When the coronavirus pandemic hit the United States early this year, it sent shockwaves across our economy and pushed many of the nation's public health systems to the brink. Frontline health care workers, hospitals and patients suddenly were forced to confront a silent, deadly, fast-moving virus with no known cure and no vaccine. For millions of anxious Americans, the isolation measures put in place to stop the spread of the virus only exacerbated the gaps in access to the health care services they need. It was especially hard on rural and older Americans, communities of color, low-income families, and those dealing with addiction or mental health issues. In March, when Congress passed its major bipartisan COVID-19 relief package, it included a $200 million investment in "telehealth" that has emerged as a valuable lifeline for millions of patients across the country. It has allowed those in rural, urban and tribal communities to use technology to connect to their doctors and mental health professionals from home, while still taking precautions to protect themselves and their families from the virus. The funding, overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has allowed health providers to upgrade their telehealth infrastructure and to connect patients and doctors through tools like laptops, phones and tablets. And with broadband internet services scarce in much of rural America, it also funded wireless "hot spots" that allow patients in rural areas to gain access to remote health care services. Unfortunately, by July, the funds were depleted after being distributed to hundreds of providers in 47 states and Washington, D.C. That's why earlier this month, I joined with Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) to introduce the bipartisan COVID-19 Telehealth Program Extension Act to invest an additional $200 million so that many more providers can deliver telehealth services during the pandemic. Reps. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) and Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) have also introduced a bipartisan House companion bill. This new funding is especially needed now, as we enter the cold winter months with the country experiencing a significant surge in infections and deaths. Telehealth Has Been "Transformative" During Pandemic As I've tracked the success of the FCC's telehealth program in my home state of Minnesota, providers of all sizes -- from the Mayo Clinic to a small rural tribal provider -- tell me how valuable it has been for their patients in overcoming barriers to getting the care they need during this pandemic. One senior clinical psychologist said telehealth has been "transformative," by eliminating transportation as a barrier to seeing a doctor. She told me that "among my patients, the mere thought of having to take multiple modes of transportation to access health care is enough to cease the pursuit of care." Transportation is an especially acute problem in rural areas, where patients often have to travel long distances for services, with very few public transportation options available. Another Minnesota provider told me that telehealth has allowed her "to reach more patients, while providing the same level of care." Still another said their clinicians were able to use telehealth services to increase patient contacts, resulting in a 38 percent drop in their "no-show" rates for appointments over two months. Telehealth also eases the fears of those with preexisting health problems, by allowing them to avoid the risk of visiting a hospital or clinic during the pandemic. And, for parents who lack childcare, it allows them to get health services without the burden of having to arrange for their children's care while they see their provider in person. Investing in Telehealth Beyond the Pandemic As a member of the Senate Health Committee, I've championed telehealth because it's proving to be an important tool in closing some of the most significant gaps in patients' access to health care services. And it can continue to serve as a lifeline and address social determinants of health, not only during this pandemic, but into the future. This pandemic has already led to a dramatic increase in telehealth services for both physical and behavioral health. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), prior to the pandemic, approximately 13,000 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries received telemedicine per week. By April 2020, nearly 1.7 million beneficiaries received telehealth services. I'm pushing the bipartisan COVID-19 Telehealth Program Extension Act because it can improve access to health services all over the country if we give providers and patients the tools they need to make that happen.

By Sen. Tina Smith I'm sitting on my flight home to Minnesota, like I do every week after the Senate adjourns. I've been a US senator for two and half years, all under the leadership of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. On these flights, I often reflect on the past week. Rarely can I say we've voted on meaningful legislation to help the American people. More often I'd say we voted on a bunch of President Donald Trump's judges (the Senate confirmed his 200th judge last month) and other nominees). I'll be honest, it's frustrating. But last week, I departed Washington, DC, one especially angry senator, and here's why. In a few days, tens of millions of Americans are poised to lose their expanded unemployment insurance. It's the only lifeline that's kept lots of people afloat during the Covid-19 pandemic. In many states, limits on foreclosures and evictions, which have kept people from losing their homes, are expiring. While Larry Kudlow, the director of the National Economic Council, says these protections will be expanded, there's no clarity on what comes next. Local school districts have minimal guidance from the CDC or any idea of what help they can expect as they contemplate how to reopen schools safely. Small businesses are left struggling to make payroll. And the United States just passed 4 million Covid-19 cases -- one quarter of which came just in the last 15 days -- and registered more than 144,000 deaths. Did we do anything to meaningfully solve these problems in the US Senate? No. The only thing we learned, hours after the Senate adjourned, is that McConnell will introduce a bill, crafted behind closed doors by Senate Republicans and the White House, without any input from Democrats, for what they think we should do next. Still, he has since said a final deal is likely "a few weeks" away. Maybe Texas Sen. Ted Cruz put it best: "What in the hell are we doing?" He reportedly said this to White House negotiators and Senate Republicans at a meeting last week. It tidily sums up the chaos we're witnessing. While Cruz and I certainly have different perspectives on what we need to do in this moment, his question is a good one. Trump surely must be held accountable for this government's disastrous response to the pandemic. He's called the coronavirus a hoax, repeatedly undermined public health experts, disputed proven strategies to manage the disease, promoted ineffective ones, and consistently misled Americans. He has failed at containing the pandemic, and the American public knows it. But McConnell needs to be held accountable, too. Part of the Senate majority leader's job is to set the Senate calendar. The House passed its latest Covid-19 relief bill a full 10 weeks ago. The Senate has been in Washington for seven weeks since then, in addition to three weeks that McConnell mystifyingly sent us home. In that time, we took 28 votes on Trump judges and nominees, and voted on 19 various bills -- a few important, many not, and virtually none of them related to the pandemic. So, what has Mitch McConnell been doing? As Senate majority leader, did he think these 10 weeks could be used to develop a plan among members of his own party, not to mention us Democrats, who stand ready to work? Did he ever think maybe there was more pressing business than confirming positions like the CEO of the US Agency for Global Media, which oversees news organizations like Voice of America? We can't get those 10 weeks back. But there are a few things McConnell can do now to get the Senate back to working the way it should. First, he needs to remember that nothing can pass the Senate without Democratic support. In fact, we saw this movie before when we passed the $2 trillion stimulus package a few months ago. McConnell spent far too long crafting a partisan bill without Democrats' input; it didn't pass because Senate rules require bipartisan support for passage of most legislation. Only then did he bring Democrats to the table. We helped improve the bill, adding provisions like enhanced unemployment insurance and a moratorium on foreclosures and evictions. That passed with broad bipartisan support. Crafting the current bill without Democrats is a waste of time. Instead of trying to placate the far fringes of his party or our erratic President, Sen. McConnell should bring Democrats to the table now and avoid prolonging this process into the middle of August. Second, McConnell needs to understand that the path to safely reopening and economic recovery is doing what it takes to suppress the spread of the virus: enforce social distancing, require people to wear masks (which, after months of delay, the President finally endorsed last week), and follow CDC guidelines. And we need to act with urgency. McConnell's slow walk in the Senate, and the President's strident messages about reopening without consideration of the consequences, is costing us more than time. We've seen the results. Florida, with a population of 21 million, had more cases of Covid-19 in a single day than South Korea, with a population of 51 million, has had during the entirety of the pandemic. And in Texas, health authorities in a rural county have said they will need to start rationing care because their ICU beds are full. McConnell needs to be a forceful voice of reason: the only way we can avoid finding ourselves looking at another trillion-dollar piece of legislation in a few months is by getting a handle on the virus. Americans are gripped by uncertainty and worry. The US Senate should be helping, putting our heads down and working together to get the job done. I hope McConnell is ready to start. The American people need certainty and relief. I don't want to fly home next Thursday unable to tell Minnesotans that we've been working to get them the help they need.

By Senators Cramer, King, Rounds, Manchin, Daines, Smith, Barrasso, Tester, and Enzi "Agriculture is the economic engine for many communities in the Midwest, North East, and across the Upper Great Plains. Our agricultural producers play a critical role in feeding and fueling our nation, and also in our national security strategy. When we can produce affordable, nutritious food here at home, we don't have to rely on other countries to obtain it. Unfortunately, the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is exposing several vulnerabilities to our nation's food supply chain. "Today, around 80 percent of the nation's beef is processed by only four meat packing companies, two of which are foreign owned. In the last few weeks, several of their processing facilities have closed because of COVID-19 outbreaks among their workforce. This highlights a chokepoint in our food supply chain. With fewer processing plants available to accept livestock, our farmers and ranchers have fewer outlets for their product. At the same time, American consumers are seeing shortages of beef, pork and poultry at the grocery store. "As we look to enhance additional markets for producers and consumers, one is immediately available. The New Markets for State-Inspected Meat and Poultry Act is a bipartisan bill which would allow meat and poultry products inspected by state Meat and Poultry Inspection (MPI) programs to be sold across state lines. Senators Rounds (R-S.D.) and King (I-Maine) led a bipartisan group of senators to introduce this legislation last year, and now we are urging our congressional leaders to include it in any future economic recovery measures. "This commonsense legislation would allow meat and poultry products that have been inspected by a Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS)-approved state MPI program to be sold across state lines. Right now, there are 27 states with inspection programs certified by FSIS that meet or exceed federal inspection standards. However, only six states are allowed to sell their state- inspected meat and poultry across state lines. "Under federal regulations, state MPI standards must be "at least equal to" federal meat and poultry inspection programs. For example, in South Dakota, state-inspected meat products such as beef and pork are limited to markets within South Dakota, despite being subject to inspections equal to or exceeding federal inspection standards. "This bill would level the playing field for producers of meat and poultry products while maintaining the highest quality standards for consumers. Since the state inspection standards are required by law to be equal to or better than the federal inspection standards, it makes sense to allow products that pass state inspection protocols to be sold across state lines. This legislation will create new markets for producers and processers, give consumers more choices at the grocery store, and continue to maintain the high quality and safety standards necessary to keep consumers healthy. "Farmers and ranchers in South Dakota, Maine, North Dakota, Iowa, Montana, West Virginia, Wyoming, Minnesota, and across the country consistently produce some of the highest-quality products in the world. This legislation opens up new markets for farmers and ranchers and will promote a more competitive meat and poultry processing environment. It will give smaller, state inspected meat and poultry processing facilities the opportunity to compete in markets throughout the United States. "As Congress continues debating ways to provide economic relief while bolstering our nation's supply chains, we will be seeking to get commonsense ideas such as this included in any potential legislation."