WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) – author of S. Con. Res. 7, the bipartisan resolution which makes clear a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that undermines constitutional freedoms of American gun owners will not be ratified by the Senate – today responded to Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Countryman’s statement that the United States will sign the ATT when it opens for signature on June 3, 2013. This announcement comes on the heels of the Administration abandoning its previous insistence on consensus by allowing a vote in the U.N. General Assembly to pass the U.N. ATT.

"This news is incredibly disappointing, given Assistant Secretary Countryman has previously described the goals of the treaty as ‘ambiguous.’ Good treaties aren’t ambiguous, and our constitutional rights are too important to be entrusted to a dangerous treaty drafted by nations hostile to the ownership of firearms by private citizens.

"Upon passage of the ATT at the U.N. General Assembly on April 2, the Administration indicated it would begin an extensive and thorough internal legal and policy review – a process typically requiring several months. By already signaling a readiness to sign the Treaty, the Administration has clearly abbreviated this review process to a meager six weeks. This is simply unheard of for a treaty of this significance and scope. I am greatly disappointed at the lack of seriousness on the part of the Administration to review the ATT before agreeing to sign it.

"The United States should ratify treaties only when they are in our national interest, clear in their goals and language, respect our sovereignty, and do not create any openings to infringe upon our constitutional freedoms. The Arms Trade Treaty fails to meet any of these tests, which is why I urge the President not to sign it, and why a bipartisan coalition of 36 U.S. Senators will remain united in opposition to ratification."

Sen. Moran’s concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 7, is cosponsored by 35 U.S. Senators including: Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), John Barrasso (R-WY), Max Baucus (D-MT), John Boozman (R-AR), Richard Burr (R-NC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Thad Cochran (R-MS), John Cornyn (R-TX), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Dean Heller (R-NV), John Hoeven (R-ND), James Inhofe (R-OK), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Mike Lee (R-UT), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Rand Paul (R-KY), Rob Portman (R-OH), Jim Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Tim Scott (R-SC), John Thune (R-SD), Pat Toomey (R-PA), David Vitter (R-LA) and Roger Wicker (R-MS).

S. Con. Res. 7 has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association, Heritage Action, and the Endowment for Middle East Truth.

Click here to read S. Con. Res. 7 outlining criteria that must be met for a U.N. ATT to be ratified by the Senate.

###

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Angus King (I-Maine) today introduced the Veterinary Medicine Mobility Act. The bipartisan legislation will allow veterinarians to legally carry and dispense controlled substances to protect the health and welfare of the nation’s animals, ensure public safety, and safeguard the nation’s food supply. Companion legislation, H.R. 1528, was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by veterinarians, Reps. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) and Ted Yoho (R.-Fla.).

“Veterinarians play a crucial role in public safety and making certain animals in Kansas and across the country are cared for properly,” Sen. Moran said. “The Veterinary Medicine Mobility Act allows licensed practitioners to legally transport and dispense the controlled substances necessary to practice veterinary medicine. This legislation is particularly important for veterinarians who work in rural areas, conduct research or respond to emergency situations.”

“It is essential that veterinarians be able to transport the drugs they need to appropriately treat their patients,” said Kansas State University Department of Clinical Sciences Professor Mike Apley, DVM, Ph.D. “This includes the transport and use of controlled substances to treat multiple species in situations that may not be anticipated prior to examining the patient. These situations include restraint, anesthesia, and humane euthanasia. It is apparent that legislation is urgently needed to enable creating the regulations which will allow this transport, and to avoid needless pain and suffering of veterinary patients as well as safety concerns for the people handling these patients.”

The 1970 Controlled Substances Act (CSA) stipulates that controlled substances must be stored and dispensed at the specific address veterinarians have on file with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The DEA enforces the CSA and has informed organized veterinary medicine that without a statutory change, veterinarians are in violation and cannot legally provide complete veterinary care.

The practice of veterinary medicine requires veterinarians to treat patients in a variety of settings, including rural areas, “house calls” or mobile clinics, research and disease control activities, emergency response situations, and removal or transfer of dangerous wildlife.

The legislation is endorsed by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

To read the Veterinary Medicine Mobility Act in its entirety, click here.

###

U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee with oversight over the U.S. Department of Treasury – of which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is a bureau – today said the developing IRS scandal lends credibility to reports of politically-motivated donor information leaks at the IRS. Sen. Moran believes the leaks deserve a second look as one more facet of the scandal. The remarks were made at the weekly Senate Republican Leadership Press Conference.

Late last week we learned of the apology by the Internal Revenue Service official about the targeting of certain information and applications for 501(c)(4) organizations in this country. Certainly the indication is that because of certain words generally considered to suggest that organization has conservative leanings, those organizations were targeted for different or additional treatment at the Internal Revenue Service. It was indicated there was an apology offered. This became a significant topic of conversation over the weekend by certain elected officials, certainly by my colleagues in the Senate but by the American people as well.

Last Wednesday, May 8, before this revelation was known, the Appropriations Subcommittee for Financial Services was holding its hearing--usually an annual affair—in which we were discussing the appropriations request in the President's budget for the Treasury Department. That gave me the opportunity to visit with Secretary Lew. Of course, the Internal Revenue Service is a component of the Treasury Department. My conversation with Secretary Lew during that hearing dealt with a related topic.

While I have great objection to targeting any group—liberal, conservative, Republican, Democratic-leaning—certainly the ability for us to examine an application is important. But none of us would expect or consider it to be appropriate that the Internal Revenue Service would treat one application different from another based upon its apparent political leanings.

While that is terrible enough, I also want to point out the topic I raised with the Secretary, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, last Wednesday. This comes from media reports and from complaints by organizations. The reason this seems so important is the admission that conservative groups were treated differently or one group was treated differently from another within the Internal Revenue Service lends credibility to press reports and to complaints by organizations across the country about their treatment by the IRS.

My questions to Secretary Lew, some of them that day but also submitted in writing since then, deal with a number of instances in which it was reported by an organization or a press report that the Internal Revenue Service improperly disclosed information about donors to 501(c)(4) organizations. Last April, the IRS apparently improperly disclosed schedule B donor lists on the form 990 of an organization called National Organizations for Marriage. It is an a 501(c)(4) group. While the form 990 is publicly available, tax laws and IRS regulations make clear that the schedule B—that is the donor list on the 990 is not to be released for 501(c)(3)s or (c)(4)s.

The issue was raised. The organization complained. It was reported in the press. Part of my inquiry to Secretary Lew is what has transpired since that point in time. Have the employees at the Internal Revenue Service who released this information been challenged for their actions? Have they been admonished? Have they been treated appropriately for what clearly seems to be an inappropriate release of private taxpayer information?

The second example was the IRS turned over several applications for nonprofit status, including the pending applications for tax-exempt status, for several groups. They were released and ended up in the hands of an organization called ProPublica. Again, while the applications for nonprofit status are available to the public after an exemption is granted, they are protected as tax return information while that application is pending. This organization then published that information, despite that that is what I understand to be a felony. Publishing unauthorized tax returns or return information is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison or a fine up to $5,000 or both. Again, my question of the Treasury Secretary is that I have not been able to confirm any action has been taken, any recommendation from the Treasury Department, the Justice Department, that anybody be prosecuted for publishing private taxpayer information.

Finally, we learned earlier this year, again, of something described as an inadvertent IRS disclosure related to releasing one page of the schedule B showing donors to the Republican Governors Association. These are alarming in and of themselves and become more significant to me, having learned that there is a bias, a treatment different of one taxpayer over another at the IRS. While it is important for us to determine, and I am anxious to read the inspector general's report as to the findings about what occurred with the singling out of certain organizations for a different kind of treatment at the IRS, I also think it is important for us to pursue the issue of the release of information that comes from one organization's filing that is inappropriate to release and ultimately its being used by an organization that apparently has a different political perspective than the one whose application is pending.

Again, I would raise this issue that now we know something is wrong at the IRS, there is more to be discovered as we look at how this information was released. Were people who released it punished? Is there any pending criminal action against the individuals who published this information? I am surprised by the circumstance we find ourselves in. I never would have expected this from the Internal Revenue Service, which must be, needs to be, and has to be above the political fray.

The IRS can never be an instrument of any political party, of any administration, or of any political philosophy. All Americans have the right to assume that the IRS, which has great powers and consequences upon the taxpayers of this country, is operating in a neutral, fair, and appropriate manner.

The circumstances now present themselves in a way that we have to wonder about more than just these three examples. These three examples are ones now worthy of additional concern by Members of the Senate, and, even more importantly, by the IRS and individuals within the administration who are responsible for the management and governance of the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department.

I have submitted a series of questions to Secretary Lew. As a member of the Appropriations Committee responsible for the Internal Revenue Service's appropriations, I look forward to seeing what those answers are and to make certain appropriate action is taken in regard to individuals who apparently have violated the public trust, with the understanding that all of us expect the privacy the Internal Revenue Service is to provide.

I want to once again outline that while we learned something over the weekend that is very troublesome, there may be much more to this story that has yet to be told, and I am anxious to see the answers that come from the Treasury Department in regard to the Internal Revenue Service.

In fact, I encourage all Members of the Senate to reach the same conclusion--no matter their political leaning or philosophical bent, whether Republican or Democrat—that the Internal Revenue Service with its tremendous enforcement capabilities and the tremendous consequences it has to the American people in the decisions it makes always be above the political fray.

Mr. President, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be on the Senate floor today to outline an extended concern I have about actions at the Internal Revenue Service. I anxiously wait for the Treasury Department to respond and provide answers to our subcommittee, committee, and the full Senate.