Senate Passes Durbin, Cruz Bill To Rename Cuban Embassy Street After Murdered Dissident Oswaldo Payá

Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin

06.14.23

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) praised the Senate’s unanimous passage of bipartisan legislation they authored to rename the street outside of the Cuban embassy in Washington, D.C. as “Oswaldo Payá Way” after the Cuban dissident leader who was murdered by the Cuban dictatorship.  Earlier this week, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights released its findings in the suspicious death of Payá that confirmed the Cuban government’s culpability. 

In addition to Durbin and Cruz, Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Rick Scott (R-FL), and Ben Cardin (D-MD) cosponsored the bill.

“With the recent findings from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, we finally have a clear verdict on what was suspected all along. After years of petty and cowardly harassment of Cuban patriot and democracy activist Oswaldo Payá, responsibility for his tragic death and that of his colleague, Harold Cepero, rests with the Cuban dictatorship,”said Durbin.  “Through passage of our bipartisan legislation to rename the street outside the Cuban Embassy in Washington, D.C. ‘Oswaldo Payá Way,’ we are honoring Payá’s legacy and all the other Cubans who continue to aspire for a more open and democratic Cuba.” 

Cruz said, “Oswaldo Payá is a hero for oppressed Cubans, Cuban Americans, and defenders of freedom everywhere.  The Cuban government murdered him to try to silence him and his advocacy, and it is critical to ensure that they fail. Renaming the street in front of the Cuban embassy after him not only pays tribute to his heroism but will prevent the communist Cuban regime from being able to erase and ignore his legacy. I am proud to lead this bipartisan effort, and proud of my colleagues for unanimously passing this bill.”

Oswaldo Payá’s daughter, Rosa María Payá, said, “This momentous decision by the U.S. Senate is a remarkable tribute to my father’s fearless fight for democracy and human rights in Cuba.  It is powerful stand against oppression and impunity, right after the release of the ICHR’s decision holding the Cuban regime accountable for his murder.  This victory brings his legacy to the forefront, serving as a reminder of our ongoing struggle for a free and democratic Cuba.”

In March 2023, Durbin and this bipartisan group of Senators urged the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to advance its efforts on this case without further delay.  In 2014, Durbin sent a letter to previous Commission Executive Secretary Emilio Icaza originally urging the Commission investigate Payá’s suspicious death.  Subsequent letters urging continued attention were sent in 2016 and 2021. 

In the late 1990s, Payá started the Varela Project that sought greater political freedom in Cuba through a peaceful petition drive and referendum process as allowed for in the Cuban constitution.  Not only did the Cuban government reject the historic effort and brazenly change the constitutional provision allowing such public avenue for change, but also began a decade of shameful harassment of Payá and his movement.   

In July 2012, this persecution culminated in his car being rammed from behind by a tailing government vehicle, resulting in the death of Payá and fellow passenger and youth activist Harold Cepero.  The Cuban government has yet to provide a credible explanation, accounting, or justice for this tragic incident.  

Durbin has long sought justice for the death of Payá.  In 2012, he joined with Senators Menendez, Rubio, and then-Senators Bill Nelson (D-FL), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Richard Lugar (R-IN), and John Kerry (D-MA) in passing a resolution honoring the work of Payá and calling “on the Government of Cuba to allow an impartial, third-party investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Oswaldo Payá Sardiña.”

-30-



Durbin Questions Witness During Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing On Artificial Intelligence And Human Rights

Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin

06.13.23

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today questioned witnesses at the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law hearing entitled, “Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights.”  After highlighting the Judiciary Committee’s work unanimously reporting five bills designed to stop the exploitation of kids online, Durbin questioned Alexandra Reeve Givens, CEO of the Center for Democracy & Technology, about his Strengthening Transparency and Obligation to Protect Children Suffering from Abuse and Mistreatment Act of 2023 (STOP CSAM Act), legislation to crack down on the proliferation of child sex abuse material online.  The Center for Democracy & Technology has publicly opposed the bill.

“I heard echoes of your argument against the STOP CSAM Act in a recent interview you gave… In discussing potential liability of a platform when a generative AI tool causes harm, you noted that generative AI tools, ‘do involve users engaging in expressive conduct’… It seems as though a company that releases a tool that can clone a person’s voice should be able to predict some of the ways the tool would be misused.  And, if they don’t put sufficient safety measures in place they should be legally accountable…  I’m worried about your phrase ‘expressive conduct’ and your opposition to our bill.  Would you like to explain?” Durbin asked.

Reeve Givens responded that her organization focuses on human rights and the impact of technology.  She went on to state that when the organization answers questions about legislation, they take into account if the bill leads to “platforms who have a profit motive and who act when they’re scared of liability.” She continued to say, “we worry about the downstream effects of the ‘heavy thumb’ of regulation… We believe in every force of market pressure, encouraging [companies] to take those responsibilities deeply seriously.” 

Durbin continued, “You talk about the heavy thumb of government.  What we have now is not a heavy thumb… We stand by the sidelines and watch this poor victim and argue that we are somehow suppressing the market.  Perhaps we’re asking for accountability in the market… I just have to disagree with your premise that the market is more important than the individuals who are the victims of it.  I think asking people to be held accountable for what they have produced and what their actions result in, is as basic as justice in America.   And to say Section 230 or something like it should continue and [not] stop this child sex abuse material online exploitation, I think it goes way too far.” 

Reeve Givens responded that she is worried about protecting other users who are posting “lawful content.”

Durbin concluded, “There’s got to be a line we draw that protects the marketplace but still doesn’t exploit innocent people.”

Video of Durbin’s questions in Committee are available here.

Audio of Durbin’s questions in Committee are available here.

Footage of Durbin’s questions in Committee are available here for TV Stations.

-30-



Durbin Delivers Remarks Honoring Former Congresswoman Liz Cheney As She Receives Paul H. Douglas Award For Ethics In Government

Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin

06.13.23

Today, Durbin spoke at the award ceremony, where he acknowledged Congresswoman Cheney’s courage in her efforts to hold former President Trump accountable for his actions on January 6, 2021

WASHINGTON  U.S. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) today delivered remarks at the University of Illinois award ceremony for the Paul H. Douglas Award for Ethics in Government and introduced this year’s honoree, former U.S. Representative Liz Cheney.  In his remarks, Durbin praised Congresswoman Cheney’s efforts to hold former President Donald Trump accountable for the incitement of the Capitol insurrection on January 6, 2021, despite pushback from the Republican Party.  

Durbin began his speech by recounting Congresswoman Cheney’s upbringing in the Republican Party, and how she stood up to party leadership when faced with the decision to defend the actions of President Trump for the sake of party unity or stand for integrity and accountability in government.

“Congressman Liz Cheney is not just any Republican.  She is the scion of a Republican dynasty… She was elected to the House by the people of Wyoming, the state that gave Donald Trump 70 percent of its votes in 2020, the largest margin of any state… As chair of the House Republican Conference, she was the highest-ranking elected woman in the history of the Republican Party,” Durbin said.  “With our democracy in grave peril, Liz Cheney made a decision that seemed to some to defy her upbringing.  She stood up to her party.  At great personal and political risk, she told the truth.  And she insisted on accountability.  Even when threatened with the loss of her leadership post and her seat in Congress, she refused to defend the man who had summoned the mob, or parrot his lie that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen.”

Durbin continued, “She was one of only 10 Republican House members who voted to impeach Donald Trump for his role in inciting the insurrection.  She defied her party’s leadership by supporting the establishment of an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the January 6th attack on the Capitol.”

Durbin concluded his remarks by noting that Congresswoman Cheney’s legacy will be her bravery and commitment to democracy even when it was not politically expedient.

“History will recall Liz Cheney for her singular role as vice chair of the January 6th Commission and for her fearless and unequivocal resolve to tell the truth, no matter what it cost her,” Durbin said.  “For that alone, Congresswoman Cheney deserves our nation’s thanks.  And I commend the University of Illinois and the Institute of Government and Public Affairs for acknowledging her patriotism and courage, and awarding her the 2023 Senator Paul Douglas Ethics in Government Award.”

Named for the former Illinois Senator, the Paul H. Douglas Award for Ethics in Government is presented to a person whose public actions and contributions have demonstrated a deep understanding and respect for ethical behavior and standards in government.  Past recipients include former President Barack Obama, the late Senator Paul Simon, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and the late Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Photos from the event are available here.

Durbin’s full remarks as prepared for delivery appear below:

Remarks by Senator Richard J. Durbin

Senator Paul H. Douglas Ethics in Government Award

I want to thank our hosts: University of Illinois President Tim Killeen; Vice President Jones and the talented staff at the Institute of Government and Public Affairs. 

I also want to acknowledge my dear friends Jean and Ned Bandler and members of the Douglas family.  Jean is Senator Douglas’s daughter.  Former members of Mr. D’s staff.  There are still a few of us lucky folks around and family and friends of Congresswoman Cheney. 

After our long COVID hiatus, the Paul H. Douglas Award for Ethics in Government is back! 

And I am delighted.

Paul Douglas taught me that true patriotism is not the loud braying of a mob.  Often, it is the quiet resolve to stand up to the mob.

And he showed me that preserving democracy can sometimes demand great personal sacrifice.  It certainly did of him.  Paul Douglas lost the use of his left arm fighting in some of the fiercest battles of World War II.

I think it’s a safe bet that joining the Marines at the age of 50 and insisting on being sent into combat was not a choice many would have predicted from an economics professor-turned politician who had been raised as a Quaker.  But that was Paul Douglas’s choice.

Today, we honor a woman whose brave choices to defend our democracy may strike some as equally unlikely.

 Congressman Liz Cheney is not just any Republican.  She is the scion of a Republican dynasty.  The daughter of a former Congressman … Defense Secretary … and Vice President of the United States. 

She was elected to the House by the people of Wyoming, the state that gave Donald Trump 70 percent of its votes in 2020, the largest margin of any state.  A state so conservative that political choices there are sometimes described as “red” and “redder.”

As chair of the House Republican Conference, she was the highest-ranking elected woman in the history of the Republican Party.  There were whisperings that she might one day become the first Republican woman President of the United States.

Then came January 6th and the violent attempted coup against American democracy.  The first and only time in our nation’s history that a President used political violence to try to overturn an election and prevent the peaceful transfer of power. 

With our democracy in grave peril, Liz Cheney made a decision that seemed to some to defy her upbringing.  She stood up to her party.  At great personal and political risk, she told the truth.  And she insisted on accountability.

Even when threatened with the loss of her leadership post and her seat in Congress, she refused to defend the man who had summoned the mob, or parrot his lie that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen. 

She was one of only 10 Republican House members who voted to impeach Donald Trump for his role in inciting the insurrection. 

She defied her party’s leadership by supporting the establishment of an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the January 6th attack on the Capitol.

When Senate Republicans twice filibustered the creation of that independent commission, Liz Cheney and one other courageous Republican House member – someone many of us know, Congressman Adam Kinzinger of Illinois – agreed to serve on a House Select Committee to investigate January 6th.

Both chose conscience over capitulation.  Both endured intense personal threats to their safety.  Both were rebuked publicly by their party – the first time the Republican National Committee had ever censured sitting Republican members of Congress. 

 In the end, both sacrificed their seats in Congress for their defense of democracy and the truth.

 I was there on January 6th, and I can tell you, it was one of the most frightening days of my life—not simply because of the danger the mob posed to members of Congress, but because of the grave danger it posed to democracy itself. 

Remember what we saw – what the world witnessed that day: 

A defeated President whipping a mob into a frenzy … directing them toward the Capitol … and commanding them to, quote, “fight like hell” to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

 Thousands of rioters – many of them armed – laying siege to the Capitol … bludgeoning police officers for hours with fists, flags, and whatever weapons they could find.  Five officers who fought the mob ultimately died, and more than 140 others were seriously wounded.

Remember the mob marauding through the Capitol … the gallows erected on the Capitol lawn. 

 And remember the silence from the White House.  The hours-long failure of President Trump to dispatch the National Guard.  That was not simply neglect.  It was approval. 

Our freedom cannot be preserved by constitutional requirements, norms, or institutional guardrails alone.  In the end, democracy must be defended by brave individuals, true patriots, who are willing to sacrifice their comfort, their careers, and even their lives for democracy and the truth.

Many such patriots arose on January 6th, and in the days preceding and following it.  I mentioned Congressman Adam Kinzinger.

America is indebted to many others as well, including state leaders who stood up to intense pressure to overturn their states’ election results … Justice Department officials who refused to say that the election results were fraudulent … election workers who refused to stop counting every ballot … and the brave police officers who defended the Capitol.

Among all of these patriots, and more, history will recall Liz Cheney for her singular role as vice chair of the January 6th Commission … and for her fearless and unequivocal resolve to tell the truth, no matter what it cost her. 

Along with the commission’s chair, Congressman Bennie Thompson, her unflinching work helped clarify for the American people what really happened on January 6th … how close we came to catastrophe … and how important it is for each of us to defend our democracy if and when history calls us to do so.

For that alone, Congresswoman Cheney deserves our nation’s thanks.  And I commend the University of Illinois and the Institute of Government and Public Affairs for acknowledging her patriotism and courage, and awarding her the 2023 Senator Paul Douglas Ethics in Government Award.  

And now, please join me in welcoming Senator Douglas’s grandson, John Bandler, who is speaking today on behalf of the Douglas family.

-30-

Durbin Questions Witnesses During Judiciary Committee Hearing On Oversight Of Section 702 Of The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin

06.13.23

As sunset of Section 702 approaches, today’s hearing features testimony from five senior administration officials

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today questioned witnesses at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing entitled “Oversight of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Related Surveillance Authorities.”  Today’s hearing examined the privacy and civil liberties impact of Section 702 and related surveillance authorities as Section 702’s sunset approaches.  The witnesses included Matt Olsen, Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division at the Department of Justice; Paul Abbate, Deputy Director at the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Chris Fonzone, General Counsel at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; George Barnes, Deputy Director at the National Security Agency; and David Cohen, Deputy Director at the Central Intelligence Agency. 

“I listened to how this program was described by our witnesses.  Mr. Fonzone described it as ‘an elegant program.’  Mr. Barnes described it as ‘agile and specific.’  Mr. Cohen referred to ‘precision.’  Mr. Olsen [said] that it was ‘irreplaceable and invaluable’ and so forth.  But since the last reauthorization of Section 702 in 2017, many violations of the constitutional, statutory, and court-imposed restrictions on Section 702 have come to light,” Durbin said.  “Last month, an unsealed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISC, opinion revealed that the FBI conducted improper searches of the 702 database for Americans’ communications [over] 278,000 times.  These searches have affected all manner of Americans, such as: individuals listed in police homicide reports, including victims, next-of kin, and witnesses to the crimes; 133 people arrested during the 2020 Black Lives Matters protest when, as the Justice Department itself concluded, ‘there was no specific factual basis to think the searches would turn up foreign intelligence’; and 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign when, ‘only eight identifiers used in the query had sufficient ties to foreign influence activities’ to allow such a search.”

Durbin continued, “Mr. Abbate and Mr. Olsen, you both testified regarding the remedial measures that have already been implemented or are underway.  But why should Congress—or the American people—trust the Executive to comply with the law this time in light of this track record?” 

Mr. Olsen responded that “the problems that you’ve cited and we’ve identified are not acceptable… but what I can tell you is that those problems pre-date the critical remedial measures that were put in place in 2021 and 2022.” 

Durbin responded, “It has been a source of frustration since the creation of this program to get adequate accountability for the numbers either on the positive side or the negative side.  And you have to, I hope, understand why some of us are skeptical at this point.” 

Durbin concluded by asking, “Is the skill of our adversaries and the potential destruction that they could bring to us by their malicious acts really made the Fourth Amendment something that we have to question—whether we can follow it in the 21st Century?” 

Mr. Olsen responded, “The FBI and Department of Justice is committed to ensuring the safeguards are followed with regard to 702… we do not need to dispense with the Fourth Amendment.  The Fourth Amendment applies fully to everything we do and it is the hallmark of the work we do when we investigate and prosecute cases.” 

Durbin responded, “If the reforms that you’ve mentioned in 2021 and 2022 are the only reforms that you’re bringing to this Committee as we discuss the future of 702, I’ve got to see more.  And I hope there is more that you can present.”  

Video of Durbin’s questions in Committee is available here. 

Audio of Durbin’s questions in Committee is available here.

Footage of Durbin’s questions in Committee is available here for TV Stations.

-30-



Nine South Dakota Students Nominated by Rounds Starting at U.S. Service Academies

Source: United States Senator for South Dakota Mike Rounds

08.19.20

Deadline for Class of 2025 applications is Oct. 1, 2020

PIERRE—U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) announced that nine South Dakota students he nominated to the U.S. Naval Academy, the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Air Force Academy have been accepted to be members of the Class of 2024 at their respective academies. He also announced that his office is currently accepting nomination applications for the Class of 2025. Applications must be submitted by October 1, 2020. More information on the nomination process can be found HERE

The following students were nominated by Rounds and are joining the 2020-2021 freshman class at their respective academies.

 U.S. Naval Academy

Madeline Loewe, Lennox

Eleanor “Ellie” Abraham, Brookings

Julia Lair, Sioux Falls 

U.S. Military Academy

Isaac Buchholtz, Pierre

Max Martin, Sioux Falls

Taylor O’Brien, USMA Prep School (Resident of South Dakota)

U.S. Air Force Academy

Corwyn “Ethan” Wipf, Rapid City

Pierce Okken, Sioux Falls

Zachary Curd, Sioux Falls

Each year, Sen. Rounds is able to nominate South Dakota students to the U.S. service academies. Each academy then gives full and fair consideration to these nominations when selecting applicants. Questions about the academy nomination application process can be directed to Rounds’ Sioux Falls office by calling (605) 336-0486 or by emailing Academy_Nominations@rounds.senate.gov.

###



VIDEO: Young Salutes Hoosier Alice Sanger in Flag Day Remarks

Source: United States Senator for Indiana Todd Young

June 14, 2023

**Click here or above to watch Senator Young’s floor speech.**

WASHINGTON – On Flag Day, U.S. Senator Todd Young (R-Ind.) spoke on the Senate floor today about the legacy of Hoosier Alice Sanger. The Indiana native was the first woman to serve on a president’s staff and helped establish the celebration of Flag Day.

“Our flag represents the promise of freedom and self-government, that any man or woman can live their life in pursuit of happiness,” said Young. “But it is also a reminder that the work of honoring those ideals goes on. It is fitting then, that on Flag Day, we remember Indiana’s Alice Sanger. This Hoosier served her country so faithfully in an era where pathways for women to do so were few.”

To watch the full floor speech, click here.

Senator Young’s full remarks, as prepared for delivery:

I often speak of Hoosiers whose service, patriotism, and sacrifice capture the spirit we celebrate on civic holidays. 

For Flag Day, however, I rise to share the story of a Hoosier who did not merely embody the occasion – she helped establish it.

And she made history too.

Alice Sanger played such an important part in Benjamin Harrison’s presidential campaign in 1888 as a stenographer that he made her part of his presidential staff.

So, Alice left her Indianapolis home for Washington D.C. to become the first woman ever to serve on a President’s staff.

The historic distinction doesn’t quite capture the breadth of Alice’s service to the president and the nation.

Neither did her title of “clerk” or contemporary reporters’ descriptions of her, which often dwelled on her looks and clothes.

Let me share with you what this “clerk” did in the White House.

A renaissance woman who was skilled with a paintbrush and had an ear for music, Alice could take dictation at 200 words a minute without a single misspelling.

She had a discretion seldom seen in Washington and was known as a “jewel of secrecy” in the White House.

Not only did she type President Harrison’s annual address to Congress, but she was given sole responsibility of safekeeping it until it was sent here to the Capitol.

She personally read through all of the President’s and First Lady Caroline Harrison’s correspondence and answered much of it in her own hand.

During the late 19th Century, no woman’s signature was better known in America.

In 1893, after losing his bid for reelection, Harrison left the White House. But Alice remained.

She was so essential to the Executive Branch’s function, that the new president, from a different political party, Grover Cleveland, asked her to stay.

In 1894, she moved over to the Post Office Department, which was then a cabinet level agency. She was she no less indispensable there.

For decades, she managed budgets and advertising, kept track of regulations and postal laws, and assembled the 700-page directive that guided the operations of every post office in the country.

A masterful organizer, she planned war bond drives, donations to the Red Cross, and holiday celebrations – including the one we mark today.

Now, the idea of commemorating the day in 1777 when the Continental Congress created our national banner was not her own. Celebrations of the American flag were staged periodically around the country dating back to the 1860s. 

But in 1908, Alice, as part of her responsibilities at the Post Office, planned and staged a grand celebration for Flag Day.

The sound of bands and distinguished speakers lifted out of the Old Post Office building’s courtyard, where a giant American flag hung.

In the years that followed, other government departments joined in the celebration with their own Flag Day festivities, in large part due to Alice’s efforts.

States followed suit, many with input from Alice who advised local Post Offices on appropriate celebrations.

Presidents Wilson and Coolidge recognized Flag Day with proclamations, and in 1949, the 81st Congress passed and Harry Truman signed legislation formally establishing its observance.

There is some harmony between Alice’s career and her work to promote Flag Day.

When we look up at the Stars and Stripes, we catch America’s reflection.

It is a symbol of our ideals, after all. 

Wherever it waves – on battlefields where we have defended it, alongside the graves of those who have died for it.

In front of the places where its democracy lives – courthouses in our towns, statehouses in our cities, the dome under which we meet, and from the homes across the Republic for which it stands.

Our flag represents the promise of freedom and self-government, that any man or woman can live their life in pursuit of happiness.

But it is also a reminder that the work of honoring those ideals goes on.

It is fitting then, that on Flag Day, we remember Indiana’s Alice Sanger.

This Hoosier served her country so faithfully in an era where pathways for women to do so were few.

So, on Flag Day, we raise a pair of salutes –

One to Old Glory. Forever may she fly.

And a second to the trailblazing spirit of Americans like Alice. Long may it live.

Lawmakers Reintroduce Bipartisan, Bicameral Legislation to Increase Access to Medicare Home Infusion Benefit

Source: United States Senator for Commonwealth of Virginia Mark R Warner

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) and Tim Scott (R-SC) joined by U.S. Reps. Vern Buchanan (R-FL-16), Chairman of the House Ways & Means Health Subcommittee, Debbie Dingell (D-MI-06), Diana Harshbarger (R-TN-01), and Terri Sewell (D-AL-07) today reintroduced legislation that will ensure patients maintain access to home infusion therapy. The Preserving Patient Access to Home Infusion Act protects access to Medicare’s home infusion benefit by making clear that pharmacy services for home infusion therapy can be reimbursed and sets an appropriate rate for such services.

“We have seen for years that patients are better off when they can receive quality care from the comfort of their own homes,” said Sen. Warner. “This legislation would ensure that millions of Americans who suffer from life threatening conditions such as immune diseases, cancer, serious infections, and heart failure can receive the care they need without having to make frequent, sometimes costly trips to the hospital.”

“High-risk patients who are more susceptible to contracting disease shouldn’t have to visit a hospital and further risk their health to receive life-saving treatment,” said Sen. Scott. “This commonsense legislation ensures that millions of Americans have the option to receive the care they need in the comfort and safety of their own homes.”

“The coronavirus pandemic taught us that home health services are invaluable for seniors in my district and across the country,” said Rep. Buchanan. “The aptly-named Preserving Patient Access to Home Infusion Act will ensure that Medicare recipients can continue to receive life-saving drugs in a safe and effective way from the comfort and convenience of their own home.”

“We know that the majority of people would prefer to receive care in the home when possible, and over the last few years, we have seen the effective expansion of many home care services, which can result in significant savings for patients and providers” said Rep. Dingell. “The legislation’s commonsense reforms will expand access to home infusion services for Medicare beneficiaries, saving the Medicare program millions of dollars, cutting patient costs, and ensuring people receive safe and adequate care in the comfort of their own home. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this bipartisan legislation forward so we can effectively care for people and save money by doing so in a home setting.” 

“For Medicare patients living in rural areas, regular visits to healthcare providers to receive infusion services often prove to be costly and burdensome,” said Rep. Harshbarger. “It is critical that common-sense reforms are passed to address CMS’ flawed implementation of home-based care for Medicare patients, which is why I am proud to co-sponsor the Preserving Patient Access to Home Infusion Act. This legislation is vital to our many seniors who receive infusion treatments, ensuring patients have access to effective therapies from the safety and comfort of their homes, while producing cost-savings for both the Medicare program and patient.”

“Countless Alabamians, especially those in rural communities, rely on home infusion services for life-saving care,” said Rep. Sewell. “It has never been more critical to ensure that patients continue to receive this care safely in their homes. I’m so proud to introduce this bipartisan bill and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give it their full support.”

Sen. Warner originally included provisions in the 21st Century Cures Act and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 to create a professional services benefit for Medicare Part B home infusion drugs in order to maintain patient access to home infusion by covering professional services including assessments, education on administration and access device care, monitoring and remote monitoring, coordination with the patient, caregivers and other health care providers, and nursing visits.

Despite Congress’ intent, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) improperly implemented the benefit by requiring a nurse to be physically present in the patient’s home in order for providers to be reimbursed. As a result, provider participation in Medicare’s home infusion benefit has dropped sharply and beneficiaries have experienced reduced access to home infusion over the last several years.

The Preserving Patient Access to Home Infusion Act provides technical clarifications that will remove the physical presence requirement, ensuring payment regardless of whether a health care professional is present in the patient’s home. The legislation also acknowledges the full scope of professional services provided in home infusion — including essential pharmacist services — into the reimbursement structure.

Specifically the legislation would:

  • include pharmacy services as part of covered home infusion therapy under Medicare, encompassing assessments, drug preparation and compounding, and care coordination and documentation;
  • direct CMS to pay 50% of the nursing rate on home infusion days when a nurse is not present;
  • allow nurse practitioners and physician assistants to establish and review the plan of care for home infusion therapy.

“The National Home Infusion Association (NHIA) applauds Senator Warner and Senator Scott for their leadership on common sense legislation that will ensure Medicare patients have access to home infusion therapy,” said Connie Sullivan, NHIA’s President and CEO. “Americans have overwhelmingly demonstrated they prefer to receive medical treatments at home when given the option — and this legislation marks an important step in making that option available to our Medicare beneficiaries.”

A copy of the bill text is available here.

###

 

King, Colleagues Call on Biden Administration to Lower Prescription Drug Prices Using Existing Authorities

Source: United States Senator for Maine Angus King

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Angus King is calling on the Biden administration to do everything in its power to lower prescription drug costs for Americans. In a letter with Senator Elizabeth Warren and Congressman Lloyd Doggett, King urges Commerce (DOC) Secretary Gina Raimondo and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra to ensure a current Administration Working Group is taking steps to ensure the American people have access to reasonably priced prescription drugs – having not received any updates on the Working Group’s progress for “more than two months.” Last year, Senator King helped to pass the Inflation Reduction Act which included long awaited drug pricing reform, including lowering the costs of insulin and an out-of-pocket cap for adults on Medicare.

In March of this year, HHS and DOC announced the formation of the Interagency Working Group for Bayh-Dole to explore the Administration’s powers under the Bayh-Dole Act to authorize the production of generic prescription drugs – known as “march-in” authorities.

“We are writing to request information about the Interagency Working Group for Bayh-Dole (Working Group) and to urge the Working Group to move swiftly to lower drug prices for Americans,” wrote the lawmakers. “We are pleased that the Working Group will consider price in its evaluation of the Administration’s march-in authority, but we are concerned that there have been no public updates about the Working Group’s membership, process, timeline, or scope of work in the more than two months since it was first announced.”

“Last summer, Congress passed overdue drug pricing reforms to help older adults afford their medications by empowering Medicare to negotiate some drug prices for the first time, limit price spikes, and cap out-of-pocket costs. Though this represents critical progress, more must be done to curb excessive drug prices, including for the more than 200 million Americans who are not on Medicare,” continued the lawmakers. “The Biden Administration can use its existing authority to step in on behalf of all Americans and rectify pharmaceutical industry abuses that have allowed drug prices to skyrocket, and it can do so without waiting for permission from Congress.”

Senator King is committed to making healthcare more accessible and affordable for Maine people. He recently wrote an op-ed in the Bangor Daily News about his work to expand telehealth access and ensure rural Maine households have the 21st century connections they need to access online healthcare.

The full text of the letter is available here and below.

+++

Dear Secretary Raimondo and Secretary Becerra,

We are writing to request information about the Interagency Working Group for Bayh-Dole (Working Group) and to urge the Working Group to move swiftly to lower drug prices for Americans. We are deeply disappointed that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rejected the petition to march-in on the prostate cancer treatment enzalutamide, also known by its brand name Xtandi, which was developed with taxpayer dollars yet costs as much as six times more in the United States than in peer countries.[1] In its response to petitioners, HHS completely ignored the central question posed in the petition: whether the drug’s high price violates the statute’s requirement that the invention be made available to the public on “reasonable terms.”[2] We are pleased that the Working Group will consider price in its evaluation of the Administration’s march-in authority, but we are concerned that there have been no public updates about the Working Group’s membership, process, timeline, or scope of work in the more than two months since it was first announced.

Americans pay two to three times more for brand-name prescription drugs than individuals in peer countries.[3] Last summer, Congress passed overdue drug pricing reforms to help older adults afford their medications by empowering Medicare to negotiate some drug prices for the first time, limit price spikes, and cap out-of-pocket costs.[4] Though this represents critical progress, more must be done to curb excessive drug prices, including for the more than 200 million Americans who are not on Medicare.[5] The Biden Administration can use its existing authority to step in on behalf of all Americans and rectify pharmaceutical industry abuses that have allowed drug prices to skyrocket, and it can do so without waiting for permission from Congress. As your agencies work together to “develop a framework for implementation of the march-in provision,”[6] we urge you to consider the following:

Consider whether a drug is priced higher in the United States than other high-income countries in the definition of “reasonable terms.”[7] Of the seven march-in petitions filed since 1980, all of them have been rejected by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)[8] despite provisions under the Bayh-Dole Act (Bayh-Dole), codified at 35 U.S.C. 203, that allow the federal government, in certain cases, to grant licenses to a “responsible applicant” for inventions developed with federal funds.[9] The government may exercise this taxpayer protection authority when “action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs” or when an invention’s benefits are not “available to the public on reasonable terms” per the plain text of the statute.[10] And as legal experts have repeatedly concluded, a product’s price plays a critical role in determining whether it is reasonably available to the public.[11] “[T]he words ‘reasonable terms’ have uniformly been interpreted [by courts] to include price.”[12] Or put another way, “if a drug company is not charging a reasonable price for a drug, or if its pricing harms public health by substantially restricting access to the drug, the federal government is well within its rights to ensure the availability of cheaper generic versions.”[13] Legal experts from Yale Law School, Harvard Medical School, and Columbia Law School have declared these tools to be “integral, longstanding, and legitimate parts of our patent systems.”[14] To ensure these tools are exercised and have a clear standard to trigger their use, the NIH and other health technology funding agencies should consider adopting a standard wherein a subject invention is not considered available on reasonable terms if the list price of a prescription drug that includes the invention is not the lowest available in any of the 15 countries with the largest gross domestic products and per capita incomes at least half that of the United States. This would be consistent with “Most Favored Nation (MFN)” policies adopted in some COVID-19-related contracts, including regarding nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, also known as Paxlovid.[15] The Working Group may wish to consider additional standards, but a clear definition and way to evaluate price is essential to ensure predictability for all parties on when taxpayer protection authorities will be exercised.

Expand the scope of the Working Group to include a review of other public interest licensing provisions in the Bayh-Dole Act, such as paid-up licenses. It should be uncontroversial to expect U.S. taxpayers to pay no more than peer nations for medicines they paid to invent. In the case of government health programs like Medicare and Medicaid, this expectation should be indisputable. The Working Group should identify achieving fair drug prices in federal programs as a reason to exercise the agency’s paid-up license. Under 35 U.S.C. 202, the federal government holds an irrevocable, non-transferable, paid-up license to practice or have practiced on its behalf inventions developed with its funding.[16] Unlike march-in rights, the government using its paid-up license is not contingent on the contractor or assignee failing to make the invention available on reasonable terms or action being necessary to alleviate health or safety needs. Legal experts contend that the plain reading of the statute suggests the Section 202 license includes production of drugs for Medicare and Medicaid.[17]

Ensure the framework contemplated by the Working Group includes a robust appeals process for petitioners. The Working Group is charged with developing a framework that “clearly articulates guiding criteria and processes” for making march-in determinations.[18] It is critical to ensure that an appeals process does not permit the same individuals to consider the appeal as those who rendered the initial decision. Following the NIH’s denial of the march-in request for Xtandi, petitioners wrote in their request for an appeal that a decision to delegate the appeal to the same office that reviewed the original petition “would be tantamount to no review at all.”[19]  This would also ensure that the individuals considering an appeal have a fresh perspective on the subject. 

Provide a list of drugs developed with taxpayer funds and related patents. The public deserves greater transparency related to taxpayer developed drugs. The Working Group should disclose patents that benefited from government resources, which could be subject to authorities under Bayh-Dole. Any eligible drug product should also include information about research and development costs incurred by the manufacturer and the amount of government funding provided, including through tax credits and direct funding.

Clarify guidelines for disclosing government support on patent applications. A recent Government Accountability Office report highlighted that NIH grant awardees are not always disclosing government support on patent applications.[20] The NIH “is the largest public funder of biomedical research and development,” which supports critical drug development and may lead to the identification of new uses for existing drugs.[21] Yet, NIH awardees did not disclose NIH support on almost 15 percent of patents submitted between 2012 and 2021.[22] Proper identification of the NIH’s contributions is necessary to understand taxpayers’ rights as to enjoying the benefits of these discoveries.

Ensure officials involved with the Working Group are free from conflicts of interest. Public officials are required to follow federal ethics laws,[23] and appointees are subject to additional requirements as outlined in President Biden’s Executive Order on Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel.[24] However, recent reporting has exposed troubling gaps in existing ethics requirements. For example, a Wall Street Journal investigation revealed that thousands of senior government employees held stock in companies that their agencies regulated.[25] For the public to have confidence in this process, individuals charged with representing, supporting, or serving on the Working Group should adhere to high standards for preventing conflicts of interest.  People should know that the government is working on their side, not on behalf of the companies whose profits could be affected by Working Group decisions.

Ensure the Working Group involves a wide range of government offices, including representatives from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), National Economic Council (NEC), and Domestic Policy Council (DPC). Consistent with the “whole-of-government approach” announced by your agencies,[26] we urge you to involve representatives from the FTC, NEC, and DPC in the Working Group. We also recommend you consider including representatives from government agencies responsible for prescription drug purchasing and/or reimbursement, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Ensure balance and transparency of Working Group proceedings. HHS has announced its intention to convene a workshop in 2023; however, no other information has been provided about the Working Group’s meetings or consultation process. Corporate interests will undoubtedly seek to influence the Working Group’s framework to protect their profits. In designing and running this process, HHS and the Department of Commerce (DOC) should ensure that consumer advocates, academics, and other public interest stakeholders have equal opportunities to inform the Working Group’s products as other parties. The Working Group should not hold invitation-only meetings or stakeholder calls. All consultation and briefings on the framework should be public and open to all interested participants. The Working Group’s proposed framework should follow a standard notice and comment process that invites written comments from the broader public as well as public hearings. This public engagement process should not be contracted out to a third party, and if agencies other than HHS and DOC choose to run parallel processes to gather feedback on Working Group products, they should abide by these same standards.

Publish the final “framework for implementation of the march-in provision” by December 31, 2023.[27] HHS has stated that it will “convene a workshop in 2023 to further refine the cases for which HHS could consider exercising march-in authority” and “to assess when the use of march-in is consistent with the policy and objectives of the Bayh-Dole Act.”[28] To ensure timely relief for consumers who face high drug prices, we urge you to convene this workshop no later than September 1, 2023 and to publish a final framework no later than December 31, 2023.

            We support President Biden’s goal of lowering drug prices for Americans, and if adopted, we believe these principles will allow the Working Group to fully and independently study these authorities. In an effort to learn more about this effort, we also request answers to the following questions by June 23, 2023.

  1. Will you ensure that the Working Group’s discussion of price includes whether a drug’s price is higher in the United States than in other high-income countries?
  2. Will the Working Group consider reasonable pricing as it relates to the use of paid-up licenses?
  3. Will you ensure that the framework contemplated by the Working Group guarantees a robust appeals process for petitioners?
  4. Will you ensure the Working Group publishes a list of drugs developed with taxpayer funds and related patents to increase transparency?
  5. Will you ensure the Working Group clarifies guidelines for disclosing government support on patent applications?
  6. Will you ensure members involved with the Working Group are free from financial conflicts of interest?
  7. Which other agencies or offices will be represented on the Working Group?
    1. Will you include representatives from the FTC?
    2. Will you include representatives from NEC?
    3. Will you include representatives from DPC?
    4. Will you include representatives from agencies responsible for prescription drug purchasing and/or reimbursement, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs?
  8. Will you ensure that consumer advocates, academics, and other public interest stakeholders have equal opportunities to inform the Working Group’s products as other parties?
  9. Will you commit to making meetings of the Working Group public?
  10. Will you commit to managing the public engagement process in-house, rather than hire a third-party consultant?
  11. Will you commit to publishing a proposed “framework for implementation of the march-in provision” for public comment no later than September 1, 2023?[29]
  12. Will you commit to publishing the Working Group’s final “framework” no later than December 31, 2023?[30]

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.


[1] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “HHS and DOC Announce Plan to Review March-In Authority,” press release, March 21, 2023, https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/03/21/hhs-doc-announce-plan-review-march-in-authority.html; The American Prospect, “A Big Miss on Drug Prices,” David Dayen, March 22, 2023, https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2023-03-22-nih-drug-prices-xtandi/.  

[7] 35 U.S.C. 201(f).

[9] 35 U.S.C. 203.

[10] 35 U.S.C. 203(a)(2); 35 U.S.C. 201(f).

[11] See, e.g., Peter S. Arno & Michael H. Davis, Why Don’t We Enforce Existing Drug Price Controls?, 75 Tulane L. Rev. 631 (2001); Center for American Progress, “Enough Is Enough: The Time Has Come to Address Sky-High Drug Prices,” Topher Spiro, Maura Calsyn & Thomas Huelskoetter, September 2015, https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/15131852/DrugPricingReforms-report1.pdf; Essential Inventions, “The Bayh-Dole Act and March-In Rights,” David Halperin, May 2001, https://www.essentialinventions.org/legal/norvir/halperinmarchin2001.pdf; Health Affairs, “March-In Rights Could Ensure Patient Access By Keeping Drug Prices In Check. They’re Under Attack.,” Peter S. Arno, Dana Neacsu, and Kathryn Ardizzone, April 30, 2021, https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20210428.519540/full; Jennifer Penman & Fran Quigley, Better Late Than Never: How the U.S. Government Can and Should Use Bayh-Dole March-In Rights to Respond to the Medicines Access Crisis, 54 Willamette L. Rev. 171 (2017); The Incidental Economist, “Pushing Back on Exorbitant Drug Prices,” Nicholas Bagley, September 21, 2015, https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/pushing-back-on-exorbitant-drug-prices.

[12] Peter S. Arno & Michael H. Davis, Why Don’t We Enforce Existing Drug Price Controls?, 75 Tulane Law Review 631, 650 (2001).

[15] See discussion of the MFN provision at: Knowledge Ecology International, “Pfizer Agrees to International Reference Pricing in Government Contract for Covid-19 Therapeutic,” Claire Cassedy, February 2, 2022, https://www.keionline.org/37294.

[16] 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(4).

[23] 5 C.F.R. 2635.101(b); 18 U.S.C. 208; 5 C.F.R. 2635.802.

[25] The Wall Street Journal, “Federal Officials Trade Stock in Companies Their Agencies Oversee,” Rebecca Ballhause, Brody Mullins, Chad Day, John West, Joe Palazzolo, and James V. Grimaldi, October 11, 2022, https://www.wsj.com/articles/government-officials-invest-in-companies-their-agencies-oversee-11665489653-.

Sullivan & Bipartisan Colleagues Introduce “Save Our Gas Stoves Act” in Senate

Source: United States Senator for Alaska Dan Sullivan

06.14.23

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senators Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) and seven colleagues have introduced legislation to prohibit the Biden administration from banning gas stoves. The “Save Our Gas Stoves Act” explicitly prohibits the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) from implementing a proposed rule that would impose intrusive and costly standards on the kitchen stovetops of millions of Americans. The Biden Administration is currently defending efforts of localities to implement bans on gas stove. Companion legislation was introduced in the House by Representative Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.).

“For the last two and a half years, Americans have been forced to foot the bill for this administration’s destructive energy policies,” Senator Sullivan said. “They have restricted energy production at nearly every opportunity, killing and delaying pipelines and infrastructure, strong-arming the financial sector to blackball American energy, and appointing officials with radical anti-energy views to some of our government’s highest offices. And now, Biden officials have signaled they want to come for our gas stoves. Doing so would increase costs and disproportionately harm rural and working-class Americans where alternatives are limited and often costly. Our legislation makes sure this intrusive rule never sees the light of day.”

“Washington bureaucrats are constantly cooking up new ways to control the lives of everyday Americans,” said Senator Joni Ernst. “As many Iowans are struggling to put food on the table, the last thing they need is federal mandates in the kitchen. I’m proud to work with my colleagues to protect gas stoves and will keep working to push back against big government.”

“At a time when families across Nebraska are concerned about high inflation and the southern border crisis, Washington bureaucrats are considering whether to cancel gas stoves,” Senator Fischer said. “It’s ridiculous. The 38% of the American people who have a gas stove or range don’t need more of the federal government intruding into their lives. I’ll keep fighting against the reckless regulations we continue to see from this administration that harm working families.”

“The current administration has shown time and time again that they are anti-energy, but now they are trying to dictate what people can use in their kitchen by proposing a rule that would essentially ban gas stoves,” Senator Capito said. “I’m proud to join my Senate colleagues in introducing this legislation that will stop government overreach and prohibit the Department of Energy from implementing rules that would force consumers to buy a kitchen product based on the energy source and not based on what makes the most sense economically. I will continue to fight regulations and policies that are disconnected from reality and could ultimately harm Americans economically.”

“As I’ve said before, the federal government has no business telling Americans how to cook their dinner,” Senator Manchin said. “Unfortunately, the Department of Energy has chosen to enter into America’s kitchens with a proposed rule that would push out gas stoves. While I appreciate that these rules would only apply to new stoves, my view is that it’s part of a broader, administration-wide regulatory effort to eliminate fossil fuels. As the Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I am proud to support this legislation that would help ensure this Administration doesn’t eliminate consumer choice and make life even more expensive for the hard-working men and women of this country.”

“The federal government has no business dictating what kind of appliances North Carolinians can or can’t use when preparing a meal for their family,” Senator Budd said. “Using energy efficiency as an excuse to effectively ban devices used by many Americans is the latest example of the out-of-control federal bureaucracy. That’s why I’m proud to join my colleagues in this effort to stop the latest radical environmental insanity and save our gas stoves.”

“Nothing is off limits to the radical Left’s Green New Deal agenda,” said Senator Mullin. “I stand with my colleagues in protecting Americans’ ability to make their own choices as consumers. Not to mention, Democrats’ push for this ban could not be more out of touch with the financial hardships Americans are facing due to their failed policies. I’m glad to join this bill to get Washington out of our kitchens and our pocketbooks.”

“There is perhaps no greater example of government overreach than the radical attempts to eradicate the use of gas stoves,” Senator Britt said. “I’m proud to join Senator Sullivan and my colleagues in introducing this commonsense measure to ensure that hardworking American families continue to have access to affordable appliance choices for their homes.”

 

# # #



ICYMI: Fischer Highlights Significance of Rural Communications, Media, & Agriculture Voices

Source: United States Senator for Nebraska Deb Fischer

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, spoke on the Senate floor recently about the importance of protecting rural communications and media, including rural and agricultural television and radio programming.

As the top Republican on the Senate Rules Committee, Senator Fischer recently approved the addition of RFD-TV to the Senate TV network. RFD-TV is one of the preeminent sources of rural news in the country.

Senator Fischer also has led legislation to protect access to AM radio in automobiles and improve broadband mapping to benefit unserved rural areas.

Click the image above to watch video of Sen. Fischer’s remarks
Click here to download audio
Click here to download video

Following is a transcript of Senator Fischer’s remarks as prepared for delivery:

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service, 46 million Americans live in rural areas. This includes 35 percent of the residents in my home state of Nebraska.

Often, in the government, we focus on the majority of Americans living in urban population hubs. But we have just as much of an obligation to the millions of rural citizens in our country.

Communications access is foundational to our quality of life, especially in rural areas where the closest neighbor can be many miles away.

That’s what I want to focus on today. As a member of the Senate Commerce and Agriculture Committees, I have the privilege to regularly advance communications policy that benefits all Americans, including those in rural areas.

I’ve led multiple pieces of legislation to improve broadband mapping to benefit unserved, rural areas—including the Broadband Funding Map that the president signed into law as part of the bipartisan infrastructure package.

It’s vital that every last mile and acre of our country has access to reliable Internet—whether for telehealth appointments or to make use of more efficient agricultural technologies.

But broadband isn’t the only type of communication rural communities rely on. Especially for households without Internet service, they rely on television programming to keep updated about the world around them.

The wellbeing of rural Americans and a robust media made up of diverse viewpoints are important to me and Nebraskans throughout the state. And access to rural and agricultural programming benefits all Americans.

Farmers and ranchers in Nebraska depend on this content for relevant news, information, and lifestyle programming. We’re talking about everything from in-depth reports on weather patterns, agribusiness news, commodity market swings, western sports, and more.

This programming delivers essential information to producers that directly impacts the way they manage their operations and plan for the future.

At the same time, Americans on the coasts and in major urban and suburban areas also benefit from programming that helps them understand major issues affecting the country that originate in the heartland. And rural programming doesn’t mean old reruns of Green Acres or The Beverly Hillbillies.

Rural and agricultural programmers are in a unique position to educate the public on what it means to be a family farmer and rancher. On how producers are some of the best stewards of our natural resources. And on what the future of agriculture—and producing the food we all need—looks like.

This is one reason I was pleased, as Ranking Member of the Rules Committee, to recently approve RFD-TV to be added to the Senate TV network. RFD-TV is one of the preeminent sources of rural news in the country. 

Networks like RFD-TV work hard to cover the issues affecting the agricultural sector and rural communities. The Senior Senator from Minnesota and I approved its addition to the Senate TV network because that unique perspective and expertise is a must-have here in Washington, where we all work on policies affecting rural America every single day.

And it’s not just TV programming that provides critical news and information to rural communities. Millions of Americans use AM radio to stay up to date on what’s affecting them.

In Nebraska, we have a long history of farm broadcasters who help farmers and ranchers thrive. Today there are still over 40 AM stations based in the state.

Unfortunately, some have lost sight of the fundamental role broadcast radio plays in rural America. A number of automakers announced plans this year to remove AM broadcast radio access from some of their vehicles.

This would deal a blow to the millions who need AM radio access to receive emergency alerts in remote areas, as well as be aware of local news and weather conditions. AM radio is not just a luxury—as the backbone of our Emergency Alert System, it can be a question of life or death for people during natural disasters and severe storms.

My colleagues and I are concerned about how this decision will affect the safety of Americans—that’s why we introduced a bicameral, bipartisan bill to preserve AM radio access despite some automakers’ efforts to get rid of it.

Our bill, the AM for Every Vehicle Act, would direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to issue a rule requiring all motor vehicles to have access to AM broadcast stations.

The legislation is already having an impact. It recently spurred Ford Motor Company to reverse course and restore access to AM radio to its upcoming car models.

But passing our bill into law is the only way to prevent other automakers from abandoning AM radio, against the best interests of the millions of people in rural areas where wireless warnings can be difficult to receive.

The American people who travel to work and school on rural roads each day are relying on us to ensure they don’t lose access to local news, weather, emergency alerts, and public safety announcements from AM radio.

As members of the U.S. Senate, we represent millions—millions—of people in rural communities across the country. We can’t let rural voices be put aside while we prioritize other issues. Let’s continue to appreciate rural TV and radio and advance legislation that supports the critical services they provide.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

# # #