Category: Toomey

Toomey Statement Sarah Murnaghan

By Sen. Pat Toomey

On Wednesday, a federal court ruled to allow 10-year-old Sarah Murnaghan from Newtown Square, Pa., and potentially other children, to be temporarily placed on the adult list for a lung transplant based on medical need.

Sarah has Cystic Fibrosis and is fighting for her life at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia as she awaits a life-saving transplant. Absent this surgery, doctors believe she has only a few weeks to live. Her doctors are confident that they could perform a life-saving lung transplant with a portion of an adult lung. The rules for organ donations generally make medical need the primary criteria for receiving an organ. But these rules also limit eligibility for children younger than 12 by placing them at the bottom of the adult list. So Sarah Murnaghan was effectively shut out of the chance to get an adult lung transplant despite her urgent need and suitability. (Pediatric lungs rarely become available.)

Sarah’s family filed emergency legal action in federal court to prevent the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Kathleen Sebelius, from enforcing a policy that prevents children under 12 from getting the adult lung transplants they need to save their lives.

Judge Michael Baylson, senior federal judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted a temporary restraining order and told the Secretary of HHS to direct the transplant network to cease application of the “Under 12 Rule” as it applies to Sarah. Since then, Judge Baylson issued a temporary restraining order for another child in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in a similar situation. The organ transplant network will hold an emergency review meeting on Monday.

Finally, we have some positive news for Sarah and her family. I applaud the ruling and am grateful to Judge Baylson for quickly issuing his decision on such an important matter.

Now Sarah has a chance for a lung transplant. As I’ve said all along, Secretary Sebelius should use her authority to make medical need and suitability, rather than age, be the primary criteria in determining how organ donations are prioritized. I hope this court ruling will encourage her to make this important policy change.

Toomey Statement Sarah Murnaghan

Toomey Statement Sarah Murnaghan

Toomey Wants Embassy Moved To Jerusalem

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa) has announced that he is a co-sponsor of Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act (S.604 that will move our embassy in Israel from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem.

The law would make it official U.S. policy to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel and that the U.S. embassy should be located there.

Toomey Supports Victims Of Military Sex Assault

Toomey Supports Victims Of Military Sex Assault  —  Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) announces that the has sponsored  legislation  with Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.)  to assist service members who are victims of sexual assault in the military and to hold their attackers accountable.

Hopefully the male victims will be eligible too.

 

Girl Needs Lung To Save Her Life

Sen. Pat Toomey has taken on the uncaring federal health care establishment in an attempt to  to save the life of a 10-year-old Newtown Square girl.

He notes that Sarah Murnaghan may have just weeks to live. Sarah has cystic fibrosis and needs a lung transplant. She is fighting for her life at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“Pediatric organ donors are in short supply and the likelihood of Sarah receiving a pediatric lung in time is virtually non-existent,” Toomey said.

This is due, in part, because the decision is being made based on a waiting list rather than medical necessity.

Toomey notes that a federal mandate that allocation policies be based on medical necessity only applies to patients over the age of 12.

Sen. Toomey is asking the Department of Health Human Services for intervention.

“I have asked Secretary Sebelius to do everything she can to assist Sarah and I hope and pray that red tape doesn’t get in the way of helping her. I understand we need rules to prioritize organ transplants, but the fact that Sarah is 10 and not 12 shouldn’t be a reason to deny her a chance at life,” he said.

Toomey is also promoting this petition to save Sarah created by her family.

 

Girl Needs Lung To Save Her Life

 

Girl Needs Lung To Save Her Life

120 Police Officers Killed In ’12

120 Police Officers Killed In ’12 — Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa), last week, co-sponsored a bipartisan resolution, which passed the Senate unanimously, to honor the sacrifice of the 120 law enforcement officers that perished in the line of duty in 2012. The resolution also pays tribute to the more than 900,000 active law enforcement personnel who serve and protect nationwide.

120 Police Officers Killed In ’12

Toomey Vice Chair On Steel Caucus

Toomey Vice Chair On Steel Caucus — Sen. Pat Toomey has been named vice-chair of the bipartisan Senate Steel Caucus, a coalition of senators dedicated to promoting American manufacturing and the steel industry. It will serve as a forum for policy discussions regarding issues that affect America’s steel industry.

Toomey Vice Chair On Steel Caucus

Toomey Queries Obama About IRS, Sebelius About Solicitations

Toomey Queries Obama About IRS, Sebelius About Solicitations

Sen. Pat Toomey has queried the Obama administration about two grave abuses of abuses of power committed during its watch.

A letter sent to the President notes that the in 2010 IRS “specialists had been asked to be on the lookout for Tea Party
applications, and the IRS Determinations Unit had begun searching its
database for applications with ‘Tea Party,’ ‘Patriots,’ or ‘9/12’ in the
organization’s name” and that this practice was “well-known” in the agency.

He has also sent a letter to  Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius regarding reports that she solicited funds from health care executives to assist with the implementation of the president’s health law.

“This appears at best to be an inherent conflict of interest and, at worst, a potentially illegal augmentation of appropriation,” he said.

Here is Toomey’s letter to President Obama:

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing to express our grave concerns and deep disappointment about the revelations in a report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had specifically targeted certain organizations for extra scrutiny as part of their approval review of applications for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status. This appears to be a wholly inappropriate action that threatens to silence political dissent and brings partisan politics into what used to be a nonpartisan, unbiased and fact-based review process. The public’s confidence in the IRS relies on fair and apolitical application of the law. Actions such as these undermine taxpayers’ ability to trust its government to fairly implement the law.

According to information given to Congress in a timeline provided by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), in early 2010 “specialists had been asked to be on the lookout for Tea Party applications, and the IRS Determinations Unit had begun searching its database for applications with ‘Tea Party,’ ‘Patriots,’ or ‘9/12’ in the organization’s name.” The report goes on to state that “By June 2011, some IRS specialists were probing applications using the following criteria to identify tea-party cases, according to the Treasury inspector general findings: “‘Tea Party,’ ‘Patriots’ or ‘9/12 Project’ is referenced in the case file; issues include government spending, government debt or taxes; education of the public by advocacy/lobbying to ‘make America a better place to live’; statements in the case file criticize how the country is being run.”

We are deeply disturbed that agents of the government were directed to give greater scrutiny to groups engaged in conduct questioning the actions of their government. This type of purely political scrutiny being conducted by an Executive Branch Agency is yet another completely inexcusable attempt to chill the speech of political opponents and those who would question their government, consistent with a broader pattern of intimidation by arms of your administration to silence political dissent.

These disclosures are even more unsettling as they contradict prior statements made by representatives of the Administration on this matter. In response to questions raised in 2012 on this issue by Republican Senators, Steven T. Miller, the Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement at the IRS, specifically (and falsely) stated that there was an unbiased, technical screening process used to determine which applications for 501(c)(4) organizations merited further review. In two separate letters to Finance Committee Ranking Member Orin Hatch, Mr. Miller failed to note that explicitly political screens were used in reviewing applications, despite the fact the practice was apparently well known within the IRS as early as 2010.

Given these strong and clear statements by the Administration in 2012 that no such targeted review or specified politically motivated criteria existed, these revelations raise serious questions about the entire application review process, and the controls in place at the IRS to stop this sort of political interference once and for all. According to TIGTA these actions took place more than two years ago, yet without this information becoming public, there is no evidence that your administration would have done anything to make sure these abuses were brought to light and dealt with in a transparent way.

The American people deserve to know what actions will be taken to ensure those who made these policy decisions at the IRS are being held fully accountable and more importantly what is being done to ensure that this kind of raw partisanship is fully eliminated from these critically important non-partisan government functions. As such, we demand that your Administration comply with all requests related to Congressional inquiries without any delay, including making available all IRS employees involved in designing and implementing these prohibited political screening, so that the public has a full accounting of these actions. It is imperative that the Administration be fully forthcoming to ensure that we begin to restore the confidence of our fellow citizens after this blatant violation of their trust. We look forward to working on this critical issue with the Administration’s full cooperation.

Here is Toomey’s letter to Secretary Sebelius:

Dear Secretary Sebelius:

As the Republican Members of the Senate
Committee on Finance, one of the key committees of jurisdiction over
health care issues, we were troubled by the news reports concerning your
interactions with health care industry executives asking for donations
of money to assist with funding for enrollment efforts related to the
health care insurance exchanges. Our initial reaction is that this
appears at best to be an inherent conflict of interest and at worst a
potentially illegal augmentation of appropriation.

These calls raise several important issues.
First, soliciting funds from the very companies or organizations that
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulates could be a
serious conflict of interest. Companies and organizations should never
be pressured for money because it sends the message that contributions
are necessary to secure favorable regulatory decisions-creating a “pay
to play” environment-or to avoid regulatory reprisals. This is even more
pronounced in this instance because the individuals that you were
allegedly contacting to solicit donations head up the same entities who
may have bid to participate in the marketplace exchanges.

Secondly, the appropriations process was
designed by the Constitution to assure that only Congress, an elected
body, sets the amount of funds that can be spent to implement a given
law. Congress appropriated a certain amount of funds for use by HHS to
implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
Circumventing the appropriations process to raise additional funds could
be a serious violation of appropriations law.

Finally, the manner in which Congress
learned about these actions, through the press, is also troubling. One
of the continued issues that has been raised to HHS from this Committee
over the past three years has been the lack of transparency from HHS to
Congress about what actions are being taken, and when, with respect to
implementation of PPACA. This is yet another example of the
Administration initiating actions without consulting with or informing
Congress ahead of time.

To help us better understand this issue, please provide us with answers to the following questions:

1. What legal authority permits HHS employees to solicit donations from non-government entities for PPACA implementation?
2. Who within HHS was involved in making the decision to contact private entities for donations?
3. Was the Office of General Counsel for HHS consulted and, if so, what guidance did they provide governing these interactions?
4.
Besides Secretary Sebelius, have any other HHS employees solicited
donations in their official capacity as a federal employee?
5. How much money has been raised by HHS for the implementation of PPACA through donations?
a. Is the money coming directly to HHS or is it going elsewhere?
b. If to HHS, in which account(s) were the funds deposited?
c. What agency, individual, or entity has fiduciary authority over the funds?
d. Of the donated funds, how much has been spent by HHS or other entities to date?
e. Who has donated funds?
f. If funds are donated, do the donators have the right to say which programs the funding goes toward?
6. How much money has been raised by HHS employees for other entities supporting enrollment under PPACA?
7. Have HHS employees solicited donations on behalf of any nonprofit organization? If so, which one(s) and how much
8. How many federally funded work hours were used by Secretary Sebelius and other HHS employees to solicit donations?
9.
What assurances do organizations and companies that elected not to
donate funds have that HHS would not retaliate against them in future
regulatory or contracting actions?
10. Conversely, what measures has
HHS taken to be sure that it has not favored organizations that have
donated funds? What audit or oversight mechanisms are in place to
ensure that the list of those who have provided funds is not seen by the
contracting or program employees making decisions about contract awards
and/or other determinations regarding participation in the exchanges?

We appreciate your timely response to this
request and your full cooperation in providing this information by no
later than June 7, 2013.

Toomey Queries Obama About IRS, Sebelius About Solicitations

Asian Carp Battle May Be Joined By Feds

Asian Carp Battle May Be Joined By Feds — Sen. Pat Toomey reports that an  amendment he introduced with Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) to help prevent the invasion of Asian carp in the Ohio River basin will be included in a broader water resources development bill, which makes its passage much more likely.

This amendment would enable the federal government to have a more effective partnership with state and local entities that are working to slow the spread of Asian carp, Toomey said. The Senate agreed unanimously that the Brown-Toomey amendment will be included in the Water Resources Development Act.

“The possible invasion of Asian carp in southwestern Pennsylvania’s iconic three rivers and our state’s beautiful great lake warrants action in Congress, and I am pleased that my colleagues agree that more needs to be done. These waterways are vital for both commerce and recreation, and the federal government must act as a cooperative partner with state and local governments to stop this invasive species and protect the Ohio River basin’s ecosystem and economy. My amendment with Sen. Brown will help do just that, and I applaud the Senate’s strong show of support for it,” he said.


Asian Carp Battle May Be Joined By Feds

Demonizing Toomey On Guns Is Shooting Blanks

By Chris Freind

Well, that didn’t take long. Smart money
said it would have taken half of Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey’s term
before the Wacky Wing of the Republican Party put him in their
crosshairs. Instead, it only took two years for them to bend him over
the (gun) barrel.

And what produced such vitriol from a loud but
ultimately small segment of the Republican base? What did Toomey do that
saw him decried as another “Benedict Arlen” — an unflattering reference
to longtime liberal GOP Sen. Arlen Specter?

He thinks background checks for gun buyers are a good idea.

Yep.
That’s it, lock, stock and barrel. Pat Toomey’s smoking gun “sin” was
advocating a bipartisan compromise on the contentious gun issue, whereby
all people buying firearms at gun shows and via the Internet would be
subjected to a tortuous 60-second background check. Rather than thanking
him for his common-sense approach, however, many Republicans came after
him with both guns blazing, calling him a “traitor.”

Sadly, the
“cause” for which many of these critics fight has morphed from
reasonable positions to ones of stupidity and, ultimately,
self-destruction. The GOP’s results in last year’s presidential and U.S.
Senate elections proved that in spades.

Toomey seems to
genuinely believe he’s doing the right thing, and there is no reason to
think his efforts are politically motivated. The irony, though, is that
his position will clearly help him in what will be a challenging
re-election in 2016. But instead of embracing Toomey as one of their
own, the hard Right continues to pound him — despite his being one of
the staunchest defenders of the Second Amendment.

Talk about shooting blanks.

A
primer is typically an explanation to the uninitiated as to how
something works. In the case of background checks, however, it has
become obvious that many of the so-called experts — the “initiated” —
are nothing of the kind. So for their benefit as much as anyone’s, let’s
set the record straight:

1. Most significantly, background
checks are not federal gun registries. Neither do they lead to them.
Period. Conspiracy theories notwithstanding, the federal government does
not have a registry of who owns guns, much less how many and what kinds
people possess (neither should it). Likening background checks to gun
registries is comparing apples to school buses — they are unequivocally
different (you can have a background check but decide not to buy the
gun). So when entertainer Ann Coulter inflames the Right (and sells more books) by saying that background checks lead to registration … to confiscation … to extermination, just consider the source. Oh, this is the same Ann Coulter whose column last month was pulled by Fox News after opining (she says joking — does it matter?) about John McCain’s daughter, Meghan, getting murdered. Enough said.

Here’s what’s
puzzling. For people who believe that expanding background checks will
lead to gun registries, where have they been for the last decade?
Background checks aren’t new, so, by definition, if we are simply
expanding an existing system — without changing it — then under the
critics’ rationale, wouldn’t we already have such a registry? They can’t
have it both ways.

2. Here’s the process for buying a
gun in many states: After selecting your firearm, the dealer conducts a
background check through the FBI’s NICS criminal database, which usually
takes less than a minute. If you are cleared, you fill out the required
paperwork, which the dealer is mandated to keep for 20 years, and
you’re a gun owner. Should that gun be used in a crime, the serial
number will be traced to the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, and
ultimately to you. Not exactly the Big Brother database some claim it to
be, huh?

3. Background checks are not a conservative/liberal,
Republican/Democrat issue. Since they do not impede or infringe upon a
law-abiding citizen’s right to own a firearm, it’s not “gun control” at
all. It’s criminal control.

4. The checks work: There have been
1.8 million denials since 1998. In 2010, half of those denied had felony
convictions or indictments, almost 20 percent were fugitives, and 11
percent violated state laws. Put another way, would we be better off
with almost 2 million people walking around with guns who shouldn’t have
them?

5. The proposed expansion of checks has an exception for
family-to-family purchases, focusing instead on closing loopholes for
sales over the Internet and gun shows. Currently, federally licensed gun
dealers, even at gun shows, are required to perform checks, but private
sellers are not.

Two points here: A). Critics contend that the
private sellers account for a relatively small amount of gun show
purchases. So what? By that logic, not many more people will be
“inconvenienced” for the one-minute check, so what’s the hang-up? B.)
What’s the alternative? To allow convicted felons to buy a gun with
quasi-legal impunity? Granted, felons (and the mentally disturbed)
aren’t allowed to possess firearms, but any criminal with half a brain
will get his gun via this loophole rather than risk getting caught in an
undercover sting. If not background checks for these high-risk folks,
then what? Just hope and pray they don’t take advantage of the system?
Good luck.

6. While idiocy is not illegal, it would behoove some
gun-rights people to get a shot of common sense. Here’s an idea: Don’t
show up at a gun rally or counter-protest with AK-47s on full display,
as some routinely do. And don’t blame the “liberal media” when they post
that shot on the front page. Do you want to look cool (newsflash: you
don’t) by touting guns in public, or do you really care about protecting
gun rights? Because I’ve got news for you: The two never, ever go
hand-in-hand. Leave the guns at home, wear something that isn’t
camouflage, and articulate a reasonable message with a calm demeanor.
You’d be surprised how much more effective you’d be at convincing the
Great American Middle of your side — and it will be them, not you, who
will ultimately decide this issue.

7. Background checks are
useful, but not a panacea. The FBI database is only as good as the
information it receives from states. If criminal and mental health
records aren’t routinely sent and/or updated, it won’t be as effective
as it could be. It’s not perfect, but that’s not a reason to scrap
expanding it. Nothing can or will ever fully prevent lunatics from
engaging in a shooting spree, but a background check system is a solid
first line of defense. Again, the question stands: If not, then what?

Is
expanding checks a slippery slope, opening the door for more
regulations? Like anything, diligence is required, but the short answer
is “no,” since the system already exists. Those fiercely opposed are
actually doing themselves a disservice, for their position will be
blasted away when a convicted felon engages in mass murder using a gun
purchased via the Internet or gun show loophole.

It’s time to
shoot straight with the hard core and demand they employ reason rather
than emotion. If not, when the smoke clears after the next tragedy,
those gunning for major restrictions will get there faster than a
speeding bullet.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist and commentator. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com.

Feds Can Pay Obligations Without Raising Debt Ceiling

Feds Can Pay Obligations Without Raising Debt Ceiling — Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)  is praising the passage of  the Full Faith and Credit Act  by the U.S. House of Representatives last week.

“The legislation will ensure that the U.S. government does not default on its debt by requiring the Treasury to prioritize payments on the debt in case the debt ceiling is not raised,” Toomey said.

Toomey authored the Senate version of the bill to protect Social Security benefits and military pay and to require that our government prioritize all obligations on the debt held by the public in the event that the debt limit is reached.

“For months, some political leaders have argued that failure to raise the debt ceiling would necessarily cause the United States to default on its debt,” Toomey said. “This is not the case. If Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling, the federal government will have more than enough money to service its debt.”

He noted that that this year, about 6 percent of all projected federal government expenditures will go to pay off the interest on our debt, and tax revenue is projected to cover about 76 percent of all government expenditures.

“We need to end government by crisis,” he said. “We need to take the default scare tactics off the table. As the sequester proved, limiting spending does not cause the sky to fall. The Full Faith and Credit Act will allow Congress and the President to have a frank discussion about putting our nation on a path to balance by taking the specter of default off the table.”


Feds Can Pay Obligations Without Raising Debt Ceiling