Medical Research News

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

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, recently sponsored bipartisan legislation to support pilots and general aviation. Over the past 10 years, 60,000 pilots have left the general aviation industry. Sen. Moran joined several of his Senate colleagues in introducing two bipartisan bills to help reverse this troubling trend – the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act and the Pilots Bill of Rights 2.

“These common-sense bills will allow general aviation to grow and prosper while providing vital protections to pilots and aircraft operators,” Sen. Moran said. “I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act and the Pilots Bill of Rights 2, two important steps toward ensuring a brighter future for general aviation.”

For many pilots, the current process of obtaining a third-class medical certificate has become burdensome and expensive, while providing very little benefit to the industry. The General Aviation Pilot Protection Act of 2015 (S. 573), introduced by U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-Ark.), extends the 2004 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) sport pilot rule to include slightly larger aircraft, provided certain safety requirements.

The Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 (S. 571), introduced by U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), would expand the third-class medical exemption for recreational pilots and broaden the protections provided in the original Pilot’s Bill of Rights, which was signed into law in 2012. In addition, S. 571 represents a significant improvement in the due process rights and liability protections for volunteer pilots by ensuring certificate holders have the right to appeal FAA decisions through a new, merit-based trial in Federal Court.

General aviation is the largest industry in Kansas, generating nearly $3 billion in annual exports and manufacturing 40 percent of all general aviation planes.

###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) today introduced bi-partisan and bi-cameral legislation eliminating a burdensome regulation that requires agriculture industry professionals to obtain a hazardous material endorsement before transporting diesel fuel critical for a number of agricultural operations.

“Our farmers and ranchers work tirelessly to provide the world with the most abundant and safest food supply in the world. The least we can do is remove frivolous government red tape that makes their efforts more onerous.” Roberts said. “Requiring our producers to treat a truck transporting large amounts of diesel fuel in a similar fashion to hauling radioactive material is patently absurd and is simply another example of the federal government’s overly burdensome regulations stifling the rural economy.”

“Our farmers in North Dakota and across the country produce the crops that feed the nation, and they should be able to carry out basic functions of their jobs—like transporting their combines—without unnecessary government regulation,” said Heitkamp. “We can do that by lifting undue burdens that cost our farmers and agriculture workers time and money, making it difficult for them to do their jobs each day. That’s why this bipartisan, commonsense legislation would make sure our federal regulators differentiate between farmers and harvesters doing a day’s work in field operations, and a semi-truck hauling crude oil. As a result, our agricultural workers would be able to operate efficiently and have the fuel necessary to harvest their crops.”

“As I travel across Kansas visiting with farmers and ranchers, regulatory overreach by the federal government is often cited as the greatest threat to our agriculture producers,” Sen. Moran said. “Those who work in the agriculture industry shouldn’t be forced to jump through hoops just to haul the necessary quantities of diesel required to fuel their operations. This common sense legislation would eliminate a burdensome regulation that adds unnecessary costs for farmers and ranchers and harms rural Kansas.”

The Senators’ legislation exempts agribusiness participants from the requirement to obtain a hazardous material endorsement, while operating a service vehicle carrying diesel fuel in quantities of 1,000 gallons or less, if the tank containing diesel fuel is clearly marked.

Exempted parties include all custom harvesters, agriculture retailers, agriculture business employees, agriculture cooperative employees, or agriculture producers who hold a Class A Commercial Driver’s License (CDL).

Congressman Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) and Congressman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) are introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

The bill is also endorsed by the Agricultural & Food Transporters Conference, American Retailers Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, Calmer Corn Heads, the Kansas Association of Wheat Growers, the Kanas Cooperative Council, the Kansas Corn Growers Association, the Kansas Grain Sorghum Producers Association, Kansas Soybean Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Barely Growers Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Sorghum Producers, National Sunflower Association, SD Wheat Incorporated, U.S. Canola Association, U.S. Custom Harvesters, Inc., U.S. Dry Bean Council, and the USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council.

Under current regulations, any driver transporting more than 119 gallons of diesel fuel is required to obtain a Hazardous Materials endorsement on their Class A CDL.  

-30-

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, questioned Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx at a hearing to discuss FY 2016 budget priorities for the U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Transportation.

Sens. Moran, Inhofe Lead Freshman Senators in Telling White House Senate Opposition to U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Remains Strong

A group of 55 U.S. Senators have now voiced their opposition to ratification of the U.N. ATT and have told President Obama that the Senate will not be bound by its obligations.

Mar 03 2015

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) announced the support of 12 freshman Senators in joining the Senate’s strong opposition to the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). A group of 55 U.S. Senators have now voiced their opposition to ratification of the U.N. ATT and told President Obama that the Senate will not be bound by its obligations. The letter sent to the President today and signed by the 12 new Republican Senators builds on the opposition voiced by a bipartisan group of 50 U.S. Senators in 2013 when the Administration signed the U.N. ATT in direct disregard of the Senate’s declared intent to reject ratification. Every member of the Senate Republican Conference has now voiced their opposition to the U.N. ATT.

 “Throughout this process, it has been disturbing to watch the Administration reverse U.S. policies, abandon its own ‘red line’ negotiation principles, admit publicly the treaty’s dangerous ambiguity, and hastily review the final treaty text,” Sen. Moran said. “The Senate opposition to this Treaty in the 114th Congress remains strong and continues to grow. I am proud to lead the new Senate majority in fighting to uphold the fundamental individual rights of Americans by reiterating our rejection of the ATT.”

“The entire Senate Republican Caucus in the 114th Congress is now on record as opposing the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty,” Sen. Inhofe said. “Despite this clear opposition, the president continues to mislead the U.N. by keeping the United States as a signatory nation of a treaty the Senate will not ratify. As threats to our security and that of our allies continues to grow, serious questions surround the treaty regarding its implementation and its effect on our ability to aid and arm our allies, and raises serious concerns regarding our Second Amendment rights. I will continue to work with my colleagues to prevent ratification and ensure our ability to defend ourselves and our allies.”

In the original 2013 letter to the President, the Senators outlined the six reasons why they will not give advice and consent to the treaty, and are therefore not bound to uphold the treaty’s object and purpose. Today all twelve freshmen Republican Senators have added their signatures to support the effort in opposition of the ATT.

“On October 15, 2013, fifty of our Senate colleagues wrote to you, summarizing the six reasons why they could not give their advice and consent to this treaty. We share their concerns, and we join with them in urging you to notify the treaty depository that the United States does not intend to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty and is therefore not bound by its obligations,” the 12 freshman Republican Senators wrote to President Obama.

The six reasons for opposing ratification of the ATT include:

  1. The treaty failed to achieve consensus, and was adopted by majority vote in the U.N. General Assembly. This violates the red line drawn by the Obama Administration;
  2. The treaty allows amendments by a three-quarters majority vote, circumventing the power and duty of the U.S. Senate to provide its advice and consent on treaty commitments before they are assumed by the United States;
  3. The treaty includes only a weak non-binding reference to the lawful ownership, use of, and trade in firearms, and recognizes none of these activities, much less individual self-defense, as fundamental individual rights. This poses a threat to the Second Amendment;
  4. The State Department has acknowledged that the treaty is “ambiguous.” By becoming party to the treaty, the U.S. would therefore be accepting commitments that are inherently unclear;
  5. The criteria at the heart of the treaty are vague and easily politicized. They violate the right of the American people, under the Constitution, to freely govern themselves. The language restricts the ability of the United States to conduct its own foreign policy and allows foreign sources of authority to impose judgment or control upon the United States; and
  6. The State Department has acknowledged that the treaty includes language that could hinder the United States from fulfilling its strategic, legal and moral commitments to provide arms to key allies such as the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the State of Israel.

The letter sent to the White House today is signed by 12 freshman Republican Senators, including: Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), David Perdue (R-Ga.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.).

Please click below to view the letter to the president, or find the full text below:

March 2, 2015

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

We write to express our opposition to the Arms Trade Treaty, and to join the bipartisan majority in the United States Senate that is already committed to opposing its ratification.

On October 15, 2013, fifty of our Senate colleagues wrote to you, summarizing the six reasons why they could not give their advice and consent to this treaty. We share their concerns, and we join with them in urging you to notify the treaty depository that the United States does not intend to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty and is therefore not bound by its obligations.

As members of the Senate, we pledge to oppose the ratification of this treaty, and we give notice that we do not regard the United States as bound to uphold its object and purpose.

We appreciate your consideration on this issue and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

# # # 

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, sponsored bipartisan legislation led by U.S. Senators Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) that would rescind bonuses paid to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees who were involved in the manipulation of electronic waitlists. The House of Representatives passed a similar bill on Monday.

“VA personnel should be accountable for their actions – otherwise the current culture of manipulation will remain,” Sen. Moran said. “This legislation will help make certain that those who put veterans’ lives at risk will be held responsible and return bonuses they unjustly collected. I believe Kansas VA medical centers and CBOCs are filled with good, hard-working people who want to care for veterans by providing quality health care. But revelations of failures within the VA system demonstrate what can happen when bureaucracy gets in the way of an organization’s mission.”

The VA used wait-time metrics as a factor in determining employee bonuses, which incentivized some VA employees to maximize their bonus payments by using secret waitlists to artificially inflate compliance data. According to one report, employees at the Phoenix VA hospital received approximately $10 million in bonuses since 2011, while simultaneously using secret waitlists to hide delays in patients receiving care. In addition, the VA paid out $278 million in bonuses in 2013, millions of which went to employees in facilities being investigated for wait list manipulations.

The bill directs the VA Secretary to require employees who received bonuses in 2011 or later to repay those bonuses if they were involved in the deliberate manipulation of electronic wait lists. The employees’ superiors are also required to pay back bonuses if they knew, or reasonably should have known, of their subordinates’ purposeful omission of the names of veterans from electronic waitlists. The bill requires the VA Secretary to identify these VA employees through reports issued by the department’s Inspector General.

###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) recently sponsored legislation (S. 607) to extend the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program – an important Medicare initiative that helps certain rural hospitals in sparsely populated states expand care to patients in their communities open. Currently, 23 small, rural hospitals participate in the program including four in Kansas – Mercy Hospital Fort Scott in Fort Scott, Kan.; Mercy Hospital Independence in Independence, Kan.; Geary Community Hospital in Junction City, Kan.; and Bob Wilson Memorial Hospital in Ulysses, Kan.

“Making certain Kansans have access to quality health care in their home communities is one of my top priorities,” Sen. Moran said. “This legislation will enable the Kansas hospitals currently utilizing the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration to continue receiving Medicare reimbursements that more accurately reflect the true cost of providing care to their patients. To preserve medical access for Kansans and strengthen our communities, health care professionals must receive appropriate reimbursement for the care they provide.”

Initiated in 2004, the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program was a five-year program created to help rural hospitals in the country’s 10 most sparsely populated states. The program was renewed for another five years in 2010 and expanded to include 20 of the most sparsely populated states. This program, which is budget neutral, enables participating hospitals to test the feasibility and advisability of a cost-based payment model for acute-care inpatient services. Eligible hospitals must be located in a rural area and within one of the 20 most sparsely populated states. It must also have fewer than 51 inpatient beds, must offer 24-hour emergency care services, and is not eligible for designation as a Community Access Hospital.

Kansas was not initially selected as one of the states to participate in the program.  In October 2009 when Sen. Moran was serving in the U.S. House of Representatives, he introduced the Enhanced Rural Health Care Extension Act (H.R. 3806) to extend the Rural Community Hospital Program and allow Kansas hospitals to be considered for participation in the program.  

###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) today joined Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) today in introducing key legislation to enact a permanent, government-wide prohibition of taxpayer funding for abortion. Currently, similar policies, such as the Hyde Amendment, require annual passage and do not apply to Obamacare. 

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act also includes a provision championed by Senator Roberts requiring all health insurance plans offered by Obamacare exchanges to disclose coverage of elective abortion procedures and the abortion surcharge embedded into abortion-covering plans.

“Life is precious and deserves our respect and protection,” Sen. Moran said. “I have serious concerns that Obamacare is forcing millions of Americans to violate their religious beliefs by making it difficult to discern whether the health care plans offered on the Obamacare exchanges cover abortion procedures. This legislation would not only make it illegal for taxpayer dollars to be used to fund the end of innocent human life, but would also make certain consumers can make informed health insurance choices that conform to their moral beliefs.”

The legislation is the Senate companion to H.R. 7, authored by Representative Chris Smith, R-N.J., and Dan Lipinski, D-Ill. That bill passed the House by a vote of 242-179 on January 22, 2015. 

Existing laws that would also be made permanent under the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act include the Smith FEHBP amendment (which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage for federal employees) and the Dornan amendment (which prohibits use of congressionally appropriated funds for abortion in the District of Columbia).

Last year, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office issued a report showing that taxpayer dollars paid for more than 1,000 health insurance plans that included elective abortion.

The bill is supported by the National Right to Life, the Family Research Council, the Susan B. Anthony List, Americans United for Life, March for Life, and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, among others.

###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Hearing, this week introduced American Legion National Commander Mike Helm of Norcatur, Kan., at a joint Senate and House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Hearing. The hearing was an opportunity for the American Legion to express their legislative priorities for 2015.

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, along with U.S. Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and 39 of their colleagues raised serious concerns about the implementation of the Veterans Choice Card program.

The program was established by Congress last year in response to the nationwide crisis of veterans’ access to care, but has yet to be implemented as Congress envisioned. The program allows veterans who live more than 40 miles from the closest VA facility, or who face a significant delay in scheduling an appointment, to access non-VA care.

"The VA is construing the eligibility criteria as it relates to the 40-mile rule so narrowly that it is excluding too many who are far away from the care that they need,” wrote the senators. In addition, the Administration has said that it plans to propose reallocating funds for the Veterans Choice Program to other VA accounts. Sen. Moran spoke about this issue on the Senate Floor earlier this month.

The senators urged Secretary McDonald to make certain that funding provided by Congress is being used to implement the Veterans Choice Program to the fullest extent possible.

Sen. Moran has introduced legislation, the Veterans Access to Community Care Act of 2015 (S. 207), requiring the VA to utilize the authority Congress gave it 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 full text of the letter is below and can be viewed below.


The Honorable Robert McDonald

Secretary of Veterans Affairs

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

810 Vermont Avenue 

Washington, D.C.  20420

Dear Secretary McDonald:

Since November 1, 2014, the Choice Card, as provided under the recently enacted Veterans Choice, Access, and Accountability Act of 2014, has been distributed to approximately 8.5 million Veterans nationwide, yet less than one percent of recipients – 0.37 percent – have been authorized to access non-VA care through this program.   With this in mind, we write to convey serious concerns regarding your implementation of the Choice Card Program with respect to funding for the program in connection with the Fiscal Year 2016 Presidential Budget Request and your interpretation of the 40-mile rule as provided under the Act.  We ask you to address both of these concerns immediately.    

First, we were dismayed to learn from the President’s Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request that the Department of Veterans Affairs intends to submit a legislative proposal that would reallocate part of the funding for the Veterans Choice Program to other programs within the VA.  It is deeply disturbing that the Administration would try to reduce funding for this program before this program has even been allowed to work – being in existence for only a few short months – and as barriers to care continue to exist.  Instead, the Department should make certain that funding provided by Congress is being used to implement the Veterans Choice Program to the fullest extent possible.

Second, the VA is construing the eligibility criteria as it relates to the 40-mile rule so narrowly that it is excluding too many who are far away from the care that they need.  As you know, the Choice Program provides Veterans with the option to receive non-VA health care rather than waiting for a VA appointment if there is a significant delay in scheduling an appointment or a Veteran has to travel more than 40 miles to receive VA care.  While many Veterans are satisfied with care provided through the VA Health Care System, trips to VA medical centers can be difficult for rural Veterans, especially those who are elderly or ill.  Because long drive times are a hardship for these individuals and can present a significant barrier to accessing care, many Veterans anticipated using their Choice Cards when Congress established the Choice Program last year.  

The VA’s definition of the eligibility criteria is too narrow in two important respects. First, the VA does not consider the type of care available within 40 miles of where a Veteran lives.  In many areas across the nation, the effect is that those who need services only available at a VA medical center, but who live near a Community-Based Outpatient Clinic, are prevented from using the Choice Card to access specialty care in their local community.  While the Clinic may be within 40 miles, the VA hospital offering the required care is often more than 40 miles and hours of travel time away.

Second, the VA measures the 40 miles “as the crow flies” and not the actual distance that the Veteran would have to travel.  Congress’ intent was to establish a pilot program that would allow Veterans to access non-VA care when they face an obstacle to care, whether it be an unacceptable distance to care or wait time for care.  Given the clear intent of Congress to reduce barriers to care, it is perplexing that the VA is not using its authority to allow non-VA care for those who face a geographic challenge in accessing care, including long drive times or health conditions that make travel difficult.  The impact of such an interpretation is to exclude from the program many of the Veterans for whom Congress aimed to make health care more accessible.  For Veterans in remote and rural areas with limited transportation access, this could mean the difference between 30 minutes and half a day of travel. 

As Secretary, you already have the authority to modify the way that the distance criteria is calculated so that the Choice Program is implemented as Congress intended, and we urge you to rectify the overly narrow definition without delay.  Additionally, we urge you to stop any attempt to propose a reallocation of funds designed to kill the Choice Card program in its infancy.

###