Medical Research News

There are no records to display that match the provided criteria.

MANHATTAN, KAN. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) issued the following statement regarding the Obama Administration’s latest regulation to expand the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act. The regulation – drafted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – was set to go into effect today, but was halted by the U.S. District Court in North Dakota.

“It is complete nonsense for the EPA to claim the U.S. District Court’s order to halt implementation only applies to some states, while promising to begin enforcement in other states like Kansas,” Sen. Moran said. “This is yet another attempt by the EPA to run roughshod over whoever and whatever obstacle stands in its way to implement the regulation. We watched the EPA dismiss the concerns voiced by Americans from across the country regarding the regulation, including overwhelming opposition from farmers and ranchers. Now the EPA is choosing to selectively enforce a U.S. District Court’s order to halt implementation of the rule.”

Sen. Moran continued, “We can protect our nation’s waters without the kind of federal regulatory overreach and the violation of private property rights that will harm our economy and cost us jobs. This regulation threatens to bring millions of acres of privately held land under the federal government’s regulatory control for the first time ever. While the court’s ruling is a welcome development as it confirms the unlawful nature of the WOTUS regulation, Congress must still move quickly to limit the federal government’s overreach and to protect landowners from the new costs and burdens that would be imposed by the regulation.”

The EPA claims the ruling only blocks the regulation in the thirteen states that sought the injunction from the North Dakota court and plans to begin enforcement of the rule in the other states, including Kansas. The state of Kansas joined in filing a separate lawsuit challenging the legality of the regulation in the U.S. District Court in Augusta, Ga.

Sen. Moran has consistently fought against this administration’s radical environmental agenda that threatens the Kansas economy and jobs. Sen. Moran supported the inclusion of a provision in the FY2016 Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill to block funding for the implementation of the WOTUS rule. 

Sen. Moran is also a cosponsor 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.

###

Sen. Moran Named Chairman of New Congressional Down Syndrome Task Force

Congressman Kevin Yoder also joined bipartisan, bicameral group focused on increasing awareness about issues facing the Down syndrome community

Aug 25 2015

MANHATTAN, KAN. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) has been named U.S. Senate co-chairman of the new Congressional Down Syndrome Task Force – a bipartisan, bicameral group dedicated to making certain the needs of the Down syndrome community are a priority on Capitol Hill. Sen. Moran will work with co-chair Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) and his counterparts in the U.S. House of Representatives – including U.S. Representative Kevin Yoder (R-Kan.) who is also a member of the Task Force – to increase awareness about issues facing people with Down syndrome, their families and communities.

“Every person should have the opportunity to experience a full and satisfying life – to live, learn, work and pursue the American Dream,” Sen. Moran said. “Expanding the Congressional Down Syndrome Task Force to the Senate will increase our ability to build awareness of the issues important to those individuals with Down syndrome and their families, such as medical care, research, education, work opportunities, and independent living. Advancing policies that enable people with Down syndrome to have opportunities to realize their hopes and dreams takes bipartisan cooperation, and I am proud to join Senator Casey in founding the Senate counterpart of this valuable congressional task force.” 

“As Americans, we believe everyone should have the opportunity to realize their dreams and be equipped with the tools to do so,” Rep. Yoder said. “Getting the ABLE Act signed into law in December was a critical step towards allowing some of the most vulnerable Americans among us to have that capability. I look forward to working with Senator Moran on the bipartisan Down Syndrome Task Force to help continue to raise awareness and provide assistance to those who need it most as they strive to achieve an independent and productive life.”

“The National Down Syndrome Society is very excited to have Sen. Moran championing our efforts to help members of Congress enhance their understanding of issues important to people with Down syndrome and their families by serving as the Senate Co-Chair of the Congressional Task Force on Down Syndrome,” said Jawanda Mast, Olathe, Kan., resident and Manager of Grassroots Advocacy for the National Down Syndrome Society. “In keeping with his history of supporting individuals with Down syndrome, Congressman Yoder has also joined the Congressional Task Force. I appreciate the leadership of Senator Moran and Congressman Yoder on behalf of individuals with Down syndrome and believe it is a great example of effective grassroots advocacy. Both Sen. Moran and Rep. Yoder have listened to constituents and taken initiative.”

Sen. Moran and Rep. Yoder were instrumental in the passage of the Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act of 2014, legislation to allow people with disabilities to set up tax-free savings accounts to help better provide for their future. Since the federal bill was signed into law in December 2014, 30 states, including Kansas, have passed legislation creating state ABLE savings programs.

###

MANHATTAN, KAN. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman, released the following statement regarding the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) selection of Ozawkie, Kan., to receive a $3.8 million loan through the USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS). The loan will be used to complete the second phase of a wastewater collection system improvement, and to refinance the city’s existing debt used on the phase one improvements. 

“I am pleased to learn that Ozawkie was selected to receive a loan through the USDA Rural Utilities Service,” Sen. Moran said. “Investments in rural Kansas communities help make certain they can continue to be attractive places for people to live, work, and raise a family. This loan will provide Ozawkie with access to funding needed for infrastructure upgrades to the community’s wastewater treatment system.”

USDA’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) administers programs that provide infrastructure or infrastructure improvements to rural communities. These include water and waste treatment, electric power and telecommunications services. To learn more, click here.

###

WICHITA, KAN. – On National Aviation Day yesterday, U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) – member of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety and Security – hosted U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx in Wichita, Kan.

“The visit to the National Institute for Aviation Research (NIAR) and roundtable conversation with the state’s leading aviation stakeholders allowed me to see the vital role that Kansas plays in our aviation sector,” Sec. Foxx said. “I want to thank Senator Moran for welcoming me to his home state and look forward to working with him to continue enhancing safety and implementing new technologies.”

“I am pleased Sec. Foxx accepted the invitation to join me in the Air Capital of the World,” Sen. Moran said. “General aviation is the largest industry in Kansas, and for many individuals and businesses in rural areas it the most reliable means of connecting with the rest of the world. Our state especially benefits from good policy at the FAA and safety in our skies. I am confident the conversations Secretary Foxx had with Kansans will give him valuable perspective for his work in Washington.”

Sec. Foxx’s visit included a presentation by Wichita State University President John Bardo and Wichita State University Vice President and Executive Director of the National Institute for Aviation Research John Tomblin, a meeting with Shawnee County officials regarding the Willard Bridge in Topeka, Kan., and a roundtable forum with aviation industry stakeholders and representatives from both state and local government.

The visit highlighted Wichita State University’s state-of-the-art research, testing and education to advance our nation’s aviation industry. The conversation also centered on the need for a long-term FAA reauthorization. After 23 short-term extensions between 2007 and 2011, Congress passed a four-year reauthorization of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) programs in 2012 – that legislation is set to expire next month.

###

MANHATTAN, KAN. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) today released the following statement after reports that the administration is conducting site visits and may transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Ft. Leavenworth, Kan.:

“I have serious concerns about the latest reports that the Obama Administration is conducting site surveys and continues to consider transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Terrorists should not be living down the road from Ft. Leavenworth – home to thousands of Army soldiers and their families, as well as military personnel from across the globe who study at the Intellectual Center of the Army.

“I have repeatedly been part of efforts in Congress to prevent the facility’s closure and block the transfer of detainees to American soil, not only through legislation but also through the annual defense authorization bill. I will continue to push to prohibit the transfer of prisoners to Kansas or anywhere else in the United States. This administration’s last-ditch effort to carry out President Obama’s reckless national security decision before he leaves office is disingenuous and flawed.”

Sen. Moran has long advocated against relocating Guantanamo Bay detainees. He sponsors the Detaining Terrorists to Protect America Act (S. 165), which prohibits the transfer to the United States of detainees designated medium- or high-risk for two years. S. 165 would also ban transfers to Yemen, where dozens of the 127 remaining Guantanamo detainees are from.

###

MANHATTAN, KAN. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) today announced the members of his 2015 Kansas Service Academy Selection Board. The 20-member board will review applications and interview candidates who are applying for admission to the U.S. Service Academies. These include the U.S. Military Academy, U.S. Naval Academy, U.S. Air Force Academy and U.S. Merchant Marine Academy.

“Our country is fortunate to have so many intelligent, hard-working and patriotic young men and women interested in serving our country through the Armed Forces,” Sen. Moran said. “I know the selection board will have a difficult time narrowing the field of qualified candidates, but I value their insight and thank them for their help in this important process.”

Sen. Moran accepts application for nominations to the United States Service Academies each year. This year’s application deadline is Friday, Sept. 4, 2015. After submitting an application, each candidate will interview with Sen. Moran’s Service Academy Selection Board on Saturday, Sept. 26, 2015, at the Eisenhower Presidential Library in Abilene. The board will make recommendations to Sen. Moran for his decision. If nominated, applicants must then meet the individual admission requirements of each academy. The academies will make the final decision on who will receive an appointment of admission in early 2016.

Members of the 2015 Kansas Service Academy Selection Board include:

  • Bill Clifford, M.D., of Garden City – Ophthalmologist and U.S. Air Force Academy Graduate
  • Karen DeGraaf of Mulvane – U.S. Air Force Academy Graduate
  • Ardith Dunn, Ph.D., of Satanta – Retired high school mathematics/computer instructor, superintendent and mother of U.S. Air Force Academy Graduate
  • Ernie Honas of Gardner – Network Marketing Business Professional and served in the U.S. Navy
  • Robin Jackson, Ph.D., of Hutchinson – Central Christian College Professor of Science and Mathematics
  • Melissa Jarboe of Topeka – Military Veteran Project Founder and widow of U.S. Army Service Member
  • Scott Jenkins of St. Francis – CEO Cheyenne County Hospital, Major Colorado Air National Guard and U.S. Air Force Academy Graduate
  • Cheryl Kerns of Overland Park – Blue Valley West High School teacher and mother of U.S. Military Academy cadet
  • Brian Kessens of Leawood – Managing Director Tortoise Capital and U.S. Military Academy Graduate
  • Ryan Kriegshauser of Topeka – Director of Policy and Special Counsel Kansas Office of the Securities Commissioner and a Lieutenant in the U.S. Naval Reserves
  • Katrina Lewison of Manhattan – U.S. Military Academy Graduate and Purple Heart Recipient
  • Wendell Maddox of Kansas City – United Way of Wyandotte County President and CEO and served in the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps
  • Jill McCarthy of Overland Park – Kansas City Area Development Council Vice President of Business Development and mother of U.S. Military Academy Graduate
  • Lynne Murray, Ph.D., of Baldwin City – Baker University President and wife of U.S. Air Force Member
  • John O’Leary of Wichita – Airbus Vice President of Engineering and U.S. Naval Academy Graduate
  • Jayne Pearce of Wallace – Wallace County Visitors Bureau Marketing and Tourism Director, served in the U.S. Air Force and mother of U.S. Air Force Academy Graduate
  • Paula Ripple of Dodge City – Retired Dodge City High School English instructor and mother of U.S. Air Force Academy Graduate
  • Matt Treaster of Newton – Assistant United States Attorney and U.S. Naval Academy Graduate
  • Samuel Turner of Leawood – Retired Shawnee Mission Medical Center CEO, Vietnam War Veteran and served in the U.S. Army
  • Ron Whitney of Emporia – American Legion Member, Veterans of Foreign War Member and served in the U.S. Army


###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) released the following statement regarding the administration’s latest environmental rule – cutting carbon emissions from U.S. power plants:

“The latest proposed rule, crafted by bureaucrats rather than elected lawmakers, would lead to higher energy costs for Kansas families and businesses, destroy jobs, and threaten economic growth. Kansas would be especially impacted because nearly two-thirds of our state’s electricity production comes from coal. Our state’s power providers have made great progress in reducing emissions over the years, but the additional regulations mandated in this rule will result in higher costs without demonstrating much environmental benefit. 

“This rule will make the United States less competitive than other countries that are aggressively growing their economies with the low-cost electricity generated by coal. Washington should focus on commonsense policies to make energy cleaner and more affordable rather than simply mandating it by adding more red tape and harmful regulations. This administration continues to ignore the impact a rule like this has on average Americans, and I believe we should work to put in place environmental policies that can both protect our natural resources and safeguard our economy.”

According to a recent National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) study that measures the impact of a 10 and 25 percent electricity price increase on jobs and gross domestic product (GDP) from 2020 to 2040, there is a devastating relationship between higher electricity prices and job losses. Even a 10 percent increase results in 1.2 million jobs lost in 2021 across the country with nearly 500,000 of those lost jobs in rural communities. 

###

Sen. Moran Presses USFWS to Reconsider Lesser Prairie Chicken Listing

Highlights Increased Population Following Increase in Rainfall

Aug 04 2015

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) today requested information from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Director Dan Ashe regarding how the agency intends to use new evidence highlighting a significant increase in the lesser prairie chicken (LPC) population. An aerial survey conducted by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) estimates the bird’s population to be 29,162 birds – a nearly 50 percent increase since 2013. 

“The fact the lesser prairie chicken population is rebounding after increased rainfall in the habitat area comes as no surprise to Kansans familiar with the region,” said Sen. Moran. “We don’t need burdensome regulations from federal government dictating land use practices and hindering our rural economy. More rainfall, as well as locally-driven, voluntary conservation plans developed with stakeholder input, will do far more for the bird’s conservation than bureaucrats and regulators in Washington.”

The bird’s population decreased largely as a result of the historic, multi-year drought impacting the habitat area. Every county in Kansas with habitat area was experiencing a D3-Extreme Drought or D4-Exceptional Drought in 2013 at the time of the WAFWA annual aerial population survey, according to the U.S. Drought monitor. As rainfall returned to more historic norms in 2014 and again this year, the bird’s population has correspondingly increased.  

In an attempt to avoid the bird’s listing under the Endangered Species Act, farmers, ranchers, energy developers and other stakeholders in the region came together to develop a locally-driven, voluntary conservation plan. However, the plan was not given the opportunity to prove its effectiveness because the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service chose to list the bird as a threatened species in March 2014. 

Since the listing, Sen. Moran has led the effort in Congress to reverse the misguided decision. His amendment to the FY2016 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill to restrict the use of funds for enforcement of the listing passed with a majority vote. In January 2015, Sen. Moran also successfully secured a vote on a similar LPC amendment to Keystone XL pipeline legislation (S.1), which received the support of a bipartisan majority of senators. 

The full text of the senator’s letter is available here.

###

Mr. President, cyber security is an important issue, but I come to the floor to talk for a bit about one of the most consequential decisions that I, as a Member of the U.S. Senate, and my colleagues will make, and that concerns the negotiated agreement between the P5+1 and Iran--the proposed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran. In my view, it provides too much relief in return for too few concessions. The deal implicitly concedes that Iran will become a nuclear power and will gain the ability and legitimacy to produce a weapon in a matter of years while gaining wealth and power in the meantime.

I serve on the Senate Banking Committee. The sanctions that were created by Congress originate from that committee. Those sanctions were put in place to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power--a country capable of delivering a nuclear weapon across their border. Those sanctions were not put in place to give Iran a path or a guideline to become a nuclear-weapon-capable country. The key is to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Iran's Government. The key to that is to permanently disable Iran from nuclear capability and remove the technology used to produce nuclear materials. This deal fails to achieve this goal by allowing Iran to retain nuclear facilities. Though some of it will be limited in use in the near term, the centrifuges used to enrich nuclear matter will not be destroyed or removed from the country. This deal allows Iran's nuclear infrastructure to remain on standby for nuclear development when the restrictions expire.

Also troubling is the agreement's lack of restrictions on nuclear research and development. Iran seeks to replace its current enrichment technology with a more advanced centrifuge that more efficiently enriches nuclear material. By failing to restrict research and development now, we are priming Iran's nuclear program to hit the ground running toward a bomb once the restrictions are lifted in a matter of years.

Also, the inspection regime agreed to in this negotiation is dangerously accommodating. The agreement provides Iran a great deal of flexibility regarding the inspection of military sites just like those where Iran's past covert nuclear development work took place. The deal allows Iran to hold concerned international inspectors at bay for weeks, if not months, before granting access to a location suspected of being a site for nuclear development.

The value of any access to suspected Iranian nuclear sites that international inspectors ultimately do receive will depend upon their understanding of Iran's past nuclear weapons research. A comprehensive disclosure of possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear research is necessary for inspectors to fully understand Iran's current infrastructure and is critical to their ability to rule out any future efforts to produce nuclear weapons.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, has not made public its site agreement with Iran about their previous nuclear developments. This is an aside, but I would say none of us should agree to this negotiated agreement without seeing, reading, and knowing the content of that agreement. Under the proposed deal, that vital full disclosure of Iran's nuclear past may not occur, diminishing the value of inspections and increasing the risk that another covert weaponization of Iran will take place.

Painfully absent from the agreement's requirements is Iran's release of American hostages: Saeed Abedini, Jason Rezaian, Robert Levinson, and Amir Hekmati. The freedom of Americans unjustly held in Iran should have been a strict precondition for sanctions relief instead of an afterthought.

In return for very limited concessions, this deal gives Iran way too much. If implemented, the agreement would give Iran near complete sanctions relief up front. This isn't a Republican or Democratic issue. Common sense tells us that you don't give away a leverage until you get the result that you are looking for, and this agreement provides sanctions relief upfront, delivering billions in frozen assets to the Iranian Government and boosting the Iranian economy. Included in this relief are sanctions related to Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, which were to be lifted only when Iran ceased providing support for international terrorism.

The sanctions relief in this proposal not only fails to require preconditions and cooperation regarding nuclear disarmament but will remove sanctions from the Iranian Guard, despite their status as a top supporter of terrorist groups around the Middle East and globe.

This type of gratuitous flexibility for Iran is found elsewhere in the agreement. The P5+1 acceptance of Iranian demands for a relaxed U.N. arms embargo is both perplexing and scary. This deal would relax trade restrictions on missiles after 8 years, while immediately erasing limits on missile research and development. It would also lift restrictions on Iranian centrifuge use and development after just 8 to 10 years. The deal grants Iran the ability to more efficiently produce nuclear material just as it gains the ability to access the delivery weapons system.

Earlier this month, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Martin Dempsey, said: “Under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking. “Lifting the U.N. arms embargo was ‘out of the question.’ Yet, just 1 week later, negotiators announced the lifting of the embargo in 5 to 8 years or less. I wonder what has changed. Unless the menace of an increased flow of weapons in and out of Iran somehow substantially decreased during the intervening week, the consequence of this sudden capitulation should have us all greatly concerned.”

This fear of increased money flow to terror organizations linked to the Iranian Government is not based upon merely an outside possibility; it is a likelihood. Last week Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister stated: “Whenever it's needed to send arms to our allies in the region, we will do so.” More money and more weapons in the hands of terrorist organizations are the fuel for increased violence and further destabilization in the conflict-torn Middle East.

We have little reason to believe Iran's behavior will change as a result of this agreement. In fact, their chants of “Death to America” become more real.

Since the announcement of the agreement, the leader of Iran has been openly antagonistic to the United States. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has promised to continue to incite unrest and said Iran's “policy towards the arrogant U.S. will not change.” These anti-American statements come from an Iranian leader whose commitment the Obama administration is relying on for the nuclear accord to work. It should trouble every American that the Obama administration is asking us to support a deal that relies on the total cooperation of those who, as I say, strongly state their commitment to bringing about ``death to America.''

Given the Obama administration's troubling efforts to push through this deal to the United Nations and restrict the influence of the American people through this Congress in the decision, it is all the more important that we follow through with a serious assessment of this nuclear agreement. We are faced with a circumstance that, by the administration's own previous standards, concedes too much and secures too little.

I strongly oppose this nuclear deal. It is intolerably risky, and the result will be a new Iran--a legitimized nuclear power with a growing economy and enhanced means to finance terror, to antagonize, and to ultimately pursue a nuclear weapons program. I will support the congressional resolution to express Congress's explicit disapproval.

President Obama has used fear in his agenda in seeking our support for this agreement. The warning has been that a vote against his policy is a vote for war with Iran. The President's political scare tactics are not only untrue but also illogical.

Incidentally, we were not at war with Iran when the agreements were in place before the negotiation. The absence of agreeing to the negotiated agreement would not mean we will be at war thereafter.

The President's claims undermine numerous statements his own administration has made about the negotiation process, the nature of the Iranian nuclear program, and the proposed agreement's prospects for success. If true, the President's words concede that his foreign policy has led America into a dangerous position.

We would expect a President to provide the American people as many alternatives to war as possible, not just a single narrow and risky one such as this. According to the President, the only alternative to war is this agreement--a deal that results in better financed terrorists, a weakened arms embargo, and the need for boosting U.S. weapons sales to Iran's regional rivals. If this prospect of war is his concern, the President would benefit by reevaluating the geopolitical consequences of the deal and seeking out much better options.

I had hoped these negotiations would result in a strong but fair deal to dismantle Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Again, the purpose of placing sanctions on Iran was to get rid of their nuclear capability as far as delivery of nuclear material across their borders. Yet this agreement leaves that infrastructure in place and puts them on a promising path toward that nuclear capability.

Regrettably, that kind of deal was not reached. Now my hope is a simple one: that we are able to reverse some of the damage that is already done and that this agreement is rejected.

I would say that there are those who argue that we would be isolated by rejection of this agreement, that other countries would approve and the United Nations may approve. This is an issue of such importance that we need to do everything possible to see that Iran does not become a nuclear power, and we need to have the moral character and fiber to say no to this agreement.’

Mr. President, cyber security is an important issue, but I come to the floor to talk for a bit about one of the most consequential decisions that I, as a Member of the U.S. Senate, and my colleagues will make, and that concerns the negotiated agreement between the P5+1 and Iran--the proposed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran. In my view, it provides too much relief in return for too few concessions. The deal implicitly concedes that Iran will become a nuclear power and will gain the ability and legitimacy to produce a weapon in a matter of years while gaining wealth and power in the meantime.

I serve on the Senate Banking Committee. The sanctions that were created by Congress originate from that committee. Those sanctions were put in place to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power--a country capable of delivering a nuclear weapon across their border. Those sanctions were not put in place to give Iran a path or a guideline to become a nuclear-weapon-capable country. The key is to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Iran's Government. The key to that is to permanently disable Iran from nuclear capability and remove the technology used to produce nuclear materials. This deal fails to achieve this goal by allowing Iran to retain nuclear facilities. Though some of it will be limited in use in the near term, the centrifuges used to enrich nuclear matter will not be destroyed or removed from the country. This deal allows Iran's nuclear infrastructure to remain on standby for nuclear development when the restrictions expire.

Also troubling is the agreement's lack of restrictions on nuclear research and development. Iran seeks to replace its current enrichment technology with a more advanced centrifuge that more efficiently enriches nuclear material. By failing to restrict research and development now, we are priming Iran's nuclear program to hit the ground running toward a bomb once the restrictions are lifted in a matter of years.

Also, the inspection regime agreed to in this negotiation is dangerously accommodating. The agreement provides Iran a great deal of flexibility regarding the inspection of military sites just like those where Iran's past covert nuclear development work took place. The deal allows Iran to hold concerned international inspectors at bay for weeks, if not months, before granting access to a location suspected of being a site for nuclear development.

The value of any access to suspected Iranian nuclear sites that international inspectors ultimately do receive will depend upon their understanding of Iran's past nuclear weapons research. A comprehensive disclosure of possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear research is necessary for inspectors to fully understand Iran's current infrastructure and is critical to their ability to rule out any future efforts to produce nuclear weapons.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, has not made public its site agreement with Iran about their previous nuclear developments. This is an aside, but I would say none of us should agree to this negotiated agreement without seeing, reading, and knowing the content of that agreement. Under the proposed deal, that vital full disclosure of Iran's nuclear past may not occur, diminishing the value of inspections and increasing the risk that another covert weaponization of Iran will take place.

Painfully absent from the agreement's requirements is Iran's release of American hostages: Saeed Abedini, Jason Rezaian, Robert Levinson, and Amir Hekmati. The freedom of Americans unjustly held in Iran should have been a strict precondition for sanctions relief instead of an afterthought.

In return for very limited concessions, this deal gives Iran way too much. If implemented, the agreement would give Iran near complete sanctions relief up front. This isn't a Republican or Democratic issue. Common sense tells us that you don't give away a leverage until you get the result that you are looking for, and this agreement provides sanctions relief upfront, delivering billions in frozen assets to the Iranian Government and boosting the Iranian economy. Included in this relief are sanctions related to Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, which were to be lifted only when Iran ceased providing support for international terrorism.

The sanctions relief in this proposal not only fails to require preconditions and cooperation regarding nuclear disarmament but will remove sanctions from the Iranian Guard, despite their status as a top supporter of terrorist groups around the Middle East and globe.

This type of gratuitous flexibility for Iran is found elsewhere in the agreement. The P5+1 acceptance of Iranian demands for a relaxed U.N. arms embargo is both perplexing and scary. This deal would relax trade restrictions on missiles after 8 years, while immediately erasing limits on missile research and development. It would also lift restrictions on Iranian centrifuge use and development after just 8 to 10 years. The deal grants Iran the ability to more efficiently produce nuclear material just as it gains the ability to access the delivery weapons system.

Earlier this month, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Martin Dempsey, said: “Under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking. “Lifting the U.N. arms embargo was ‘out of the question.’ Yet, just 1 week later, negotiators announced the lifting of the embargo in 5 to 8 years or less. I wonder what has changed. Unless the menace of an increased flow of weapons in and out of Iran somehow substantially decreased during the intervening week, the consequence of this sudden capitulation should have us all greatly concerned.”

This fear of increased money flow to terror organizations linked to the Iranian Government is not based upon merely an outside possibility; it is a likelihood. Last week Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister stated: “Whenever it's needed to send arms to our allies in the region, we will do so.” More money and more weapons in the hands of terrorist organizations are the fuel for increased violence and further destabilization in the conflict-torn Middle East.

We have little reason to believe Iran's behavior will change as a result of this agreement. In fact, their chants of “Death to America” become more real.

Since the announcement of the agreement, the leader of Iran has been openly antagonistic to the United States. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has promised to continue to incite unrest and said Iran's “policy towards the arrogant U.S. will not change.” These anti-American statements come from an Iranian leader whose commitment the Obama administration is relying on for the nuclear accord to work. It should trouble every American that the Obama administration is asking us to support a deal that relies on the total cooperation of those who, as I say, strongly state their commitment to bringing about ``death to America.''

Given the Obama administration's troubling efforts to push through this deal to the United Nations and restrict the influence of the American people through this Congress in the decision, it is all the more important that we follow through with a serious assessment of this nuclear agreement. We are faced with a circumstance that, by the administration's own previous standards, concedes too much and secures too little.

I strongly oppose this nuclear deal. It is intolerably risky, and the result will be a new Iran--a legitimized nuclear power with a growing economy and enhanced means to finance terror, to antagonize, and to ultimately pursue a nuclear weapons program. I will support the congressional resolution to express Congress's explicit disapproval.

President Obama has used fear in his agenda in seeking our support for this agreement. The warning has been that a vote against his policy is a vote for war with Iran. The President's political scare tactics are not only untrue but also illogical.

Incidentally, we were not at war with Iran when the agreements were in place before the negotiation. The absence of agreeing to the negotiated agreement would not mean we will be at war thereafter.

The President's claims undermine numerous statements his own administration has made about the negotiation process, the nature of the Iranian nuclear program, and the proposed agreement's prospects for success. If true, the President's words concede that his foreign policy has led America into a dangerous position.

We would expect a President to provide the American people as many alternatives to war as possible, not just a single narrow and risky one such as this. According to the President, the only alternative to war is this agreement--a deal that results in better financed terrorists, a weakened arms embargo, and the need for boosting U.S. weapons sales to Iran's regional rivals. If this prospect of war is his concern, the President would benefit by reevaluating the geopolitical consequences of the deal and seeking out much better options.

I had hoped these negotiations would result in a strong but fair deal to dismantle Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Again, the purpose of placing sanctions on Iran was to get rid of their nuclear capability as far as delivery of nuclear material across their borders. Yet this agreement leaves that infrastructure in place and puts them on a promising path toward that nuclear capability.

Regrettably, that kind of deal was not reached. Now my hope is a simple one: that we are able to reverse some of the damage that is already done and that this agreement is rejected.

I would say that there are those who argue that we would be isolated by rejection of this agreement, that other countries would approve and the United Nations may approve. This is an issue of such importance that we need to do everything possible to see that Iran does not become a nuclear power, and we need to have the moral character and fiber to say no to this agreement.

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) released the following statement after voting to proceed to S. 1881, legislation to defund Planned Parenthood and redirect its taxpayer funding to other entities that provide women’s health care services, including community health centers:

“I am deeply disappointed the U.S. Senate today rejected legislation to protect both women’s health and the lives of unborn children. If individual organs and tissues can be harvested from aborted babies, how can the case be made that these are not human lives being destroyed? Why do we place more value on the parts and pieces of a life than the life as a whole?

“Kansans have made it clear they don’t want their taxes contributing to abortion providers, and I have worked to make their voices heard here in Washington. Women deserve affordable health care, which is already being offered by a number of organizations that have nothing to do with abortions. We can and should support these health providers, and we can and should protect the unborn. S. 1881 would be a significant step in accomplishing both goals, and I believe it should have passed with broad support.”

Last week, Sen. Moran joined senators from across the country in asking Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell to cooperate fully as Congress investigates this organization that receives hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. Click here to read Sen. Moran’s full letter to the HHS Secretary.

###