Category: US Senate

Source: United States Senator for New Jersey Bob Menendez

FORT LEE, N.J. – U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) joined today with advocates, business leaders, and transportation officials, to announce his legislation – the STOP NJ CONGESTION Act, which he is introducing in the U.S. Senate this week to address New York’s congestion pricing tax on New Jersey drivers and small businesses.

“My bill is simple. If congestion pricing is given final approval and New York moves forward with implementing its misguided plan, my bill would impose highway sanctions against the State of New York. In addition, my bill would require New York to meaningfully engage with — and receive consent from — affected states like New Jersey before any congestion pricing is approved,” said Sen. Menendez. “This would guarantee New Jersey a seat at the table for future proposals, something we should have had all along. My bill slams the brakes on this awful congestion pricing plan. I’ll say it again, this congestion pricing plan is a no-win for our state.”

The STOP NJ CONGESTION Act, would impose highway sanctions on any state that implements the program described in the final Environmental Assessment for the Central Business District Tolling Program, or any similar program, causing New York to lose 50 percent of their National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) and Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG) funding if they choose to move forward with the proposal. This would directly disincentivize New York from implementing its congestion pricing system.

The bill would also amend the underlying Value Pricing Pilot Program, which New York is using to implement its congestion pricing proposal, to require that a project sponsor meaningfully engage with, and receive consent from, any state that would be reasonably impacted by a proposal under the program. This essentially guarantees New Jersey a seat at the table on, and veto power over, any future congestion pricing proposal.

In addition to $17 tolls to cross into New York through the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, a $23-a-day congestion fee would impose a $5,000-a-year burden on New Jerseyans who work or do business in Manhattan, as well as an added strain to New Jersey’s transit systems and infrastructure. At a time when the budgets of working-class families and small businesses are already stretched thin, New York is trying to balance their budget by squeezing every dollar from out-of-state-residents.

“Telling New Jerseyans that congestion pricing works in London is as insulting as telling a fish how pretty the hook looks in his mouth,” said Ron Simoncini, executive director of the Fair Congestion Pricing Alliance.  “There is nothing to recommend congestion pricing as a solution for traffic woes; it is a trick to have New Jerseyans pay for upgrades to New York mass transit that New Yorkers use and should pay for themselves.”

“There are innumerable types of businesses that will suffer from congestion pricing – from companies that send their salespeople to New York to sell to those markets to companies that go to New York to procure goods and companies that ship into New York – it increases costs of operation and ultimately end costs to consumers in New York and New Jersey,” said Jim Kirkos, President and CEO of the Meadowlands Chamber of Commerce.  “The MTA expects everyone in New York and New Jersey to ignore the problems with this program and its implementation and sit idly by while they destruct an important balance in the region.  We are going to fight however we can – and reducing our coupling from New York to reduce the negative impacts of congestion pricing certainly will occur.”

Justin Braz, Assistant Commissioner for the New Jersey Department of Transportation represented the Murphy administration at the press conference.

“Since day one, I’ve stood against the disproportionate negative impacts of congestion pricing on New Jerseyans – a greater financial burden on New Jersey commuters, double tolling, toll shopping, a lack of revenue for NJ TRANSIT, outsized environmental burdens on certain North Jersey communities, and financial impacts on the Port Authority’s capital budget. Everyone in the region deserves access to more reliable mass transit, but placing an unjustified financial burden on the backs of hardworking New Jersey commuters is wrong. Simply put, it is a money grab,” said New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy.  “As a conceptual matter, I support congestion pricing, but it must be structured in a way that is fair to all sides. UntiI New York’s congestion pricing plan is fixed, I will keep working closely with partners from both states and both sides of the aisle to halt implementation of this misguided tolling plan. Our Administration is closely assessing all legal options.”

In addition to the legislation being introduced this week, the Senator also sent a letter today to Transportation Secretary Buttigieg expressing ‘serious concern’ about the impacts New York’s congestion pricing plan will have on New Jersey communities. The letter also urges Secretary Buttigieg to abandon the current EA and FONSI, and instead pursue a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that includes input from and equity for all stakeholders, including those in New Jersey.

###

Source: United States Senator for West Virginia Shelley Moore Capito

Source: United States Senator for West Virginia Shelley Moore Capito

Source: United States Senator for Connecticut – Chris Murphy

Source: United States Senator for Alaska Dan Sullivan

05.12.23

WASHINGTON—On the floor of the U.S. Senate yesterday, Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) recognized U.S. Army Sergeant 1^st Class Andrew Chapoton, a soldier with the Army’s 11^th Airborne Division based at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER), who received the U.S. Army Soldier’s Medal—the highest honor a soldier can receive for an act of heroism in a non-combat situation. In May 2022, Sergeant Chapoton sprung into action and risked his own life to save three individuals caught in a fiery car wreck on the Seward Highway. Chapoton cited his 18 years of training and experience in the Army as instrumental in being able to respond effectively to the crisis. Chapoton was recognized as part of Sen. Sullivan’s series, “Alaskan of the Week.”

Tribute to Sergeant First Class Andrew Chapoton

Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer for that heartfelt welcome here on the Senate floor.

I know the Presiding Officer is excited, and I know the pages are excited. Heck, half of America is excited because, once again, it is Thursday afternoon, and I am back on the floor giving probably my favorite speech of the week, the “Alaskan of the Week.” As many of you know, it is an opportunity for me as I love to come down to the Senate floor and brag about somebody in my State who makes it such a great State. Usually, it is somebody who is doing something good for their local community, maybe for the State, maybe for the country, maybe for the world.

Boy, we have had so many famous Alaskans of the Week, but this one–this one, my colleagues–is really special. It is about real special heroism that we see in Alaska a lot. It is about a young man named Andrew Chapoton. I am going to talk a lot about Andrew–he is an Army soldier up in Alaska–and how his bravery and heroism saved some lives in a way that is just remarkable. But I always like to begin my speech by talking a little bit about what is going on in Alaska.

I try to get home with Julie, my wife.

Hi, Julie.

She is up in the Gallery. Am I allowed to do that? I am doing it anyway.

Anyway, pretty much every weekend we have been home. Boy, over the last couple of weekends, I was out on an epic–epic–Kodiak hunting trip. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to partake in one of our State’s most cherished traditions. It was an experience I won’t forget. I will never forget it.

Kristin Wilson, if you are watching, I know you love bears, and I love bears too. She is a big fan of the “Alaskan of the Week.”

But I also like to talk about what is going on with the weather.

It is still pretty cold in a lot of places, but the Sun is higher in the sky. It is actually getting really high. The days are getting longer and longer. Today, in Anchorage, the Sun rose at 5:30 a.m., and it will set tonight at around 10:30 p.m., gaining more than 5 minutes since yesterday. So sunlight is really increasing rapidly. Birds are migrating by the tens of thousands. The excitement of spring is in the air. Winter is finally retreating. We love winter in Alaska, but, boy, we had a long, cold winter in most places.

So, if you are watching, by the way, in the Gallery or on TV, come up to Alaska. It will be the trip of a lifetime. I guarantee you it will be the trip of a lifetime.

Now let’s get to our Alaskan of the Week, SFC Andrew Chapoton, and the heroic actions he took last May–about a year ago–that earned him the U.S. Army Soldier’s Medal. That is the highest honor a soldier can receive for an act of heroism in a noncombat situation.

Andrew was born and raised in the township of Clinton, MI, but he knew that he was always going to join the military. Being in the military, from his perspective and his family’s perspective, was a good, honorable thing to do. Of course, he is right. His father fought in Vietnam, and his grandfather fought in World War II. Both of his sisters are in the Army. So he enlisted when he got out of high school and did a number of deployments–three tours to Iraq, a deployment to Haiti–and then was stationed in Alaska from 2015 to 2018 as part of the 4th Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division. It is what we call in Alaska the 4-25. I am a marine, but the 4-25 sure is one of my favorite units in the entire U.S. military, but that is a story for another day. I love the 4-25.

Andrew and his wife love Alaska–the hiking, the camping. He said:

“Everything [is] available right outside my front door.”

So they were determined to come back to Alaska. They bought a house in beautiful Eagle River, outside of Anchorage. They did come back. In 2021, he came back to Alaska where we now have the storied U.S. 11th Airborne Division. A lot of people don’t know that. We stood up an airborne division in Alaska just last year, so now we have the 82nd Airborne Division on the east coast and the 11th Airborne Division in Alaska. Andrew and his wife, now with two children and another one on the way, love Alaska.

So what did Andrew do to win the Army Soldier’s Medal? Here is how the Army described it in the summary of that medal:

“Sergeant First Class Andrew Chapoton voluntarily risked his own life in the heroic pursuit of saving others at a deadly car wreck near Seward, Alaska. His extraordinary act of valor exemplified the highest standards of selfless service and character as he repeatedly put himself in mortal danger to save others trapped in a horrific . . . car wreck. SFC Chapoton dived into the burning vehicles again and again to save three trapped occupants, without [any] regard for his own life [or his own safety].”

So that is the summary.

Here is the longer version of why this great American, great Alaskan, is today’s Alaskan of the Week.

Last May, Andrew and his wife had an out-of-town visitor who wanted to go whale watching. OK. That is something we do in Alaska. It is amazing. It is a great thing to do in our State. So one of the great places to whale watch is out of Seward, which is a few hours south of Anchorage. He almost didn’t go as he had done that tour often, but in his words, he caved and said: Let’s go do it.

So they all went. Their friend, his spouse, and their two kids got in the car and headed to Seward. They had a great time. By the way, it is another great thing to do in Alaska–whale watching. They saw a lot of whales, and they were celebrating the trip on the way back.

Then something tragic–horrible–happened. On the Seward Highway, two cars collided–a Jeep and a Dodge Dakota–almost right in front of his car. He had to swerve to miss them. It was a nasty, horrible crash. Debris went flying; smoke was billowing from both cars; and gasoline was dripping out of these cars. But Andrew didn’t continue to drive. He pulled over on the shoulder, jumped out of his car, and without thinking, in his words, “as cliche and corny as it sounds, 18 years of training kicked in, and I ran toward the scene of the accident.” That is what Andrew said. As a result, he saved the lives literally of three people.

Now, he doesn’t even have a memory of how he got from his car to the accident–training, bravery, heroism–but he does remember approaching the first car, the Dakota. He was flagging people down and yelling for a medic. There were three people in the Dakota, but none of them were moving, and the car was bursting into flames. He tried to smash the driver’s door open. He had to move the camping equipment that had fallen on the driver, and he was able to get her safely out of the car.

At this point, the car was engulfed in flames, but he went back in and got another person out of the car and to safety, which was so difficult because the car door had been smashed and crushed. Unfortunately–and we know this is hard for Andrew. I hope he is watching, by the way, and his family–he went back again but could not save the third person. The door was also crushed, and he couldn’t open it. He couldn’t find a pulse. He says it haunts him to this day.

But, again, Andrew’s instincts and training kicked in, and he transitioned to getting the driver out of the other burning car, the burning Jeep. After he got that passenger out, he performed Combat Lifesaver triage and lifesaving medical care for these three very seriously wounded Americans.

This story of heroism doesn’t end there.

Both cars, by now, had turned into raging infernos. Flaming liquid was flowing down the road and toward one of the injured passengers. With the help of another Good Samaritan, Andrew moved one of the gravely injured passengers away from the impending explosion of this car. Then he shielded her body when the car did explode. Debris and shrapnel were flying everywhere. Even after the fire department arrived, Andrew continued to take the lead in performing lifesaving medical treatment.

Eventually, a Life Flight helicopter arrived to take the seriously injured individuals to the hospital. Andrew stayed and gave his statement to the troopers. He handed his keys to his wife, got back in his car, and drove back home several miles–a couple of hours–to Anchorage. It was a quiet ride.

He said:

“I used up every single ounce of adrenalin that was in my 38-year-old body.”

His children saw much of what happened, and they are proud of their father, and Andrew is proud and so deserving to receive the Army Soldier’s Medal. But he did say he would trade that in a thousand times over if only all the passengers had survived.

These are the kind of people who live in Alaska–brave, selfless, and heroic. And these are the kind of people–by the way, America–who make up our military. Not every American citizen would have done what Andrew just did. As a matter of fact, I would say most people probably wouldn’t–people who risk their lives, their own lives, whether it is protecting Americans at home or people abroad, so that others could live. That is what our military members do.

This is how the Army summed up this heroic action:

“SFC Chapoton’s ability to perform these heroic acts under extreme pressure while simultaneously taking control of the scene [of this horrific crash] is a testament to his [U.S.] Army values. [Fundamentally] understanding the extreme personal risk to his own life, SFC Chapoton selflessly endangered himself again and again to save American lives. He risked his own safety to help avert a catastrophic outcome. Without his selfless courage in the face of grave danger, more lives would have been lost.”

So thank you, Andrew, for your bravery, your heroism, your example, not just to your friends and family or to Alaskans but to all Americans and all veterans. Thank you for protecting our Nation. Thank you for volunteering to serve. Thank you for making your home in Alaska. Thank you for your heroic actions on that day. We want to congratulate you for being awarded the U.S. Army Soldier’s Medal, one of the highest honors a soldier can achieve and, certainly, Andrew, one of the highest honors you can achieve in the U.S. Senate: being our Alaskan of the Week. Great job.

# # #

Source: United States Senator for Louisiana Bill Cassidy

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, rebuked President Biden’s new Title IX proposed rule that forces schools to allow biological males to compete in women’s sports or risk losing federal funds. Cassidy raised concerns that the proposed rule ignores physiological differences between men and women and will undo generations of progress for women’s and girls’ participation in school sports. 

On April 6^th, the Department of Education (ED) announced a proposed rule that would extend students’ Title IX discrimination protections in athletics to include gender identity. Additionally, the rule allows the federal government to overrule state policies aimed at protecting women in sports, and defund schools that do not comply. As a physician, Cassidy expressed serious concern that the physical advantages of biological men, such as size and strength, could pose a potential safety risk if they are allowed to compete in women’s sports.   

“…I am especially concerned by the Department’s apparent failure to consult with medical professionals in the development of the proposed rule,” wrote Dr. Cassidy. “From a medical perspective, enabling male-to-female transgender students that have undergone puberty to indiscriminately compete with biological female students is a disservice to women’s sports.” 

“Female athletes should not have their future in athletics hindered because they are forced to compete against biological males who have an unfair physical advantage,” continued Dr. Cassidy. “For these reasons, I ask that you rescind the Title IX Athletics proposed rule and instead work with Congress to protect girls and women’s sports from unfair competition.” 

Read the full letter here or below.  

Dear Secretary Cardona: 

On April 13, 2023, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) released its Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) titled “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance: Sex-Related Eligibility Criteria for Male and Female Athletic Teams” (Title IX Athletics proposed rule or proposed rule), which ignores physiological differences between the sexes and undoes generations of progress for women’s and girls’ participation in school sports. I write to oppose the proposed rule and ask that you rescind it. 

This is a physiological fairness issue. Female athletes should not have their future in athletics hindered because they are forced to compete against biological males who have an unfair physical advantage. 

The proposed rule ignores physiological distinctions between men and women that necessitate sex-specific sports leagues. Furthermore, it invokes a dubious legal standard to extend sex discrimination protections to gender identity. And finally, the proposed rule creates confusion by imposing an unclear framework for schools to create policies for transgender students’ participation on athletic teams that do not match their biological sex—even if local laws reach a different conclusion about who should be allowed to compete in women’s sports.

Physiological Differences

From a medical perspective, enabling male-to-female transgender students that have undergone puberty to indiscriminately compete with biological female students is a disservice to women’s sports. The proposed rule works completely against the spirit of Title IX to ensure equal opportunity for women and girls in school and in sports.

As a medical doctor, there are undeniable physiological differences between men and women.[1] The Title IX Athletics proposed rule even acknowledges the risk that male-to-female transgender students who have “undergone endogenous puberty . . . [have] potentially unfair advantages in size, weight, and strength differences and potentially pos[e] a risk of injury to others.” However, the proposed rule diminishes the significant advantage that biological males on average have over biological females in sports by arguing that there is existing variability among biological female athletes and some of them are bigger, heavier, and stronger than other biological females.  The varying athletic availabilities of biological females is not what the Department is seeking to regulate, and thus the comparison is irrelevant. 

Americans do not need a medical doctor to explain the differences between men and women: they can trust their own eyes. In 2019, Lia Thomas, then competing against men, completed the 1650-yard freestyle in 14:54:76—faster than the women’s world-record.[2][3] Two years later, competing as a transgender woman, Thomas broke records by finishing the same event more than 38 seconds ahead of the second-place finisher, a biological woman. Thomas also won the 200-yard freestyle with a time of 1:41.93, winning by an enormous margin of nearly seven seconds. Medical journals confirm what is observable to every individual, “[s]ex is a major factor influencing best performances . . . [and] [r]esults suggest that women will not run, jump, swim or ride as fast as men.”[4] Suffice it to say that it is empirically certain that men are faster than women and have a significant competitive advantage in sports.

Further, these performance differences do not evaporate after receiving hormone therapy post-puberty. Male-to-female transgender people maintain physiological advantages in athletics over biological women, even after a full year of post-puberty hormone therapy.[5] A review from the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that “transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression.”[6] A separate review found transwomen’s muscle mass remains higher than biological women after transitioning.[7] And an exhaustive data review published in Sports Medicine concluded “that superior anthropometric, muscle mass and strength parameters achieved by males at puberty, and underpinning a considerable portion of the male performance advantage over females, are not removed by the current regimen of testosterone suppression permitting participation of transgender women in female sports categories.”[8] Simply, biological differences do not disappear overnight, if they can disappear completely at all. 

In light of the medical evidence and observable performance differences detailing transgender women’s superior athletic ability compared to biological women, I am especially concerned by the Department’s apparent failure to consult with medical professionals in the development of the proposed rule. The Department was required to conduct an interagency review process after the proposed rule was sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). According to reginfo.gov, this proposed rule did not complete the customary 30-day interagency review process. If the Department or OMB consulted with physicians or other medical professionals during the promulgation of the proposed rule, the Department has failed to mention that consultation or describe the input medical professionals had in developing the proposed rule, both in the written preamble to the rule or when verbally describing the proposed rule’s development process.

The Department’s failure to consult medical professionals in the development of this rule should disqualify the administration from moving ahead with this misguided proposal. 

Legal Standard

The proposed rule relies on an unfounded legal theory to redefine sex as gender identity and conflates Constitutional Equal Protection with statutory protections. The proposed rule states that “Title IX differs from the scope of the Equal Protection Clause,” and instead “exclusively implement[s] Title IX.” Yet, the Department justifies its interpretation by citing twenty-three times a U.S. District Court case that applied Constitutional Equal Protection.[9] The unsupported legal foundation for the proposed rule blurs the line between Constitutional guarantees of Equal Protection and statutory prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of sex. Neither justify the proposed rule’s reinterpretation of sex to mean gender identity, and it appears the rule is designed to invite legal challenges.

In an effort to find a legal justification to redefine sex as gender identity, the proposed rule relies on a single U.S. District Court opinion throughout, despite the fact that oral arguments have been heard in its appeal.[10] The case the Department relies upon is not settled law. What is settled is that at the time Title IX was enacted, even the outspokenly liberal Justice William J. Brennan adopted the then unquestioned position for the Supreme Court that “sex . . .is an immutable characteristic[.]”[11] The Department’s redefining “sex” to include “gender identity” for Title IX protection purposes represents a novel legal theory that defies decades of fundamentally contrary regulatory interpretation by the Department. The legal authority supporting the Department’s justification for this proposed rule is, at best, flimsy. 

Unclear Framework to Limit Participation

The proposed rule creates a narrow and opaque framework for schools to implement policies for transgender athletes to compete on teams that do not match their biological sex. But the Department’s justification underpinning the proposed rule of providing greater clarity to schools on how to comply with Title IX is obscured by questions left unanswered.

Under the proposed rule, if a school prevents biological males from competing against biological females, it must justify that policy by describing, for each sport, level of competition, and grade or education level how its policy is: (i) substantially related to an important educational objective, and (ii) minimizes harms to transgender students whose opportunity to compete on a team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied. 

Critically, the Department fails to identify one concrete example of a policy that meets this newly invented standard leaving schools in the dark about what policies would meet the administration’s framework. Some questions that require answers include:

• What is an “important educational objective” in sports?
• How are schools supposed to compete with other schools that adopt conflicting policies?
• What level of competition supports an exclusionary policy?
• Does participation on a junior varsity team that functions as a pipeline to a competitive varsity atmosphere constitute a high enough level of competition to pass the Department’s bar? 
• Can a middle school ever justify prohibiting transgender students from competing consistent with their gender identity? What if participation on a middle school team functions as a part of the vetting process for higher levels of competition in the same sport at the same school?
• If prevention of sports-related injury is an important educational objective, then how can a school attempt to prevent sports-related injury when its students compete against a school that allows transgender female students to compete against biological females?
• Can the administration provide an example of a satisfactory harm minimization policy?
• Can harms to biological females be considered as part of harm minimization?
• The proposed rule “reflects the understanding that students may be harmed significantly if a school denies them the opportunity to participate in its athletic program consistent with their gender identity.” Can a school policy that prevents transgender students from competition on a team consistent with their gender identity ever sufficiently minimize the harms to satisfy the administration’s proposed framework?

These questions need answers, especially for schools in states that have enacted laws in direct conflict with the proposed rule. States are protecting female athletics by ensuring their only competition is against other biological females on a level playing field—without having to compete against biological males with well-understood physiological advantages. As of May 1, 2023, Louisiana, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming have each enacted protections for women’s and girls’ sports through the democratic process. These state laws provide schools with the certainty this proposed rule would remove. 

The opaque framework in this rule acts as a tool of intimidation by forcing states to formalize their policies and only providing direction that they were out of compliance when the federal government threatens to strip them of their funding. Without answers to these questions, I am concerned that the proposed rule’s criteria will subject schools to selective, subjective enforcement by the Department’s Office of Civil Rights. The Title IX Athletics proposed rule imposes the administration’s policy preference onto every state, county, and local education agency—even if their local laws reach a different conclusion about who should be allowed to compete in women’s sports. In doing so, the Department injects confusion where states have settled the issue by overriding democratically enacted laws.

Conclusion 

The proposed rule ignores physiological distinctions between men and women that necessitate sex-specific sports leagues. As stated, it invokes a dubious legal standard to extend sex discrimination protections to gender identity, and creates confusion by imposing an unclear framework for schools to create policies to limit transgender students’ participation on athletic teams that do not match their biological sex. 

For these reasons, I ask that you rescind the Title IX Athletics proposed rule and instead work with Congress to protect girls and women’s sports from unfair competition.

###

Source: United States Senator for New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen

---

---

Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed

NEWPORT, RI – May is Mental Health Awareness Month, an opportunity to raise awareness about the importance of mental health and emotional well-being, while reducing the stigma around mental health disorders.

Today, U.S. Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse joined officials at the Newport Mental Health Center (NMH) to commemorate Mental Health Awareness Month and deliver $201,000 in federal funding to assist both youth and older adult residents with mental health needs and improve health outcomes.

According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), one in six American youth experience a mental health condition annually; with only half of them receiving treatment.  And, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), suicide rates are highest among men 65 and older, a clear indication of unmet mental health needs in the older adult community.

Further, the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated mental health challenges across age groups.

To help NMH address these challenges, Reed and Whitehouse secured a pair of federal earmarks to expand access to mental health services for younger and older residents:

• Senator Reed secured a $100,000 earmark for the expansion of free mental health services delivered to youth and young adults in Newport County.  Under the project, NMH will expand its services to at-risk youth by enhancing its school and office-based treatment services and behavioral health interventions.  NMH is adding specialized comprehensive mobile crisis services for 150 high-need students per year in four local school districts.  The project will also expand emergency crisis services to children at risk of serious emotional disturbance.

• Senator Whitehouse secured a $101,000 earmark for a project called Mental Health Care for Older Adults to Meet Growing Demand.  NMH will use the federal funds to increase outreach activities to better identify and engage older adults with substance use and mental health issues, and to provide evidence-based, age-appropriate treatment to at-risk seniors at their home or in their community.

Senator Reed noted that the most recent data from the CDC Youth Risk Behavior report shows teens — especially girls — are experiencing shockingly high levels of depressive symptoms, suicidal thoughts, and mental health challenges. Nearly 1 in 3 high school girls reported in 2021 that they seriously considered suicide and nearly 60 percent of teenage girls reported feeling so persistently sad or hopeless almost every day for at least two weeks in a row during the previous year that they stopped regular activities.

In 2022, Reed and Whitehouse helped include $3 billion for school and community-based mental health and trauma-informed care in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (P.L. 117-159), which President Biden signed into law.  They also provided $280 million in FY23 to help meet students’ mental health needs, including federal grants allowing school districts across the country to hire approximately 5,400 mental health professionals and train approximately 5,500 more to build a diverse force of mental health care providers in schools.

“I will continue to invest in Rhode Island’s mental health infrastructure, including research, providers, and school-based and community-based resources.  This is an investment in our children’s well-being.  Too many kids and adolescents go untreated and wind up in crisis at the emergency room.  We need to do a better job connecting youth to mental health support and this federal funding is part of that effort,” said Senator Reed.  “Accessing needed mental health services can change the trajectory of children’s lives and lead to positive outcomes.  We need to be proactive.  We need to ensure people feel connected and can get the help they need and that means prioritizing mental health care and letting folks know that mental health check ins are a positive, healthy thing to do.  Whether someone is diagnosed with cancer or a mental illness, they need access to health providers who can effectively treat them and people who will support their path to recovery.”

Senator Whitehouse also highlighted the need for innovative outreach and strategies to reduce depression, anxiety, and suicide in elderly Americans by supporting evidence-based approaches to improving senior mental health and well-being.  Older people face unique mental health challenges and can become more susceptible to conditions such as depression and anxiety that is exacerbated by declining physical health, loneliness, grief, or loss of independence.

“The pandemic took a heavy toll on Rhode Islanders dealing with mental health and substance use issues, especially those on the long, noble road of recovery,” said Senator Whitehouse, who authored the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, the law guiding the federal response to the opioid epidemic.  “I am pleased to secure funding to support the important work of the Newport County Community Mental Health Center in expanding outreach to older adults at risk of substance use and mental health challenges.”

“I want to thank Senators Reed and Whitehouse for championing the needs of people with mental health and substance use disorders.  These funds provided to Newport Mental Health address two of the largest unmet needs for mental health services in Newport County, those of children and our older adults.  These age groups are experiencing the fastest growing demand for our services,” said NMH President & CEO Jamie Lehane.

In addition to the federal funding announced today, Rhode Island is one of fifteen states that was recently awarded a $1 million, one-year planning grant to be considered among the final ten states that will be chosen in 2024 to participate in the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic (CCBHC) Medicaid demonstration program.

The senators also say it is important to remind people experiencing mental health challenges that help is available, no one should have to battle mental illness alone, and it is healthy and a sign of strength to seek assistance.

Founded in 1964, Newport Mental Health provides trauma informed evidence-based services to children, adolescents, families, and adults who are experiencing problems with mental illness, substance abuse, or stress in their lives that would benefit from counseling and other behavioral health services and supports.

Source: United States Senator for Maine Angus King

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Susan Collins and Angus King, members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, have joined a bipartisan group of their Senate colleagues to introduce legislation that would reform and modernize the United States’ classification system. The Sensible Classification Act of 2023 would increase accountability and oversight of the classification system, limit overclassification, and direct federal agencies to justify security clearance requirements.

“Protecting our national security is of paramount importance, and this bill will ensure that that our classification system safeguards both the public’s access to information and properly aligns the classification levels to the critical intelligence that does indeed need protection,” said Senator Collins.

“We have an overclassification problem, a declassification problem, and – as we’ve clearly seen over the last few weeks – an access to information problem,” said Senator King. “The Sensible Classification Act of 2023 will spell out what information merits a classification, how long the classification lasts, and who is permitted access to that classified information. With an everchanging landscape of technology and threats, it’s an important step to promote public trust and keep Americans safe.”

The Sensible Classification Act of 2023 will codify classification authority, streamline the processes for declassification, direct training focused on sensible classification, invest in new technology to modernize the classification system, and direct a review regarding the necessity of existing security clearances to identify potential areas for additional reforms. Introduced in tandem with Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Warner’s Classification Reform Act that Senator King has cosponsored, this legislation:

• Codifies classification authority as the President, Vice President, head of an agency, or the individual to whom such authority has been delegated in line with current practice pursuant to Executive Order 13526 and specifies how the authority is delegated and the training required to receive it;
• Promotes efficient declassification for records under the Freedom of Information Act or Mandatory Declassification Review;
• Requires training to promote sensible classification;
• Improves the Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB) by allowing for additional staff to be hired and allowing members to serve until a successor is appointed;
• Directs the federal government to develop a federated and integrated technology solution to the issue of classification and declassification;
• And directs federal agencies to conduct a study on the necessity of number and types of security clearances with sufficient justification.

The bill is also cosponsored by U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX), Mark Warner (D-VA), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Mike Rounds (R-SD), and Martin Heinrich (D-NM).

Source: United States Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore)

---

---