Medical Research News
There are no records to display that match the provided criteria.
Fair Tax Act
Jan 28 2015
Mr. President, we have had a lot of talk—certainly in the last year or so and certainly as this new session of Congress begins—on the importance of tax reform. Our country is at a point in time where we certainly are no longer competitive globally. The economy now is one that works against us because of our Tax Code. I think there is general consensus in the Senate that reforming the Tax Code is of significant importance, something that must be done.
I am often asked not only when I am back in Kansas but here in Washington, DC: Do you expect there to be broad-based tax reform? And we keep guessing about the likelihood of that happening.
I think it is typical of elected officials, politicians, to always talk about the need for comprehensive tax reform. We talk about lowering rates, making the tax system more fair, less bureaucratic, less paperwork. I certainly join in those sentiments and believe that the current circumstance we have in regard to our Tax Code is such that it limits the freedom of Americans--American business men and women, individuals, and their families. We make way too many decisions based upon the consequences of those decisions and how they are affected by the Tax Code.
So I am all on board on tax reform, but I wish to talk about what I believe is the best solution toward tax reform. And it is not tinkering with the current system; it is an overhaul of the current Tax Code.
I have joined my colleague from Georgia, Senator Perdue, in once again introducing the fair tax plan. I started a long time ago in Congress, knowing that we needed to make significant changes in our Tax Code, with the belief that most Americans ought to be able to file a tax return without the need of professional help, that we ought to be able to make decisions that are in the best interests of ourselves, our families, and our businesses without always going to the Tax Code to see what the consequences of those decisions were. I looked at a variety of proposals that were being considered at the time and continue to be considered today and ultimately reached the conclusion that the Fair Tax is the best option for significant reform. I wish to speak for just a minute about why I think that is the case.
I would highlight for my colleagues--and I have said this on the Senate floor before--I think the greatest responsibility we have as American citizens is to pass on to the next generation of Americans the freedoms and liberties guaranteed by our Constitution and the opportunity for every American to live the American dream. Mr. President, the Fair Tax repeals all Federal, corporate, and individual taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, and estate and gift taxes and replaces them with a revenue-neutral personal consumption tax. The Fair Tax allows Americans to keep the entirety of their income, putting individuals in charge of their own finances, not the government--or, more specifically, not the Internal Revenue Service.
All Americans should be able to trust the IRS, which exercises great authority over the lives of Americans in this country, but we know from past experiences that expectation is no longer founded. So getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service is a significant benefit that comes from the passage of the Fair Tax.
The Fair Tax is worthy of people's consideration. It ought to be more than just a talking point. It deserves a debate, a discussion, a vote, and consideration by the Senate.
Sens. Moran, Tester and Thune Introduce Bill to Preserve Rural Therapy Care
PARTS Act would protect rural Americans' access to important health services
Jan 27 2015
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), and John Thune (R-S.D.) – members of the Senate Rural Health Caucus – today introduced S. 257, the Protecting Access to Rural Therapy Services (PARTS) Act. The legislation would ensure rural and other patients have access to a full range of outpatient therapeutic services in hospitals in their own communities. The senators introduced the PARTS Act last Congress (S. 1143).
“Rural hospitals need reasonable flexibility to appropriately staff their facilities so they can provide a full range of services to their communities,” Sen. Moran said. “Many hospitals find the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ direct supervision requirements impossible to meet, which jeopardizes access to this important care. The PARTS Act would preserve patient safety and oversight while easing unreasonable supervision requirements for therapy care. This bill is crafted to make certain federal regulations reflect the realities of rural health care and address this issue on a permanent basis.”
“Rural families face unique health care hardships and they deserve access to quality care without being forced to travel long distances,” Sen. Tester said. “This bill removes burdens for rural patients, provides Critical Access Hospitals certainty, and upholds the standard of health care that rural Americans expect.”
“Requiring supervising physicians to be present for some outpatient therapy services places an unnecessary strain on the already overextended staff of rural health care facilities,” said Sen. Thune. “Further, this CMS requirement can place extraordinary demands on physicians, and it is these kinds of regulations that keep physician recruitment to rural areas challenging. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to move our common-sense legislation forward, ensuring we provide rural health care facilities in states like South Dakota with the flexibility needed to continue to deliver quality outpatient therapy services without being subjected to budget-busting workforce regulations.”
“Outpatient therapeutic services” include services such as pulmonary rehabilitation, certain behavior health assessments and counseling, demonstration/evaluating the use of an inhaler or nebulizer, and certain casting/splinting procedures. Hospital outpatient therapeutic services have always been administered by licensed, skilled professionals under the overall direction of a physician. However, in 2009 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) abruptly shifted policy to require that outpatient therapeutic services must be furnished under the “direct supervision” of a physician who is required to be physically present in the department at all times that Medicare beneficiaries receives these services. While CMS subsequently revised its standard to also permit direct supervision by certain qualified non-physician practitioners (NPPs), the agency still requires the physical presence of the supervising professional by mandating the supervisor be “immediately available” at all times these services are provided to beneficiaries.
While the need for this “direct supervision” is recognized for certain high risk, complex outpatient services, CMS’ policy often applies to even low risk services, such as some medication injections and minor wound debridement. For many years, these procedures have been safely administered in hospital outpatient departments under “general supervision,” a standard that permits services to be furnished under the general oversight and control of a supervising practitioner without requiring his or her physical presence. In fact, in December 2014 President Obama signed into law H.R. 4067 – legislation unanimously passed by Congress – that suspended enforcement of this CMS regulation on Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs) and other small rural hospitals in 2014.
The PARTS Act would:
- Require CMS to allow a default setting of general supervision, rather than direct supervision, for outpatient therapeutic services;
- Create an advisory panel to establish an exceptions process for risky and complex outpatient services;
- Create a special rule for CAHs that recognizes their unique size and Medicare conditions of participation; and
- Hold hospitals and CAHs harmless from civil or criminal action for failing to meet CMS' current direct supervision policy for the period 2001 through 2016.
Click here to read the text of the bill.
###
U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) spoke on the Senate floor Thursday night to call for a vote on his amendment to reverse the decision by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife to list the lesser prairie chicken as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Sen. Moran’s amendment was made pending to S.1, the Keystone XL pipeline legislation, Votes on S.1 are expected to continue next week.
Approximately half of the lesser prairie chicken population is found in Kansas, while the bird’s range also includes Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. The lesser prairie chicken population decreased during the historic drought that severely impacted much of the bird’s habitat area. However, from 2013 to 2014, annual aerial surveys show the lesser prairie chicken population increased by 20 percent, largely due to rainfall conditions in much of the habitat area that were closer to historic norms.
Veterans Health Care
Jan 22 2015
Mr. President, thank you very much for recognizing me to take the opportunity to address something I hope can readily and easily be solved. If common sense prevails--and we know it doesn't often enough here in our nation's capital--one, the Department of Veterans Affairs certainly, in my view, can solve this problem. If common sense doesn't prevail there, then surely the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the President could agree upon a legislative fix that is really nothing more than common sense. I am talking about a veterans issue--one that is certainly prevalent in a rural state such as mine. My guess is it is a problem that occurs in a state such as the Presiding Officer's as well.
I was very pleased. I came to the Senate floor and talked about the importance of passing and approving the CHOICE Act. We remember the scandal of last year in which it became clear the Department of Veterans Affairs had significant problems across the country. The VA hospital in Phoenix was a poster child for bad behavior that resulted in potentially the death of veterans. One of the things we did to try to help the Department of Veterans Affairs better take care of America's veterans was to pass the CHOICE Act. We did that in August of last year. It was signed into law, and it is now being implemented by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
There are many issues that are associated with the implementation of this bill, but let me raise one. The crux of that legislation is this. If you are a veteran and you live more than 40 miles from a VA facility or if you can't get the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide the services within 30 days or the timeframe in which you need those services, then the Department of Veterans Affairs is required by law to provide those services, if you choose, at a place of your choice, presumably your hometown.
This is about service to our veterans in their hometowns across Kansas and across states around the country. The theory is that the Department of Veterans Affairs is incapable of providing those services perhaps for a number of reasons, including lack of the necessary professionals. Therefore, let's take advantage of the professionals we have at home in our hometowns. Let the veterans see his or her hometown physician. Let the veteran be admitted to his or her hometown hospital. It is a pretty commonsense kind of reaction to the inability of the Department of Veterans Affairs to meet the needs of veterans across our country--provide another option. If that is the choice of the veteran, that veteran wants to have care at home, give them that option.
As a Senator from a state such as Kansas, this makes sense to me even in the circumstance in which the Department of Veterans Affairs can provide the service. For 14 years I represented a congressional district in Kansas, the western three-fourths of our state. The congressional district is larger than the state of Illinois and has no VA hospital.
We pushed for a number of years and were successful in opening outpatient clinics so veterans could get that care closer to home than the VA hospital, and those outpatient clinics provide--or at least intended to provide--routine care. Here is the problem today. The law says if you live more than 40 miles from a VA facility, then the VA must provide the services at home if you choose. The Department of Veterans Affairs is defining facility as any facility, including the hospital or the outpatient clinic. That doesn't seem too troublesome to me until you take it to the next step, which is, even if the VA hospital or the outpatient clinic doesn't provide the service that the veteran needs, they still consider it a facility within 40 miles.
In my hometown, where I grew up, we have had an ongoing dialogue with one of our honored veterans. He needs a colonoscopy. My hometown is nearly 300 miles--250 miles from the VA hospital in Wichita. There is an outpatient clinic, a CBOC, in Hays, 25 miles away. But guess what? The outpatient clinic in Hays doesn't provide the service of colonoscopies.
One would think the veteran in my hometown could go to the local physician or the local hospital and have the colonoscopy performed and the Department of Veterans Affairs provide and pay for the services. But no, because there is an outpatient clinic within 40 miles, even though it doesn't provide the colonoscopy, our veteran is directed to drive to Wichita. Incidentally, we have calculated the mileage expense of the veteran doing it. It does not make sense economically, either. But regardless of that, it certainly doesn't make sense for that veteran.
I have said this many times over the years as we have tried to bring services closer to home to veterans. If you are a 92-year-old World War II veteran and you live in Atwood, KS, up on the Nebraska border, how do you get to the VA hospital in Wichita or in Denver?
Our initial attempt was to put an outpatient clinic closer. The problem with that--we now have an outpatient clinic in Burlington, CO, and an outpatient clinic in Hays, KS. But that is still 2.5 hours from Atwood, KS. If you are a 92-year-old World War II veteran in Atwood, KS, how do you get to Hays or Burlington, CO? The answer is you probably don't.
Our veterans are not being served. We attempted to address this issue. Let me say it differently. We addressed this issue in the CHOICE Act and said that if you are 40 miles from a facility, then the VA provides the services at home. The VA is interpreting that facility--the word facility--just to mean any facility there regardless of what service it provides.
In many instances--I take Liberal, KS, where there is a CBOC. They haven't had a permanent physician in their CBOC in almost 4 years. But yet Liberal--the CBOC in Liberal--counts as a facility even though there is no physician who is regularly in attendance at the clinic. These issues ought to be resolved in favor of whom? The veteran. Whom, of all people, would we expect to provide the best service to? In any capable way we can, whom would we expect to get the best health care in our nation? I would put at the top of the list those who served our country.
The committee that passed this legislation, the CHOICE Act--it says in the language--the conferees recognized the issues I just described and added report language that allows veterans to secure health care services that are either unavailable or not cost-effective to provide at a VA facility, which was intentionally included to give the VA flexibility to provide veterans access to non-VA care when a VA facility, no matter what size or location, cannot provide the care the veteran is seeking.
Yesterday I introduced S. 207. I would ask my colleagues to join me. Again, I guess my first request is, could the Department of Veterans Affairs fix this problem on their own? If not, I would ask that my colleagues join me in fixing this legislatively with one more directive to the Department of Veterans Affairs saying, if they cannot provide the service at the CBOC, then it does not count as a facility within the 40 miles.
This is a problem across our states. I had my staff at a meeting in the VISN in which they were describing how they were going to implement the CHOICE Act. They put up a chart in which they show how they are going to have a mobile van work its way through the area of our state and Missouri and talked about how that will then satisfy the 40-mile requirement.
Why is the VA bending over backward to avoid--let my say it differently. Why is the VA not bending over backward to take care of the veteran, instead of bending over backward to make sure it is the most difficult circumstance for a veteran to get the health care they need at home?
We ought to always err on the side of what is best for veterans, not what is best for the Department of Veterans Affairs--if you could ever make the case that providing services someplace far away from the veteran is good for the VA.
Amendment to Delist the Lesser Prairie Chicken
Jan 22 2015
Mr. President, earlier this evening an amendment of mine was made pending to the legislation that we now have before us, amendment No. 73.
I thank my colleagues for allowing that amendment to become pending, and I look forward to the opportunity now, while we are determining the remainder of the evening's schedule, to describe the nature of amendment No. 73.
I have a copy of the amendment in front of me. It is a short paragraph, but it is one that has significant consequences to the people of Kansas. But in addition to the people of Kansas, it has significant consequence to the people of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
The story we are talking about is the lesser prairie-chicken. In March of 2014, the lesser prairie-chicken was listed not as an endangered species but a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
It is true the numbers of birds declined in 2012 and 2013. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had their explanation for why there was the decline in the population of those birds, both those who live on the land as well as a number of wildlife experts--people who are very interested in conservation practices in our state--believe and agree that the primary reason behind the bird's decline in population was the historic and prolonged drought that our area of the country has experienced in the past several years.
There is less habitat for birds generally in our state and across this region of the country, but the reality is that it is because we have had so little rainfall. We have been in a drought in a significant part of the nation, in our part of the country, for a number of years, and as a result there is less habitat and a decline in the bird population. What many believe is that with the return of rainfall, with the return of snow this winter and the moisture it will provide, we will have increasing wildlife habitat for the lesser prairie-chicken and a large number of birds and other wildlife in our state and in the surrounding states where this is a significant issue.
There are some exceptions that have been written into the designation, but the reality is that there are huge, ongoing, significant economic consequences to the listing as a threatened species of the lesser prairie-chicken in Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. Front and center of that, of course, are the consequences to agriculture. It is how we earn a significant portion of our living in our state. Land values, for example, have dropped as a result of this issue. Oil and gas exploration has been disrupted. Wind energy projects that have been an important component of our state’s economy and particularly a benefit to the economy of rural Kansas have been harmed as a result of this listing. These disruptions have driven down county tax revenues that are used for essential services in some of the most challenging and difficult parts economically of our state, from damage to Main Street, and certainly harmed a portion of Kansas that always struggles to be economically viable.
The listing, in my view, was based on an artificially low population estimate due to the drought I described. I guess I failed to mention that 1 year ago this was a bird which could be hunted in Kansas. So, again, it was prevalent enough to be able to be pursued by those who hunt, but because of the drought the population declined. In fact, every Kansas county that is included in the habitat area was experiencing a D3-Extreme or a D4-Exceptional drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor, again highlighting that what we need here is rainfall and moisture that comes from snow and rain and that listing this as a threatened species doesn't create the moisture necessary to create the habitat for the return of the population of the bird.
What we really have asked for is an opportunity which has been offered and suggested by conservation groups in Kansas, by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, and by the Kansas Farm Bureau and others to work together to find a solution short of this listing to increase bird population in Kansas. And I assume that is true in the other states as well. We are looking for a cooperative effort to improve habitat, and the fact is that the listing as a threatened species has been so disruptive that we have been unable to get what we would say is a more commonsense, less broad-brush approach to solving this problem in place as compared to the heavy hand of this listing. We stand ready, willing, and able to provide that kind of local effort to improve habitat and bird population.
This amendment would not mean the lesser prairie-chicken would never be listed again, but it gives Kansans and others the opportunity to go back and make certain that efforts at the local level are given a chance to work before the very dramatic and devastating implementation of this decision to list the bird as threatened.
So this is a relatively straightforward and simple amendment that will take the lesser prairie-chicken off the list as a threatened species, give Kansans and others the opportunity to improve the habitat, reduce the economic damage that is being done in our state and the states that surround us as a result of this listing, and then give us the opportunity to again work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to find a better solution and one that, I might add, may be more easily found once the rainfalls return to the state of Kansas.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) introduced an amendment this week to reverse the decision by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife to list the lesser prairie chicken as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
“It is time for Congress to act to protect rural Kansas from the consequences of the listing of the lesser prairie chicken,” Sen. Moran said. “Regulations due to the listing that dictate how people manage their land and resources are yet another example of unnecessary intrusion into private lives and businesses by the federal government. In fact, a number of industries – farming, ranching, oil and gas development, transportation and wind energy – are already feeling the effects of the listing. I am confident there are ways to conserve the species without hindering economic development in rural communities. Listing the bird as a threatened species is not the answer.”
Approximately half of the lesser prairie chicken population is found in Kansas, while the bird’s range also includes Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. The lesser prairie chicken population decreased during the historic drought that severely impacted much of the bird’s habitat area. However, from 2013 to 2014, annual aerial surveys show the lesser prairie chicken population increased by 20 percent, largely due to rainfall conditions in much of the habitat area that were closer to historic norms.
Sen. Moran worked to avoid the lesser prairie chicken’s listing. He remains committed to reversing the decision to protect rural Kansas from rules and regulations from the federal government that infringe on private property rights and hinder economic development.
###
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, has introduced legislation, the Veterans Access to Community Care Act of 2015 (S. 207), requiring the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to utilize its authority to offer community care to veterans who currently are unable to receive the healthcare services they need from a VA medical facility within 40 miles of where they live. The bipartisan bill is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Angus King (I-Maine), Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).
“The Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 (VACAA) was passed with the intention of providing veterans the choice to access health care outside the VA when the burden of travel puts their well-being at risk,” Sen. Moran said. “Unfortunately, many rural Kansas veterans are still unable to access the care they need because common sense is not prevailing. It has become clear that the VA is implementing the Choice Act in a way that only takes into account distance to a VA medical facility, and not whether that facility can actually provide the medical services a veteran requires.”
“For example, while the services offered at Community-Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) are invaluable, they cannot meet every health care need for all veterans. Living near a CBOC should not prevent a veteran from accessing care that the CBOC cannot provide,” Sen. Moran continued. “The VA has the authority to fix this problem, yet remains unwilling to do what is in the best interest of the veteran. Enough is enough. In the absence of VA action, I have introduced legislation that would make certain veterans still struggling with access to care are not dismissed or forgotten just because of where they live.”
In July 2014, the House and Senate came together to pass VACAA, comprehensive legislation to respond to VA wait-time manipulation and failure to provide timely, quality health care to veterans. This legislation permitted veterans across the country to access non-VA community care if they live more than 40 miles from a VA medical facility, including CBOCs, or their wait time for an appointment is more than 30 days. Even with this new law, many rural Kansas veterans are still unable to access the care they require because their nearest VA facility does not offer those medical services.
This legislation is supported and endorsed by the National Rural Health Association, the Association of Community Mental Health Centers of Kansas, Inc., the National Association of County Behavioral Health & Developmental Disability Directors, the National Association of Rural Mental Health, the National Council for Behavioral Health, the Eastern Maine Medical Center, and the National Guard Association of the United States.
“Thousands of rural and frontier veterans have no access to VA services because of their rural, remote locations. The result is that when our heroes transition back into civilians life, they may not be close to enough to VA resources or assistance when they need mental health care,” said Kyle Kessler, Association of Community Mental Health Centers of Kansas, Inc., Executive Director. “ The Association of Community Mental Health Centers of Kansas supports the Veterans Access to Community Care Act of 2015 to give veterans the choice to see their community provider when the closest VA medical facility that can offer mental health care services to a veteran is more than 40 miles from where a veteran lives.”
The introduction of S. 207 comes on the heels of several months of efforts by Sen. Moran to work with the VA on this issue. On Sept. 9, 2014, Sen. Moran questioned VA Secretary Bob McDonald during a Senate Veterans Affairs’ Committee hearing on the VA’s interpretation of the 40 mile eligibility criteria of the Choice Act.
On Nov. 14, 2014, Sen. Moran called on Sec. McDonald to meet in-person to discuss the VACAA and make certain the legislation is implemented and upheld the way it was intended and in the best interest of veterans. This includes offering non-VA care to veterans who are unable to receive the healthcare services they requite from a VA medical facility within 40 miles of where they live.
On Dec.11, 2014, Sen. Moran met with VA Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson who reiterated the limitations of the Choice Act language and indicated the VA could not use its authorities under Title 38 to provide this access to non-VA care.
# # #
Sen. Moran Now Accepting Applications for Summer Internships
Positions available in Washington, D.C., and Kansas offices
Jan 20 2015
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) today announced he is accepting applications for paid congressional internships in his Washington, D.C., and Kansas offices for summer 2015.
“Congressional internships offer Kansas students a great opportunity to learn about Congress and the legislative process,” Sen. Moran said. “I hope to give Kansans an opportunity similar to the one I had serving in a Congressional office years ago.”
An internship in Sen. Moran’s office – either legislative or communications – provides a unique opportunity to work closely with Senate staff on behalf of the state of Kansas. Legislative interns will gain a better understanding of the legislative process in the U.S. Congress, and develop knowledge and professional skills valuable to future career pursuits. Communications internships provide a unique opportunity to learn about how political communications and the legislative process intersect, and gain practical knowledge about the inner workings of a fast-paced press office.
The intern program is open to qualified undergraduate and graduate students – or recent graduates – who have strong interest in public service and government and have achieved academic excellence. Applicants for a communications internship should possess exceptional writing and communication skills, knowledge of AP style, experience in digital media, and follow current events closely.
The application deadline for summer 2015 internships is Friday, March 6, 2015. Application forms can be obtained and completed under the “Services” section of Sen. Moran’s website at www.moran.senate.gov. Applicants should submit a completed application form, resume, academic transcript, two letters of recommendation and a cover letter explaining the applicant’s interest in public service and goals of serving as an intern. Please submit required materials to: internships@moran.senate.gov
For questions, please contact Sen. Moran’s office at internships@moran.senate.gov or call 202-224-6521 and request to speak with the Intern Coordinator.
###
Kansas Senators Appointed to Top Agriculture Posts for 114th Congress
Sen. Moran to Chair Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture
Jan 20 2015
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) today issued the following statement regarding his selection as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies:
“Farmers and ranchers provide the food, fuel and fiber for our growing world and are the economic drivers of communities and local businesses across Kansas. Regardless of our job or where we live, agriculture matters to all of us. As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee, I welcome the opportunity to focus on investing in policies that are vital to Kansas farmers and ranchers, such as agriculture research and extension and Farm Bill implementation. Additionally, through the subcommittee’s jurisdiction over the FDA budget, I will work to advance public health innovations, including development of new medicines, medical devices and food safety technology. It is also critical that as responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars we take a hard look at spending in areas of government that aren’t working, and many times even harmful to rural America.”
“We are beyond excited that Sen. Moran has earned this key leadership position on agricultural issues in the U.S. Senate,” said Kansas Farm Bureau President and Montgomery County farmer Richard Felts. “Sen. Moran has always been a champion for farmers and ranchers, and we look forward to his continued strong leadership on behalf of agriculture and rural Kansas.”
Prior to being elected to the U.S. Senate, Sen. Moran served for 14 years on the U.S. House Agriculture Committee including as chairman of the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management. Throughout his time in Congress, he has been a leading advocate for protecting and preserving the special way of life Kansans enjoy. Sen. Moran continues to fight to make certain farming and ranching families have the opportunity to earn a living and pass on their agricultural heritage to the next generation of producers, all while working to eliminate wasteful spending.
U.S. Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) will chair the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.
