Medical Research News

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

Yesterday I was on the Senate floor, and I had the opportunity to highlight a development at the Department of Agriculture. We learned yesterday afternoon that the Department of Agriculture, in an employee newsletter, was promoting something called Meatless Mondays. The Department of Agriculture’s newsletter offered encouragement for its employees and I assume others who might see the newsletter—perhaps even tourists who visit Washington, D.C., and eat at the Department of Agriculture cafeteria-to participate in Meatless Monday. It indicates the desirability of reducing the consumption of meat and dairy products. I found that very startling and surprising. Never in my life would I expect the Department of Agriculture, which I always presumed is the farmers' and ranchers' friend, to be promoting the idea that it is a bad idea to eat the products of farms and ranches across Kansas and our Nation. Yet that is what we saw and read yesterday.

The Department of Agriculture newsletter said that “beef production requires a lot of water, fertilizer, fossil fuels, and pesticides. In addition, there are many health concerns related to excessive consumption of meat.'' Those are the words of the Department of Agriculture’s own newsletter. I am pleased to report that in asking Secretary Vilsack to reconsider what the Department had said and was promoting, they have done that and they have apparently removed the promotion from their newsletter and from their Web site. That is a positive development, and so I appreciate that happening.

It is amazing to me that this, unfortunately, is just one of many circumstances in which we see administration agencies and departments on the side of something that those of us who believe strongly in traditional family agriculture across the country believe is very important. One would expect in this case that the Department of Agriculture would promote the consumption of meat. In fact, within the Department of Agriculture, we have the Secretary saying in his mission statement that he is about increasing and expanding domestic and foreign markets for beef and meat products. We have the U.S. beef board, organized and monitored by the Department of Agriculture, whose job it is to promote agricultural products. We spend lots of effort, many of us in Congress over the past couple of years, to try to encourage the sale of agricultural products, particularly meat and beef products, to South Korea and China. We have debated on the Senate floor the value of trade agreements, most recently with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama, because we believe in the sale the opportunity for American producers to sell their products around the globe. Yet we saw at least some at USDA who have the view that we need to be discouraging the consumption of meat for environmental and health reasons.

Particularly troublesome is the fact that the Department of Agriculture was citing the United Nations as a reason that we ought to discourage the consumption of beef for environmental reasons. Our Department of Agriculture positions ought to be based upon sound science, not some U.N. study.

Beef is an important and vital component of the Kansas economy. We are the second largest beef-producing State in the country. The economic impact to our country is around $44 billion. Beef exports in 2011 were over $4.08 billion. This matters to us greatly.

This is happening at a time in which to the cattle producers in Kansas and across the midwest, including in the state of the President today, the drought is so damaging. It’s also happening at a time in which we have been having the debate about the farm bill. My farmers in Kansas will often say: I know we need to do something about reducing spending. We have got to get the deficit under control.

In fact, the farm bill we passed in the Senate is a reduction in the farm bill spending of $23 billion. No one likes to see something that is important to them go away, but as a result if this farm bill becomes legislation and direct payments leave, the safety net for producers across our country will be less. Yet farmers and ranchers say: We have a responsibility as American citizens to give these things up, to reduce the spending that comes our way, but please don't do anything that is damaging to us as far as our ability to earn a living in the free market, in the real world.

So when we see things like this from the Department of Agriculture discouraging the use of meat products-and, again, at a time in which the temperatures across my State have been over 100 degrees for more than a month.  118 degrees record high, in perhaps the globe and certainly in the United States. In Norton, KS, it was 118 degrees. Rain is so scarce, we spend a lot of time in our State down on our knees praying for moisture and we spend a lot of time looking up to the skies hoping for moisture. We need to make sure that what we do in this Congress and what the Obama administration does is not something that diminishes the chances for the survival of family farms in the United States, certainly at home in Kansas and around rural America.

If this was just an isolated instance, perhaps the point has been made and the words have been withdrawn, but I remember we started a year ago with a Department of Labor that concluded we need to regulate the use of 14- and 15-year-olds on family farms, a real misunderstanding of how production agriculture and family farms work. Agriculture is a family operation, and yet we had the Department of Labor suggesting that someone 15 years old perhaps should not be able to work on their own family's farm. I remember just a half a year-6 months or so ago, I was on the Senate floor worried about a Department of Agriculture forum on animal safety that was being organized by the Humane Society. Again, my farmers and ranchers would say-particularly in a time of drought and a time in which the safety net provided by the farm bill was going to become less-please don't do anything that is harmful to us, that reduces the chance for us to succeed.

In this regulatory environment that we find ourselves, we need to take the steps that promote agriculture, not those things that diminish the opportunity for a farmer or rancher to earn a living in the free market. Yesterday we had a debate about estate taxes and the consequences to family agriculture across the country, and again, at a time in which the drought is so prevalent, circumstances so difficult, the Tax Code matters greatly and the ability to pass a family farm from one generation to the next is a critical thing. It is so much about agriculture in States like mine that when our farmers and ranchers don't succeed, the opportunity for the communities in which they live and raise their kids greatly diminishes. This is a way of life for us, and we need to make certain we have a Department of Agriculture that is promoting our farmers and ranchers and their success.

I was on the Senate floor yesterday with the Senator from Wyoming. We had a conversation about the drought, the estate taxes, and the farm bill. I’d be interested knowing, if I could yield to the Senator from Wyoming if he has any further thoughts. I know he is a leader in the Western Caucus members of the Senate, and we are in the process of writing Secretary Vilsack in regard to the promotion of Meatless Monday.   I guess I would also add before I yield to the Senator from Wyoming there are those who have a different view about what their menus should be and what they want to see on the menu and that is fine with me. That is a personal decision. But the Department of Agriculture ought to be supportive of the people that produce the food, fiber, and energy for our country each and every day. They get up at sunrise and go to bed after sunset because they are out there trying to make a living on family farms across the country.

Madam President, just to conclude my remarks, I would indicate that my family and I will be eating more beef, not less. I would urge Americans to respond in that way. It is an opportunity for us to support the cattlemen and the livestock producers of our country at a time when they are selling their herds because the drought is so severe that there is no grass and no feed to feed the cattle. And so the market is depressed and prices are lower because there are so many sales occurring. We can help our livestock producers, our farm and ranch families of Kansas and in the country, by having a hamburger or steak. Let's go back to that traditional American meal of “let's eat beef.” The front of my truck at home says “Eat Beef,” and I would encourage Kansans and Americans to do so at this point in time when our livestock producers, because of drought, are struggling so greatly.
Today, U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) spoke on the Senate Floor about his request that U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack clarify why the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is demonizing the consumption of meat at a time when our nation’s food and livestock producers are struggling under the worst drought since 1956. On July 23, 2012, USDA sent out a “Greening Headquarters Update” newsletter to employees in which the USDA’s Office of Operations encourages employees to participate in “Meatless Mondays” while dining in USDA’s cafeterias. The update went on to attack the production of meat in the United States, saying the production of beef has “a large environmental impact,” and called on USDA employees to “help yourself and the environment” by not eating meat.
Today, U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) asked U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to clarify why the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is demonizing the consumption of meat at a time when our nation's food and livestock producers are struggling under the worst drought since 1956. On July 23, 2012, USDA sent out a "Greening Headquarters Update" newsletter to employees, in which the USDA's Office of Operations encourages employees to participate in "Meatless Mondays" while dining in USDA’s cafeterias. The update went on to attack the production of meat in the United States, saying the production of beef has “a large environmental impact,” and called on USDA employees to “help yourself and the environment” by not eating meat.

WASHINGTON D.C. - U.S. Senators Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Jerry Moran (R-KS) today announced the formation of the bipartisan Senate Water Caucus to help build momentum in addressing our nation’s water challenges.

Moran and Pryor said the bipartisan caucus will promote a dialogue in the Senate on challenges and solutions that affect America’s water supply.  The caucus will work with experts in the private and public sector to identify issues affecting water quantity and quality, as well as develop long-term strategies to ensure a sustainable water supply. As part of these efforts, the Senate Water Caucus will explore emerging technologies; financing options; best management practices; conservation opportunities; and greater coordination of water infrastructure projects among local, state and federal governments.

“Water is the lifeblood of our municipalities and access to an adequate water supply is critical to our country’s future success,” Moran said. “Our desire to address this issue is underscored by the ongoing drought our country is facing – the worst since 1956. The Senate Water Caucus will work with stakeholders to identify solutions to current and future challenges affecting our water supply.”

 “Water shortages remain a challenge in our smallest towns and our largest cities. Left on the backburner, this problem will only escalate and disrupt economic growth in our country,” Pryor said. “The Senate Water Caucus will delve into the challenges and solutions, and advance policy changes that will lead to a more sustainable water supply.”

Moran and Pryor said the United States needs a better understanding of current water policy to better navigate and reform the patchwork of programs and laws related to its water needs.  Americans consume an estimated 410 billion gallons of water a day for residential, commercial, agriculture, manufacturing and other uses.  This demand for water will continue to increase, with 36 states facing water shortages by next year. The Senate Water Caucus will engage local, state, tribal, and federal experts on water availability and craft policies necessary to ensure that future generations have access to clean water.

###

Sens. Moran and Hatch Question Treasury's Use of Taxpayer Dollars in Social Media Campaigns

In Letter to Treasury Secretary, Senators Write, "Your political rhetoric aside, Treasury's social media links to instances in which you advocate that Congress act on legislative proposals seem contrary to appropriations language."

Jul 23 2012

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Ranking Member of the Senate Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, questioned the U.S. Dept. of the Treasury’s legal authority to use taxpayer dollars to fund social media campaigns designed to defeat legislation pending before the U.S. Congress.

This month, Treasury posted, across several social media outlets, material targeting appropriations bills pending before Congress - H.R. 5973 & H.R. 6020 - and advocating that more funds be appropriated to other federal agencies.  In a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner today, the lawmakers argued such action is contrary to appropriations language, and runs counter to laws and statutes that forbid agencies from spending appropriated funds to lobby for or against legislation.

"Throughout many of your social media postings, there are links to presentations designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the Congress,” the Senators wrote. “Your political rhetoric aside, Treasury’s social media links to instances in which you advocate that Congress act on legislative proposals seem contrary to appropriations language."

Below is the full text of the letter:

July 24, 2012

The Honorable Timothy Geithner

Secretary, Department of the Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20220

 

Dear Secretary Geithner:

As the Ranking Members of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Senate Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, we share responsibility for oversight of Treasury activities, for authorization of those activities, and for the funding of your Department’s operation.  Over the past few years, Treasury activities in the so-called “social media” (e.g., Treasury’s: “Treasury Notes” blog; “Twitter” account; “Facebook” page; “YouTube” postings; “Flickr” entries; “slideshare” entries) have been expanded significantly and at some cost to the taxpayers.

In recent postings to the Treasury Notes blog, Treasury’s Twitter account,” Treasury’s Facebook page, and to slideshare, the Treasury department broadcast, under Treasury’s logo, the attached “infographic” which identifies appropriations legislation pending before the Congress as “Pound Foolish.”  Elsewhere throughout many of your social media postings, there are links to presentations designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the Congress.  For example, there are links in your social media postings to a 2011 interview on BloombergTV with you, during which you advocated that Congress adopt what the President labeled his “American Jobs Act” and you stated that “if Congress doesn’t act, it’ll be because Republicans decided they did not want to do anything to help the economy."

Your political rhetoric aside, Treasury’s social media links to instances in which you advocate that Congress act on legislative proposals seem contrary to appropriations language (e.g., Sections 716 and 719 of P.L. 112-74).  The infographic referred to above appears clearly to be designed to defeat legislation pending before the Congress.  At a minimum, such activity runs counter to P.L. 112-74 and a statute (P.L. 66-5; 41 Stat. 68; 18 U.S.C. 1913) forbidding agencies from spending appropriated funds to encourage the public to contact Members of Congress.

With respect to the attached infographic, while you continue to promote the so-called “Dodd-Frank” financial reforms, your interest in such promotion does not constitute a rationale for spending funds appropriated to Treasury in an attempt to defeat appropriations legislation pending before Congress.  Moreover, it is unclear why the Treasury Department is spending taxpayer funds advocating that more funds be appropriated to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).  Those agencies stand apart from Treasury.

I request that you respond to the following, by close of business on July 30:

 

  1. 1.      Identify any and all “social media” outlets used by Treasury.
  2. 2.      Identify your understanding of the laws, regulations, guidelines, and precedent governing what you may or may not broadcast on your social media outlets.
  3. 3.      Provide all internal (to the Treasury Department) policies and procedures governing what you may or may not broadcast on your social media outlets, including the date(s) on which those policies and procedures were adopted and modified.
  4. 4.      Provide an accounting of the Treasury personnel, in terms of full-time equivalents and outlays for their work time, devoted to feeding, monitoring, updating, and maintaining your social media outlet presence.
  5. 5.      Provide an accounting of any public relations or public affairs firms with which Treasury contracts for services related to your social media outlets, and associated outlays.
  6. 6.      Provide Treasury’s policies on social media “linking,” including the date(s) on which those policies were adopted and modified.
  7. 7.      Provide Treasury’s policies on “retweeting” posts, such as the “retweets” of “tweets” of the White House, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or other independent agencies.
  8. 8.      Identify what your objective was in broadcasting, across many social media outlets, the attached infographic, and why your Department is lobbying on behalf of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission with respect to appropriations.
  9. 9.      Provide any communications that your Department had with the SEC and CFTC with respect to the attached infographic.
  10. 10.  Identify what you believe are limits on what your social media outlets may broadcast to express your Department’s interest in supporting or defeating legislation pending before the Congress. 

 

We will appreciate your prompt response to these requests.

Sincerely,

HATCH MORAN

 

# # #