Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) released the following statement upon U.S. Senate passage of the Farm Bill agreement:

"Congress has taken a lesson from farmers and ranchers and finally finished what it started. While not ideal, this bill reduces farm program and food stamp spending by $16.6 billion and provides agriculture producers with the long-term certainty they need to produce food, fiber and fuel for our country and the world. The Farm Bill provides Kansas farmers and ranchers with the strong, stable crop insurance and disaster programs they need to remain confident when facing Mother Nature.

"Considerable time and energy was put into the Farm Bill process and now is not the time to start over. This Farm Bill will give producers the certainty they need to plan and do business for the next five years. Ultimately, consumers are best served when farmers and ranchers know the rules of the game and have the support they need to continue work in one of the most high-risk professions – agriculture. However, the fight is far from over when it comes to regulatory reforms. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee I plan to keep COOL and GIPSA front and center this year. I am committed to working with my colleagues to complete the work still needed on these issues, and build on the Farm Bill’s provisions to help make certain the United States remains the most food secure country in the world."

# # #

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, today blasted the Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA) decision to halt emergency room services at the Colmery-O’Neil VA Medical Center until the current physician shortage is remedied by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA).

"Veterans who have served our nation with duty and honor deserve access to quality health care when they need it," Sen. Moran said. "Because Kansas is a rural state, many of our veterans are already forced to travel long distances to visit a VA hospital. Now, Topeka veterans are losing access to the emergency care services they could need at any moment. This is outrageous. It is far past time for Secretary Shinseki and the VA to do their job. I have asked time and again about their failure to address the tremendous shortage of VA physicians, nurse practitioners and physician assistants. It is causing a new VA backlog – a backlog of our nation’s heroes who are not receiving the health care they need. The news today reaffirms my commitment to making certain the VA provides answers and takes action."

The VHA announced the break in emergency room services at Colmery-O’Neil VA Medical Center this morning, stating that the hospital would convert to urgent care services starting today. Emergency services will remain on pause until the VHA has examined all policy, procedures and staffing levels at the facility.

The VHA has directed veterans who are having a medical emergency to call 9-1-1. The VA Eastern Kansas Health Care System is working with local hospitals and ambulance services to make certain veterans get the emergency care they need.

As a member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, Sen. Moran is committed to improving access to care for Kansas veterans. In April 2013, he questioned Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs Eric Shinseki and VA officials about the need to hire physicians at Kansas VA Hospitals and Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs), as well as the importance of hiring mental health care professionals to treat veterans in rural areas.

In November 2013, Sen. Moran introduced legislation to expand emergency care treatment reimbursement eligibility for veterans. Current law prohibits the VA from reimbursing emergency room care at non-VA facilities for veterans who haven’t received care at a VA clinic or hospital within the past two years. Veterans who have recently returned from deployment or live in rural communities often can’t meet this requirement as a result of extensive wait times for scheduling VA facility appointments. This legislation would waive the two-year requirement and allow our nation’s heroes to be reimbursed for emergency medical care at non-VA facilities. The VA estimates this bill would provide access to medical treatment for 144,000 veterans across the country. Sen. Moran’s bill was approved by the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee and is awaiting a vote in the full Senate.

# # #

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Ahead of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) anticipated release of a rule designed to address emissions of greenhouse gases from existing power plants, U.S. Senators Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) have joined Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) in urging President Barack Obama to "consider the burden to ratepayers before moving forward with plans to increase regulation."

The President said during his State of the Union Address this week that he has directed his Administration “to work with states, utilities and others to set new standards on the amount of carbon pollution our power plants are allowed to dump into the air."

"The most vulnerable families are those hit the hardest by bad energy policies and high utility bills," the Senators wrote in a letter to the President. "Whatever our disagreements might be on how best to approach a changing climate, we think we can all agree that whatever we do should not burden ratepayers and consumers, especially middle and low-income families, with new costs."

The senators urged the President “to avoid any actions which damage ratepayers throughout this country, especially when those actions result in no measurable benefits and no measurable effects on the very thing that the actions are designed to address.”

To read the entire letter, please see below or click here. 

President Obama,

As a consequence of your recent Executive Order relating to your June 2013 Climate Action Plan (CAP), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has conducted “listening sessions” in anticipation of proposing a rule designed to address emissions of greenhouse gases from existing power plants. Leaving aside whether EPA even has the legal authority to do this, as well as the dubious value of conducting “listening sessions” far from the homes of many of those most likely to be affected, we write to urge that you consider the burden to ratepayers before moving forward with plans to increase regulation of the existing power generation fleet.

In 2009, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, commonly known as “Waxman-Markey,” passed the Democratic-controlled House, but was not even considered in the Senate.  The central provision of that legislation would have placed a cap on greenhouse gas emissions, which would then be sharply reduced over time.  The legislation contemplated a final target of roughly 80% below 2005 levels by 2050.  This bill was rejected by Congress for a variety of reasons, including primarily the tremendous costs it would impose on consumers and the economy for little or no benefit.  For example, one study found that the bill would raise electricity rates by 90% (after adjusting for inflation).

Your June 2013 CAP announcement differs little from Waxman-Markey.  Your CAP reflects the goal you announced in 2009 to reach an 80% emissions reduction by 2050 below 1990 levels.  Even if met, this goal, which was developed with no input from Congress, will have no measurable effect on global temperatures.

The goal will nonetheless cost consumers in the form of increased prices for energy and anything made, grown, or transported using energy. These new costs will result in less disposable income in families’ pockets. That means less money to spend on groceries, doctors’ visits, and education.   In short, low cost energy is critical to human health and welfare.

For some ratepayers, like the millions of rural electric cooperative consumers in the country, coal makes up around 80% of their electricity. According to the 2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey, nearly 40 million American households earning less than $30,000 per year spend almost 20% or more of their income on energy.   The most vulnerable families are those hit the hardest by bad energy policies and high utility bills.

For consumers, your Administration’s actions will mean goods are costlier to produce and therefore costlier to purchase. Manufacturers and employers will face higher costs of capital and labor.  What’s worse, as noted by a 2003 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, these are the types of losses that cannot be offset with subsidies or other forms of assistance. As a result these costs will be borne solely and directly by American workers and consumers. 

Manufacturers and companies will face higher production costs if they are denied access to affordable energy, and instead be forced to use costlier, less reliable forms of energy. These businesses will either pass these costs along to consumers, or their profits will suffer and threaten their viability.

Either outcome is unacceptable given that America is on the verge of a manufacturing renaissance.  A large part of our manufacturing success has been due to the inexpensive and reliable electricity that this country currently benefits from.  Low price natural gas is a part of this, as is coal, which at 40% of our electricity mix is still the main source of base load power for our nation.

A recent study predicts that the U.S. is steadily becoming one of the lowest-cost countries for manufacturing in the developed world.  The study estimates that by 2015, average manufacturing costs in advanced economies such as Germany, Japan, France, Italy, and the U.K. will be up to 18% higher than in the United States. 

This should come as no surprise. The fact is that going “all-in” on renewables has significantly weakened the stability of many European Union (EU) countries’ electricity generation, caused prices to skyrocket, and has left ratepayers footing the exorbitant bill.  The EU subsidies for wind and solar that began almost a decade ago in the name of ending reliance on fossil fuels have saddled customers with an increase of almost 20% in the cost of electricity for homes and businesses over the past four years. 

As an illustration, Germans will be paying more for electricity than any other major participant in the EU, according to the Household Energy Price Index for Europe. In September, Germans paid 40 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity. Even the ratepayers in Connecticut, who suffer the highest electricity rates in the U.S. (17 cents per kWh), pay less than half that.

Whatever our disagreements might be on how best to approach a changing climate, we think we can all agree that whatever we do should not burden ratepayers and consumers, especially middle and low-income families, with new costs. We therefore implore you to avoid any actions which damage ratepayers throughout this country, especially when those actions result in no measurable benefits and no measurable effects on the very thing that the actions are designed to address.

# # #