same rules. I am here on behalf of Kansans and on behalf of Americans, not on behalf of an administration regardless of their political party, and we ought to demand that Congress do its work. We had an election, the people of this country asked for something different, and once again we are back in the circumstance in which no longer are we able to move forward on legislation.
And I assume by what the former majority leader is saying is that when he says “it is off the table,” it means that there will not be 60 votes for us to even consider an omnibus bill in which those riders are included. Now, what I would say is that, before long, we are going to be hearing about how Republicans are interested in shutting down government because they want these riders. The reality is that the Senator from Nevada is indicating that there is no discussion, and it ought not be the blame fall to those of us who actually wanted Congress to work. The allegation of shutting down government ought to rest on those who say, “we won't even discuss an appropriation bill that includes vex[ati]ous or contentious riders.”
Who would want to be a Member of a Congress who is unwilling and a Congress that is unwilling to deal with contentious issues? It’s our responsibility. It’s our constitutional responsibility. And the American people ought to demand the opportunity for us to address issues of importance to them, and it ought not be off the table before the conversation even begins.
Again, the point being is that we have a constitutional responsibility that we failed to exercise. When the decisions are made, it is off the table. We need a Congress that works, and we need a Congress that puts the American people above defending a President, regardless of his or her political party. Now, Mr. President, I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.
