WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) recently introduced bipartisan legislation to protect postal customers across the country from indefinite “emergency closure” of post offices. Their bill, S. 1204, would end the U.S. Postal Service’s practice of using its emergency suspension process, which was designed for temporary closures, to indefinitely close post offices without notice to the community, opportunity to appeal, or a timeframe for either reopening or permanently closing the facility.  

“Kansans in rural communities know and often depend on the U.S. Postal Service as a mechanism for commerce, communicating with friends and family, and receiving critical deliveries such as medications through the mail,” said Sen. Moran. “When a post office closes in a small town, the resulting problems and harm to the local economy can be significant. By requiring advance notice ahead of any closures for the community and providing local residents the opportunity to appeal, this bipartisan legislation will give Kansans more influence over the presence of a post office in their communities.” 

Since 2011, 650 postal facilities across the country have been “temporarily” closed under emergency suspension. Hundreds of these remain closed today in communities where the Postal Service has not told residents if – or when – those post offices might reopen. Since 2011, there have been over a dozen such suspensions in Kansas – due to staffing issues, expired or canceled leases or safety and health concerns.

Full text of the legislation can be found here.

###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) today issued the following statement after Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs David Shulkin informed him of the VA’s decision to procure the Cerner Corporation’s electronic health records (EHRs) system, MHS Genesis, to support veterans in receiving healthcare through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).     

“I applaud the VA for making this decision to fully integrate the health records for our nation’s heroes, reducing their burdens and easing their transition to civilian life after service. The Department of Defense’s leadership in the effort to modernize the electronic healthcare system in partnership with Cerner will help make certain the VA can streamline the transition from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs, improving the VA’s delivery of care for millions of veterans nationwide.”

I am here to visit about the topic of health care. I'll be spending time in Kansas this week, and there probably will be no topic of conversation that will be greater than people's concerns about healthcare. I will tell you, as I indicated to many of my colleagues, this is like no other issue that I’ve ever dealt with as an elected official in how personal the consequences are of the decisions we make here. 

While I certainly admit there’s plenty of politics and partisanship and too much back and forth that revolves around this concern about healthcare, what I do know is that the people who visit with me are in so many instances my friends, neighbors, our kids' teachers. They are people I go to church with, and in many instances as they have a conversation with me about what we’re going to do in regard to health care, tears begin to stream down their cheeks as they worry about themselves, but more importantly, as they worry about their family members, sons, daughters, husbands, wives and parents. This is a very personal issue and the concern that Kansans have about this and what we might do is sincere and real. 

I also know the Affordable Care Act, the law that’s in existence today, is failing many Americans as well. And, in fact, just this week, yesterday, we learned that the company Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City is exiting the market and will no longer provide a product in the Kansas City area of our state, which means that in most instances individuals will no longer have an option in regard to the Affordable Care Act.

So what we have in place doesn’t work. I also know what has come from the House isn’t the solution to this problem either. The work that we have to do, you and I, Madam President, and our colleagues, is serious and will have real and personal consequences to every American and we must take our responsibilities seriously. 

I've indicated to my colleagues that neither the Affordable Care Act, which I voted against, nor what the House has passed, is anything I would vote for. I really wish we were doing something different than either one of those things. 

As I thought about my remarks today, I was about to say I suppose I come too late to get my ideas adopted by Congress, but really I came to this issue early. And I think it was 2004, maybe 2006, in which at least in my own mind I penned on paper and worked on drafting legislation, what I called a 'ten-point plan' to address the affordability and availability of healthcare… My ideas, which predate President Obama, were nothing like the Affordable Care Act and they really were nothing like the conversation that we're having today. 

I wish we would be addressing the underlying reasons that healthcare costs so much rather than focusing so much attention on the issue of health insurance and its premiums. If we can drive the things out of healthcare that unnecessarily raise the price, the cost of access to healthcare, we could make a tremendous difference in healthcare premiums and the affordability of healthcare for all Americans. Not just trying to figure out what kind of plan we can develop, what kind of insurance program, what kind of subsidy or tax credit we can provide. But we would be treating the underlying problem, not just the symptoms.

To give a little understanding of what I'm talking about, the things that we ought to consider, in my view, is to allow more competition in the market, more free enterprise opportunities, allowing people to purchase insurance from coast to coast, expanding the support for community health centers, places that people -- these centers are already in existence. They need to be more available in more places. We're a very rural state and it is hard it to find those community health centers, but they provide healthcare services for people who have no ability to pay and no insurance. 

We ought to be more supportive of community health centers, not less, as providing particularly primary care for people in difficult circumstances.

We also need to give small businesses and organizations the ability to organize and create larger pools so they can negotiate for better premiums.

We need to utilize health savings accounts. 

We need to support medical research. If we can find the cure for cancer, the delay of the onset of Alzheimer's, we can save billions of dollars in our healthcare system as well as saving lives and improving the quality of life of people who suffer from the diseases that are so prevalent.

We need to address the issue of prescription drug costs. How do we make certain that no drug company takes advantage, cornering the market? How do we make certain they don’t utilize our current laws to extend the life of their patent, eliminating the chance for competition to come into play and the introduction of generic medicine that can save consumers, patients, lots of money?

We need to promote preventive healthcare: wellness, fitness, diet, nutrition are the things that probably give us the biggest bang for our buck and don't need to be a government program, but people need to work at living healthier lives and prevent diseases from occurring in the first place. 

We need additional physicians and other health care providers, nurses and others, and we have not put the attention into developing programs to educate and train the next generation of medical providers. 

We need to make sure that Medicare and Medicaid actually pay for the cost of the services that they promise to pay for on behalf of citizens at low income as well as citizens who are seniors instead of having the cost shifting that occurs as a result of the system that we have today in which Medicare doesn’t pay for, Medicaid doesn’t pay sufficient amounts of money to actually pay for the services that a patient receives under either one of those programs. 

Those are things that I think that would be beneficial to every American and it wouldn't be spending our time to figure out how to modify the insurance system, how we figure out about subsidies or tax credits for people within the system. Again, I don't come late to this issue, but it doesn't seem to be the direction we are going…

One thing I wanted to particularly highlight is the value of medical research. I'm proud that this Congress passed an appropriations bill that includes an additional $2 billion for use in medical research for the National Institute of Health. And perhaps something that we can even be additionally proud of is that we did that without spending more money. We simply – I shouldn't say simply, nothing's easy about it, and I'm on the Appropriations Subcommittee that is responsible for the funding of NIH – we reallocated money being spent somewhere else in support of medical research. 

If we find the cure for cancer, if we reduce the onset and the time in which people suffer from Alzheimer's, if we can find a cure for diabetes and other diseases, the lifesaving changes that are being made through that medical research and the costs that accrue to our healthcare delivery system are hugely important. 

I want to particularly commend the director of the National Institute of Health for working so closely with members of Congress and the American people in support of medical research. 

Dr. Francis Collins is a national resource. I am not a scientist, I don’t understand all the concepts that are spoken about when we talk about medical research. I do not do medical research. I'm a longshot from that. One thing that Dr. Collins, the director of the National Institute of Health, has been able to do is to explain to me and my colleagues and to others across the country the value of medical research without getting me lost in the details of the actual science. Someone who can talk to a layperson about medical research and science in a way that captures me – captures my attention, but I don't get lost in the medical, or technical or scientific words and jargon that scientists use in having the conversations. 

Dr. Collins has been so bipartisan in his approach. I smiled when I read the story. He indicated to me that when he was being chosen to be the director of the National Institute of Health, he called his mother back home and indicated to her, ‘mom, I'm going to become the director of the National Institute of Health,’ and she said, ‘but we're Republicans. I don't want you working for government.’ Here is a man who has used his time, not working for government, perhaps working in government, but working for the American people and really for worldwide solutions to problems that we all face in our families. 

There is no one in America or this chamber whose family has not been affected by the diseases I described and the other long list of afflictions that we have as human beings – that NIH is not working to make a difference in their lives. We need to continue that support for the National Institute of Health as we pursue appropriations bills into the future and our ability to do that together is important and a source of satisfaction that can come. 

I've indicated from time to time that it’s sometimes difficult to find the things in the jobs this we have as United States Senators in which you get the sense of accomplishment. There's a lot of challenges here in getting things done, but the idea that we've come together to support medical research and find lifesaving cures, that gives us something to take great satisfaction in and gives us hope that what we've been able to accomplish in this regard as Republicans and Democrats, but really as Americans, can be a role model as we try to find solutions to other problems. I would hope that would be the case as we try to find solutions in regard to how do we care for the American people when it comes to their affordability and availability of healthcare.

You and I, madam president, come from states that are very rural. In any kind of healthcare solution that we find, we need to make certain that we’re increasing the chances that hospital doors remain open in rural communities across our states. We need to make certain that there are more physicians, not less, there are more healthcare providers. That nursing homes and home healthcare services are more available, and that pharmacy remains on Main Street. In fact in the cases of our states, you could find ways, I suppose, that reduce the cost of healthcare only to discover that you no longer have a provider, no longer have a hospital, or a physician, or a pharmacy in your hometown and so sometimes when you talk about the affordability you must quickly couple that with availability, whatever its price is. If it's not in your community, if it’s not in your county, if it’s not in your region of the state, it doesn't necessarily matter what it costs. 

Our work is serious and I look forward to working with you and my colleagues as we try to find solutions to make certain that healthcare is something that every American has access to.

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) today authored a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee requesting swift consideration of the Modernizing Government Technology (MGT) Act of 2017 (S. 990/H.R. 2227), legislation to modernize government information technology (IT), eliminate wasteful spending and strengthen cybersecurity. The letter was also signed by U.S. Senators Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.).

“In the time that has passed since we first introduced this legislation, the threats of hacking, espionage and cybercrime have only grown more real,” said Sen. Moran. “This month we saw a worldwide ransomware attack that impacted hundreds of thousands of computers in more than 150 countries. Protecting our data has never been more important. By bringing government IT systems into the 21st century, not only can we strengthen the security of our data, we can save billions of taxpayer dollars by reducing long-term wasteful spending."

“Senators from both sides of the aisle recognize the urgency of this issue: as we have seen just this month with the ‘WannaCry’ attack, global cyberattacks are becoming increasingly sophisticated and pose a complex and serious threat to our national security,” said Sen. Udall. “But the federal government continues to rely on grossly outdated IT systems that make us vulnerable to such damaging cyberattacks. I welcome House passage of this bipartisan legislation, which will help federal agencies to retire old systems and invest in new and critical technologies. Maintaining old IT systems is a security risk and costs taxpayers billions of dollars each year. Now it's time for the Senate to pass this bipartisan bill and see it signed into law, to ensure that our government is getting better service at a better value for American taxpayers.”?

"Having spent twelve years in the technology sector, I know firsthand the threats cyber criminals pose and the need for modernized equipment to protect against attacks,” said Sen. Daines. “We have seen in recent years attacks on private business and governments that have crippling effects. It is more important now than ever to pass this important bipartisan legislation and bring the government into the modern era."  

"Ensuring that government agencies have the resources to invest in current technology is just smart management: Up-to-date systems means better service delivery and improved cyber security,” said Sen. Warner. “Our bipartisan legislation is a commonsense step to enable federal agencies to make these critical investments."

In the House, which passed the MGT Act with bipartisan support on May 17, the bill was led by U.S. Representatives Will Hurd (R-Texas) and Gerry Connolly (D-Va.).

The bill is supported by a number of IT industry stakeholders and trade associations including the IT Alliance for the Public Sector (ITAPS), Professional Services Council (PSC), TechNet, Amazon Web Service, Cisco, Adobe, BMC, Brocade, Intel, Microsoft, Business Roundtable, CA Technologie, Compuware, CSRA, Level 3 and Unisys.

Full text of the letter is below and can be found here. 

Dear Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member McCaskill,

We write to respectfully request that the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs mark up the Modernizing Government Technology (MGT) Act of 2017.

We believe our bipartisan legislation complements your interest in improving how the federal government acquires, implements, and manages information technology (IT).  The federal government spends over $80 billion annually on major IT systems, with more than 75 percent expended on maintaining existing IT rather than investing in development, modernization and enhancement activities. 

The rising cost of maintaining such “legacy” IT systems hinders the ability for agencies to replace their aging technology tools with more cost-effective solutions. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), federal IT systems use outdated software languages and hardware parts that are unsupported, making them vulnerable to cyberattacks.[2] Aging federal IT systems may pose other serious security risks due to the inability to use data encryption, multi-factor authentication and other current security best practices.

The MGT Act would establish IT working capital funds at the 24 agencies pursuant to the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-576) and a separate centralized modernization fund within the Department of the Treasury for a federal IT expert board to administer across the federal government.  Savings obtained by federal agencies through streamlining IT systems, replacing legacy products and transitioning to cloud computing can be placed in a working capital fund that can be accessed for up to 3 years for further modernization efforts.

The House of Representatives has already approved its companion legislation, H.R. 2227, which passed by voice vote on May 17, 2017.  The MGT Act garnered endorsements from numerous stakeholder groups, including the IT Alliance for the Public Sector (ITAPS), Professional Services Council (PSC), TechNet, Amazon Web Service, Cisco, and others. 

Reporting the MGT Act out of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs will help advance our shared goal of preserving national security and ensuring that the federal government uses taxpayer dollars wisely. 

Thank you for your consideration and your continued leadership on these issues. 

###