By Roger Marshall In February, Kansas plummeted into some of its coldest temperatures on record. Families and businesses across the state were forced to go without heat and power, and utility companies used rolling power outages to conserve energy and lessen the demand on its systems. A combination of widespread and prolonged cold temperatures reduced production from multiple energy sources and a sudden demand for natural gas sent energy prices soaring. Communities have already started declaring financial emergencies and homeowners and small business owners are also realizing the true cost of the crisis. While speaking with energy stakeholders in Kansas over the past few weeks, I've learned that natural gas traded for more than 100-percent its normal price. Utilities did everything they could to keep the lights on and the gas flowing. But for small, rural communities, the price tag for the week will likely triple their annual budget for natural gas, and homeowners have received bills that are in some cases upwards of 100 times their normal cost. As part of the recently passed American Rescue Plan, Congress directed over $350 billion to state and local governments to address ongoing issues related to the pandemic. I am engaging with U.S. Treasury Secretary Yellen urging the Department to provide state and local governments with the flexibility to use these funds to address the ongoing energy crisis. A $10,000 utility bill would be tough under normal circumstances, but the economic challenges brought on by this pandemic makes this catastrophe even more devastating for families and communities still trying to recover. February's wild weather highlighted the vulnerabilities of our energy infrastructure. Sustained cold temperatures stressed our system and unfortunately, we learned that it can break. Shortly after the cold snap, I requested a hearing in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. During that hearing, I had an opportunity to question energy experts on exactly why we saw record-setting energy prices followed by a precipitous drop in gas prices. Many Kansans were left in a vulnerable financial position, but market trends suggest the possibility of certain actors making dramatic financial gains off of the misfortunate situation. The question remains: did market manipulation occur when our energy system broke down? While the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) investigates any wrong doing, the job of Kansas energy producers is to continue increasing resiliency and ensuring the breakdown of our energy system never happens again. Kansas is home to diverse energy sources. From petroleum to ethanol to wind energy and nuclear, our state has an abundance of resources to heat and power our homes and business. Efforts by past state and federal Administrations have pushed the growth of renewable energy sources, often at the expense of some of our state's reliable and proven energy reserves, including coal and nuclear power generation. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, wind power now generates more than 40 percent of our state's energy. However, during the coldest days of the crisis, the Southwest Power Pool reported that wind generated just a tenth of its normal production because of the inability of wind turbines to operate in freezing conditions. Energy stakeholders in Kansas will remind you that while wind provides power, its coal and nuclear energy generation that are necessary for consistent generation. When we remove our reliable energy sources, we easily fall victim to the impacts of adverse weather conditions. Reliable energy and the environment are not on opposite sides of this debate. American innovation has helped this country reach a 25-year low in carbon production and we are only becoming more environmentally friendly in our practices and technologies. We can and should find the sweet spot of protecting our environment while ensuring Kansans remain warm when temperatures dip below freezing. As a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I want to remain focused on preserving our diverse energy portfolio and guaranteeing that all forms of energy continue to be productive. This means we cannot push out entire modes of energy production -- like coal and petroleum -- at the expense of an all-renewable energy portfolio. America has the resources and innovation to keep all forms of energy flowing and that diversity will ensure the lights stay on, no matter the weather. Roger Marshall, M.D., represents Kansas in the U.S. Senate

By: Roger Marshall is a U.S. senator from Kansas. I recently took my third trip to our southern border as a member of Congress, my first since being elected to the U.S. Senate. It was also my first visit since President Biden has been in office. As a physician, I've done mission work all over the world and I know a humanitarian crisis when I see it. The situation at our southern border is a massive crisis. During a 30-mile helicopter tour in Texas, I saw more than 200 border crossers traveling by foot, car or raft as they ventured across the Rio Grande to take advantage of the lax immigration enforcement measures being deployed on our southern border. This was just a fraction of what the state is seeing at this stretch of border on a daily basis. The current administration attempts to blame this crisis on the previous administration, stating its predecessor's policies created a "pent-up demand." This dangerous deflection fails to acknowledge that the increased demand has come directly at the hands of President Biden. Since being sworn in, he has implemented a number of policies and proposed several others that are now serving as an immense magnet for individuals in Mexico and Central American countries to attempt to enter the United States. He halted construction of the border wall by unlawfully freezing funding, ended the Remain in Mexico Program and has reaffirmed his commitment to grant blanket amnesty to at least 11 million illegal immigrants already residing in the country, to name a few. More:Thousands of migrant children are trying to enter the U.S., renewing a fight in Washington. What's going on at the Mexico border? With less than two months in office, President Biden's policies have created a three-pronged crisis on the southern border unlike anything we've ever seen. First, it's a humanitarian crisis. The number of unaccompanied children being held in detention is unprecedented and the sheer volume of individuals arriving at our southern border is amongst the highest ever recorded. The number of children in Customs and Border Patrol custody has increased by more than 400%, up to more than 13,000. Holding facilities for minors in the Rio Grande Valley region of Texas where I toured are at 363% capacity. In February, the U.S. Border Patrol arrested nearly 100,441 individuals, the third-highest month in more than a decade and 45% higher than February during the 2019 border crisis. Second, it's a health care crisis. The United States is emerging from a year spent battling a deadly pandemic that resulted in the death of more than half a million Americans. Migrants arriving at the southern border are testing positive for the coronavirus at between three and 10 times the rate of American citizens. Third, it's a national security crisis. By exploiting the surge of individuals making the journey north, Mexican cartels are making money by assisting many of them across the border. The Texas Department of Public Safety told me that Mexican Cartels are making more money trafficking humans than they do drugs. More:President Biden tells potential migrants: 'Don't come' to the U.S. amid surge at southern border Apprehending unaccompanied minors and family units is also taking away resources from Border Patrol so it's unable to focus on drug seizures. In February, drug seizures increased 50% from January, including a 40% increase in methamphetamine and a 48% increase in heroin. The Biden administration policies of an open border and mass amnesty have created a humanitarian crisis, a health care crisis and a national security crisis. While we try to show compassion to everyone, keeping our border secure must be a top priority. Without secure borders, we cannot ensure our nation's safety, period.

By Roger Marshall In my four years in Congress, the phrase I've heard most regularly abused is "Follow the science." Politicians, bureaucrats and reporters in Washington--many of whom, based on their comments, seem to have last attended science class in eighth grade--have a penchant for developing policies and then lecturing the opposition on the "science" that follows their agenda. Like my granddad used to say, "figures lie and liars figure." Covid-19 policy is no exception. In medical school, my classmates and I were taught to apply the science practically to the messy world around us, not merely follow theories as if we practiced medicine in a vacuum. Once we got out of the classroom, many of us quickly found that not every patient's clinical course was exactly what the textbooks said. The medical school graduates who quickly became the best physicians were those who listened to their patients, called on their experience, and, yes, applied the science only as made sense in particular circumstances. Nothing is harder for a physician to manage than a virus. Human papillomavirus, for example, often causes cervical precancer and cancer. Our obstetrics and gynecology residency program studied HPV as far back as my internship in 1987. From 1997 to 2003, by combining pap smears with HPV strain identification, doctors could employ technology that identified which patients were truly at risk for cancer, versus those who should merely be observed. But finding the correct application took roughly a decade, and as doctors struggled to use the data to distinguish who was at high and low risk, I observed the condition was often overtreated. It took real-world trial and error to tailor the right approach. Along with the approval of the HPV vaccine in 2006, medical researchers over the past decade have consistently shown enough scientific data for physicians to know with confidence which patients should be monitored and which need cervical procedures or hysterectomies. This eliminated millions of unnecessary surgeries, preserved fertility, and decreased extreme premature delivery in some instances. I can say as a physician that what we've seen developed over the past year regarding diagnosis and treatment and vaccines for Covid is truly a miracle. But the medical community is still developing its understanding of treatments and risk factors. Similarly, viral infections during pregnancy are completely unpredictable. Even understanding risk factors, you never know how an individual patient's physiology will react. How well patients fight off a virus depends on their natural immunity, which depends on all sorts of largely unknowable criteria. Whether it's hepatitis, chickenpox, West Nile or the common flu, my professor once told me, "If you've seen one case of a particular virus in pregnancy, you've only seen one case." His point? Apply the science as best you can, but each case has its own complexities. Developing better treatments takes a long time and real-world data from treating patients. It's impossible to follow the science of most any virus with great certainty, especially a novel virus. The medical community knew from day one that the science on Covid would be predictably unpredictable and constantly changing. When government scientists--let alone politicians and journalists--present a hasty, incomplete hypothesis as indisputable fact, they're acting contrary to science--and often driving a preconceived agenda. Science is a systematic enterprise that organizes knowledge into predictions about the universe. It is not a gospel of indisputable, never-changing truth. Just as cancer treatments have changed over time, doctors will discover countless false hypotheses that were put forward as fact by government agencies and healthcare experts from all fields surrounding Covid-19. Science is never settled. Take the notorious subject of mask mandates. The overly certain "science" of bureaucrats first told Americans not to wear masks. Then we had to wear them indoors. Then this was extended to include outdoor mask wearing. Now, a good American needs to don two, maybe three masks even if you've had the virus or the vaccine to "follow the science"--unless you are seated at a restaurant, or with a small group that also is vaccinated. Then you're safe. There is little scientific logic behind these shifts. But out of an abundance of caution, please keep wearing your masks in public. Now let's talk about applying science. Real-world evidence suggests that the effectiveness of one shot of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine ranges between 72% to 92.6% after two weeks. Further evidence suggests the second shot could be given 12 weeks later instead of three or four weeks and be equally effective. After every senior citizen and high-risk individual gets their two shots, applied science would suggest we could save tens of thousands of lives if we give one shot to as many people as possible and came back for a second dose as more vaccines are available. This is assuming that robust real-world evidence finds a second shot even necessary, which it's possible won't be borne out by the evidence. Consider this: If you had 200 Pfizer vaccines and 200 family members, and it was up to you, how would you allocate them? The current emergency-use authorization tells you to give 100 people two shots. Assuming it will be 95% effective, only 100 people would be vaccinated, and 95 would be protected. Alternatively, you could give 200 people one shot, assuming 75% effectiveness, 150 people at a minimum would be protected. This approach has the potential to address the relative limitations in supply and the hiccups we are seeing ramping up in mass vaccination sites right now. Each day that applied science is delayed, more people than otherwise will die from Covid-19, and the opening of businesses and schools will be unnecessarily delayed. I'm not trying to be too prescriptive. The Food and Drug Administration is tasked to ensure the safety, efficacy and security of all medical products. Congress should clarify how and when the FDA considers real-world evidence in emergency-use authorizations during pandemics--and make sure that practical realities are accounted for. State and local officials and healthcare providers across the country need to do the scientific thing and apply theory to the world practically, not blindly follow it as if we exist in a vacuum. Dr. Marshall, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Kansas. He represented the First Congressional District, 2017-21, and was a practicing obstetrician and gynecologist in Great Bend, Kan.