Senators Highlight Need for Quality Health Care in Rural America
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Roger Wicker, R-Miss., Jon Tester, D-Mont., Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., were joined by 37 Senators in sending a letter today to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tom Price regarding health care in rural America.
The letter emphasizes the importance of rural health-care providers and their critical role in rural communities. The letter reads, in part, “As you take on this new leadership role at HHS, we request that you work with us to ensure that the federal government does not act as an impediment to providing health care in rural communities. Overreaching and onerous regulations from Washington disproportionately harm rural America. We believe that together we can enact and implement effective policies that help providers innovate in care delivery and enable them to make efficient use of available resources.”
“Nearly 90 percent of our nation is rural, including many parts of Mississippi,” Wicker said. “Technology and innovation have allowed for better access to health care, but there are still vulnerable areas where quality, affordable care is lacking. I look forward to working with Secretary Price and the new Administration to ensure that rural America has a seat at the table as we move forward with improving the nation’s health-care system.”
“I’ve been traveling across Montana to hear from folks about the challenges facing health care in rural America,” said Tester. “One thing is abundantly clear: families want certainty about their future, and they want Congress and the new administration to make responsible decisions to ensure access to quality, affordable health care—especially in rural states like Montana.”
“Residents of rural Iowa and the doctors and nurses who serve them deserve fair treatment as health care policy is made,” Grassley said. “Rural hospitals and doctors have different challenges than those in urban areas. Small, rural hospitals are a lifeline in many small towns in Iowa. Health care policy ought to recognize rural needs just as it recognizes urban needs.”
“Every North Dakotan – no matter how rural or remote their hometown – deserves access to quality health services,” said Heitkamp. “Now that Mr. Price is secretary, I’m committed to working with him to make sure he fully understands the health care needs and challenges in rural communities and that he makes them a priority. Every day I come to the U.S. Senate fighting for rural America, and that includes making sure rural communities get access to care.”
More than 80 rural hospitals have closed in recent years. Some estimates show another 700 rural hospitals are at risk of closure.
In addition to Wicker, Tester, Grassley, and Heitkamp, the letter was signed by Sens. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc.; John Barrasso, R-Wyo.; Roy Blunt, R-Mo.; John Boozman, R-Ark.; Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio; Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.; Bob Casey, D-Penn.; Thad Cochran, R-Miss.; Susan Collins, R-Maine; Mike Crapo, R-Idaho; Steve Daines, R-Mont.; Joe Donnelly, D-Ind.; Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.; Joni Ernst, R-Iowa; Deb Fischer, R-Neb.; Al Franken, D-Minn.; Cory Gardner, R-Colo.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Dean Heller, R-Nev.; John Hoeven, R-N.D.; Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.; Ron Johnson, R-Wisc.; Angus King, I-Maine; Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; James Lankford, R-Okla.; Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.; John McCain, R-Ariz.; Jerry Moran, R-Kan.; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; David Perdue, R-Ga.; James Risch, R-Idaho; Pat Roberts, R-Kan.; Mike Rounds, R-S.D.; Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.; John Thune, R-S.D.; and Tom Udall, D-N.M.
The letter reads in full:
Dear Secretary Price,
As senators representing rural states, we look forward to working with you this Congress to ensure access to quality care and to protect the viability of facilities in rural America. Almost ninety percent of our nation is geographically rural, with 20 percent of the population living outside urban areas, often miles away from a health care practitioner.
We appreciate your focus on rural America and look forward to working with you and President Trump to strengthen access to health care services in vulnerable rural communities across the country. Health care is constantly evolving in our country, and rural providers, patients, and facilities need reliable partners at all levels in order to be successful.
Rural hospitals play a critical role in communities across this country. In addition to providing health care services to surrounding communities, hospitals are often one of the main employers. It is critical we work together as Republicans and Democrats to ensure these hospitals are able to continue to provide care.
We recognize that providers need to adapt to changes in the delivery of health care. We are encouraged by innovations we have seen in our states as providers test new care models and technologies like telehealth and remote patient monitoring. We know you will find bipartisan interest in supporting these types of innovations, and we look forward to working with you to improve our health-care system. We recognize the importance of tackling this issue in a fiscally responsible way but believe investments in rural America yield substantial returns on investment.
As you take on this new leadership role at HHS, we request that you work with us to ensure that the federal government does not act as an impediment to providing health care in rural communities. Overreaching and onerous regulations from Washington disproportionately harm rural America. We believe that together we can enact and implement effective policies that help providers innovate in care delivery and enable them to make efficient use of available resources.
We hope you remain dedicated to ensuring all Americans—no matter where they live—have access to quality, affordable care. We look forward to continuing to work with you as we move forward to improve health care in rural America.
# # #
Senate Approves Grassley Resolution Protecting Second Amendment Rights for Disabled Americans; Resolution would block Social Security reg to unlawfully add names to gun ban list
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Senate today approved a measure to roll back a misguided Obama-era regulation that would jeopardize the Second Amendment rights of Social Security beneficiaries. The bipartisan resolution of disapproval, authored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, passed in the Senate by a vote of 57-43. The resolution of disapproval has 32 bipartisan Senate cosponsors and is supported by more than 20 disability and civil rights organizations.
“Our constitutional rights are among our most sacred rights. Whenever the federal government tries to regulate those rights, it had better have a darn good reason – one backed up by law and narrowly focused to prevent needless infringement. Social Security’s regulation plainly misses the mark. Under the regulation, the agency is not required to adequately prove that individuals meet the established legal definition of ‘mental defective’ or even provide due process before revoking their Second Amendment rights.
“Social Security’s flawed regulation risks erroneously adding tens of thousands of names to the federal gun ban list each year. It also unfairly stigmatizes people with disabilities, by implying that people with certain disorders are dangerous, without any actual evidence for such a claim. It’s no wonder that this regulation is opposed by more than 20 disability and civil rights groups from across the political spectrum. Today’s vote brings us one step closer to reversing this misguided regulation and reaffirming our commitment to guarding the constitutional rights of all Americans,” Grassley said.
The regulation requires that the Social Security Administration submit names of beneficiaries to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System’s (NICS) “mental defective” list if they require assistance managing their disability benefits and have certain disorders. However, the regulation is overly broad and fails to require the agency to adequately prove that individuals fall within the established definition of “mental defective” before submitting their names to the NICS. In particular, the regulation does not require the agency to determine individuals to be dangerous or mentally ill before reporting them to the gun ban list. In addition, the regulation also deprives individuals of a hearing prior to revoking their Second Amendment rights and shifts a higher burden of proof onto the individuals to demonstrate that they are not dangerous.
More than 20 disability and civil rights groups are in support of the resolution of disapproval. Supporters include:
· American Association of People with Disabilities
· Autistic Self Advocacy Network
· Bazelon Center for Mental Health
· Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities
· National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy
· National Coalition for Mental Health Recovery
· National Council on Disability
· National Council on Independent Living
· National Disability Rights Network
· New York Association of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services
· ADAPT
· Association of Mature American Citizens
· American Civil Liberties Union
· National Disability Leadership Alliance
· National Association for Gun Rights
Related:
Resolution Summary | Resolution Text
· Floor Speech: Disability & Civil Rights Groups Support Repealing Social Security Rule
· Floor Speech: Social Security's Gun Ban Regulation is Flawed Beyond Repair
· Floor Speech: Social Security Regulation Limiting Second Amendment Rights is Patently Unfair
-30-
Prepared Senate Floor Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Repealing the Social Security Administration’s Improper Rule to Report Beneficiaries to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
February 15, 2017
Mr. President,
Before we vote on the resolution of disapproval this morning, I want to reiterate several important facts.
This resolution of disapproval is bipartisan. The resolution is also supported by 23 groups, mostly disability rights groups.
The disability groups believe that this agency regulation will unfairly stigmatize those with disabilities. And they are right. The American Civil Liberties Union has said:
“We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent and should not own a gun. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence.”
The ACLU has also said:
“Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.”
The agency regulation is defective in many ways. Namely, the regulation does not require the agency to prove a person is dangerous or mentally ill. The regulation also provides NO formal hearing or due process before a person is reported to the gun ban list.
Supporters of the gun ban have said that repeal of this regulation will interfere with enforcement of gun prohibition laws—but that is hogwash. We should not let baseless scare tactics confuse this important issue.
Important federal gun laws are still on the books even if the agency rule is repealed. We aren’t repealing any laws.
The new regulation is inconsistent with existing federal gun laws.
The agency still has a duty to report anyone who has actually been adjudicated as dangerously mentally ill to the gun ban list. That is also true of anyone convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
Federal law requires:
“If a Federal department or agency…has any record of any person demonstrating that the person falls within one of the categories described in subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, the head of such department or agency shall, not less frequently than quarterly, provide the pertinent information contained in such record to the Attorney General.”
Repealing this regulation will ensure that disabled citizen's Second Amendment rights are protected. Those rights will no longer be able to be revoked without a hearing and without due process. It will take more than the personal opinion of a bureaucrat.
An existing statute requires agencies to report individuals to the gun ban list who are ineligible to possess firearms. That requirement remains intact even if this regulation is repealed. So it is plainly wrong to claim, as has been said, that if the regulation is disapproved, agencies will no longer have to report prohibited persons.
If the supporters of this regulation want to take away people’s gun rights, then they need to acknowledge the government must carry the burden to actually prove the person is dangerously mentally ill. And the government must provide due process before doing so.
They need to go back to the drawing board.
This rule is inconsistent with the Constitution. Therefore, it must be repealed, and this resolution must be approved.
I yield the floor.
-30-
Grassley expresses need to preserve export markets for U.S. agriculture
Sen. Chuck Grassley, a senior member and former chairman of the Finance Committee and a member of the Agriculture Committee, today met with Peter Navarro, a top trade advisor for President Trump, and several fellow committee members, to discuss the Administration’s priorities on trade. The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over trade. Grassley made the following comment on the meeting.
“I pointed out that U.S. agriculture is often the first target when countries retaliate against the United States on trade. Just today, there were headlines about plans for a bill in Mexico directing Mexico to stop buying American corn in favor of corn from Brazil and Argentina. This is reported to be in response to Administration policies. All of us looking at new trade deals or renegotiating prior trade deals need to have our eyes open and consider that U.S. agriculture is generally a major exporter. Anything that restricts export markets for U.S. farm products very likely means lost income for Iowa farmers and ag workers. It’s also important to remember that it’s not just multilateral agreements like the Transpacific Partnership Agreement that need congressional approval. Bilateral agreements have to go through Congress, too. If the President can negotiate better deals for the United States, I’m all for it, but I don’t want to see anything that hurts major sectors of the economy, like agriculture.”
Barrasso, Grassley Fight Activist Lawsuits
Introduce legislation to force transparency on organizations using taxpayer money to fund political agendas
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced the Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act. The legislation prevents abuse of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) by groups and others who frequently challenge the federal government in court.
The Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act will increase transparency by creating a public database where fees paid under EAJA are clearly listed and available to the public. Under the bill, veterans, social security claimants, individuals and small businesses will still have full access to EAJA funds.
“I’ve been a strong supporter of the Equal Access to Justice Act since day-one. Hard-working Americans and small businesses shouldn’t be discouraged from challenging executive overreach in court just because they’re at a financial disadvantage,” Grassley said. “I’m proud of the good that the law has accomplished over the years. But to make sure it’s continuing to be used appropriately—and not abused to advance political agendas—Congress and the public should know where taxpayer dollars are going. As I’ve said many times before, transparency yields accountability. The Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act will let the sunshine in and give us the tools necessary to ensure the integrity of the law.”
“For far too long, special interest groups have funded their anti-multiple use agenda with Americans’ hard earned taxpayer dollars,” said Barrasso. “It’s absolutely absurd that Washington pays outside groups to repeatedly sue our government. It’s time to return EAJA back to its original intent of helping our nation’s veterans, seniors and small businesses. Our bill will restore accountability and transparency.”
The Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act is co-sponsored by Senators Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Jim Risch (R-Idaho). The companion bill was led in the House of Representatives by Representative Doug Collins (Ga.-09).
Background:
EAJA was passed in 1980 to help individuals, small businesses and nonprofit organizations with limited access to financial resources defend themselves against harmful government actions. EAJA allows for the reimbursement of attorney’s fees and costs associated with suing the federal government. When operating correctly, EAJA allows plaintiffs who sue the federal government to recover part of their attorney’s fees and costs if they “prevail” in the case.
Congress and the agencies halted tracking and reporting of payments made through EAJA in 1995.
According to research by a Wyoming law firm, 14 environmental groups have brought more than 1,200 such federal cases in 19 states and the District of Columbia, and have collected more than $37 million in taxpayer dollars through EAJA or other similar laws.
Those numbers do not include settlements and fees sealed from public view. An independent study from Virginia Tech University discovered similar findings as a result of a comprehensive Freedom of Information Act request to five federal agencies. The Virginia Tech study also revealed that two of these agencies could provide absolutely no data on EAJA payments.
-30-
Prepared Senate Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Judge Gorsuch Meeting Every New Benchmark
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Mr. President, I rise today to discuss some criticism I’ve heard about the nominee to fill the seat on the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch. My colleague the Minority Leader last week met with the nominee. Afterwards, he told reporters he had “serious, serious concerns” about Judge Gorsuch.
Well, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. After all, it seems the Minority Leader had concerns about the nominee even before he was announced.
Before Judge Gorsuch was announced, the Minority Leader made clear that any nominee must be “mainstream.” But, it became clear immediately that Judge Gorsuch is widely regarded as a mainstream judge with impeccable credentials. Liberal law professor Laurence Tribe says that “he’s a brilliant, terrific guy who would do the court’s work with distinction.” Alan Dershowitz, who’s certainly no conservative, says Judge Gorsuch will be “hard to oppose on the merits.”
Even President Obama’s Acting Solicitor General, Neal Katyal, said Judge Gorsuch “would help to restore confidence in the rule of law.” The chorus goes on.
Well apparently because the nominee is so obviously mainstream, the benchmark for my colleague’s concerns keeps changing. The Minority Leader has conveniently developed a new test. Now he says that the benchmark is independence: “The bar for a Supreme Court nominee to prove they can be independent, has never, never been higher.”
Well fortunately for the Minority, Judge Gorsuch passes that bar with flying colors, just like the “mainstream” test.
Judge Gorsuch’s record makes clear that he’s an independent and fair-minded judge who’s deeply committed to the separation of powers. Here’s just one example from his many opinions on this point.
Just last year, Judge Gorsuch had to decide a case about the authority of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which answers to the Attorney General. The BIA wanted to change the Attorney General’s power to waive immigration requirements for illegal immigrants. And it wanted the new rules to apply to undocumented immigrants whose waiver applications were already in the works.
Judge Gorsuch said No to this executive agency. To be clear, Judge Gorsuch was asked to decide whether an executive agency in charge of the immigration laws could change the law on a whim in a way that many believed was unfair to immigrants who’d already sought waivers. He said No.
With due respect to my friend the Minority Leader, there’s no doubt that Judge Gorsuch would say No to this or any other part of the executive branch that oversteps its bounds.
Here’s what Judge Gorsuch wrote about the separation of powers and executive overreach. For him to defer to the executive agency in that case would be “more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design.” That’s because doing so would allow agency bureaucracy to “swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power,” which the Constitution assigns to separate branches of government.
So Judge Gorsuch was concerned about the separation of powers. He was concerned about people whose liberties might be impaired. And because of those concerns, he said No to the immigration agency’s policy whim of the day.
Judge Michael McConnell, a former colleague of Judge Gorsuch’s on the Tenth Circuit, makes the same observation about this case. He says the scope of executive power arguably “will be the most prominent Supreme Court issue of the coming decade.” He says Judge Gorsuch analyzes that issue in a way that’s faithful to the Constitution and to the independence of the judiciary. And he points to Judge Gorsuch’s thinking on this question.
Judge Gorsuch wrote:
“What would happen . . . if the political majorities who run the legislative and executive branches could decide cases and controversies over past facts? They might be tempted to bend existing laws, to reinterpret them . . . [this would] risk the possibility that unpopular groups might be singled out for this sort of mistreatment—and [would] rais[e] along the way, too, grave due process, fair notice, and equal protection problems. . . . It was to avoid dangers like these, dangers the founders had studied and seen realized in their own time, that they pursued the separation of powers.”
That’s the writing of an independent judge who believes in the separation of powers.
You know, there’s a bit of irony to some of the criticism I’ve heard leveled against Judge Gorsuch. On the one hand, I’ve heard we have to make sure that he’ll be independent and that he won’t rubber-stamp the President’s agenda. On the other hand, I’ve heard he’ll be way too tough on the executive branch as it fulfills the President’s agenda. Well, you can’t have it both ways.
Judge Gorsuch has shown he is faithful to the separation of powers in our Constitution. That means he will be an independent judge who will say No when the other branches of government overreach.
And you don’t need to take my word for it. Listen to President Obama’s Acting Solicitor General, Neal Katyal. He’s no fan of the President’s Executive Order. But he says that Judge Gorsuch “will not compromise principle to favor the president who appointed him.” Instead, Katyal said Judge Gorsuch “would help to restore confidence in the rule of law.”
Judge Gorsuch’s record and reputation leave no room to doubt that he’s a mainstream, independent judge. He’ll apply the law fairly. And he won’t be afraid to say No when the Constitution requires it.
Every time my colleague the Minority Leader has set out a standard for filling this Supreme Court seat, Judge Gorsuch has met it. He’s mainstream. And he’s independent. When my colleague chooses the next new standard, I bet he’ll meet it too.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
-30-
