What You Are Writing About

Top concerns from Idahoans for week ending January 15, 2010

Health Care Reform (H.R. 3590)

Federally Funded Abortions in H.R. 3590

Dept of Defense Arbitration (Franken Amendment)

Bernanke Reappointment to Federal Reserve Chair

Interchange fees (S. 1212)

Each year, I hear from thousands of Idahoans who write, e-mail, fax and call my offices to let me know how they feel about issues facing our country today. On average, I receive approximately 1,000 letters and e-mails a week. In recent years, an increasing number of that correspondence has come via electronic means. Even with such a volume of correspondence, I try to respond to each Idahoan as promptly as possible. In an effort to be even more responsive and to fully utilize the technology available through the Internet, this web page features the top five issues of concern from Idahoans and my response on each from the previous week. You may also wish to review information in the Issues Section or details from my Legislative Record, which lists bills I have sponsored and co-sponsored.

 

Health Care Reform (H.R. 3590)

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed this measure by a vote of 60-39.  I understand your concerns with this bill and would like to share with you my reasons for voting against this legislation.

 

In my travels through Idaho, I have had the opportunity to listen to my fellow Idahoans’ ideas and concerns regarding our nation’s health care system.  In doing so, I have heard overwhelming opposition from Idahoans regarding the prospect of the federal government further encroaching upon their lives.  They continually express their concerns about a government plan, losing their existing coverage, and paying more money for an inadequate health plan.  Instead of giving the government more power over health care, individual patients must have more control, choice, and information to make their health care decisions.  When individual patients have these choices, they will reward innovative insurers and providers who reduce costs and improve quality.

 

With a $2.4 trillion price tag, H.R. 3590 would impose a half-trillion dollars in new taxes on small businesses and individuals and create a government-run health care plan with higher premiums than those of private insurance plans.  This legislation would significantly expand Medicaid by imposing $25 billion in new unfunded mandates on states and pushing 15 million uninsured people into the failing program.  This bill targets Medicare by cutting the program by almost $500 billion without addressing the program’s pressing needs.  These cuts would reduce seniors’ access to hospitals, nursing homes, and home health and hospice services.  The bill also targets popular programs, such as Medicare Advantage, resulting in even more Americans losing benefits that they enjoy today.

 

H.R. 3590 would also impose $28 billion in new taxes on employers who do not provide government-approved plans.  This legislation would cause 5 million Americans to lose their employer-sponsored coverage and still leave 23 million people uninsured.  Additionally, many of the taxes in this legislation would disproportionately affect small businesses, which may result in further financial hardships for hard-working Americans – especially in a time of double-digit unemployment rates.  

 

Health care spending currently exceeds 16 percent of the Gross Domestic Product and continues to increase at an alarming rate.  Unfortunately, this plan not only does not address this problem, it actually makes it worse.  The Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates that this legislation would increase national health expenditures by $222 billion between 2010 and 2019.  Total federal government health care spending would also increase by $279 billion during this time period.  This is unacceptable.

 

Over the last month, the Senate worked long hours and weekends on the Democrats’ health care reform legislation.  Given the size and scope of this effort, and the fact that it will affect every American and one-sixth of our economy, it is only reasonable to take all the time necessary to get it right.  However, the Senate Leadership and the President would stop at nothing to complete the bill by Christmas, despite the many polls that indicated that the vast majority of Americans oppose this legislation.  In an effort to obtain the 60 votes needed for final passage, the Senate Democrats included a series of “special interest” provisions in the health care reform bill. 

 

Louisiana would receive $300 million to cover the extra Medicaid costs that all states would face as a result of this bill.  Florida would receive a Medicare Advantage grandfathering clause, which would protect many Floridians from losing current benefits while the bill eliminates these benefits in other states.  The Senate is often called the world’s greatest deliberative body, but deal-making is not deliberation.  That final passage depended on such backdoor deals reflects a weak and unpopular bill.  This is not real health care reform, and, as the polls show, this is not the reform that Americans want. 

 

Quality and affordable health care is one of the highest priorities among Americans.  A successful health care plan would enable Americans to choose plans that fit their specific needs and those of their families.  Such a plan would permit insurance companies to compete across state lines; allow small businesses to collaborate to negotiate group insurance rates; require pricing disclosures from health care providers to promote a competitive, consumer-driven health care market; and offer incentives for patients and the private sector to create wellness programs and other efficiencies in health care delivery.

 

America deserves a better bill and a better process.  Any successful reform package must properly address all logistical and personal components of our nation’s health care system.  We need to start over with step-by-step reforms that would actually address real, specific issues that would make a positive difference for all Americans.

Back to top

 

Federally Funded Abortions in H.R. 3590

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding federally funded abortions in H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed this measure by a vote of 60-39.  I understand your concerns with this bill and would like to share with you my reasons for voting against this legislation.

 

In my travels through Idaho, I have had the opportunity to listen to my fellow Idahoans’ ideas and concerns regarding our nation’s health care system.  In doing so, I have heard overwhelming opposition from Idahoans regarding the prospect of the federal government further encroaching upon their lives.  They continually express their concerns about a government plan, losing their existing coverage, and paying more money for an inadequate health plan.  Instead of giving the government more power over health care, individual patients must have more control, choice, and information to make their health care decisions.  When individual patients have these choices, they will reward innovative insurers and providers who reduce costs and improve quality.

 

With a $2.4 trillion price tag, H.R. 3590 would impose a half-trillion dollars in new taxes on small businesses and individuals and create a government-run health care plan with higher premiums than those of private insurance plans.  This legislation would significantly expand Medicaid by imposing $25 billion in new unfunded mandates on states and pushing 15 million uninsured people into the failing program.  This bill targets Medicare by cutting the program by almost $500 billion without addressing the program’s pressing needs.  These cuts would reduce seniors’ access to hospitals, nursing homes, and home health and hospice services.  The bill also targets popular programs, such as Medicare Advantage, resulting in even more Americans losing benefits that they enjoy today.

 

H.R. 3590 would also impose $28 billion in new taxes on employers who do not provide government-approved plans.  This legislation would cause 5 million Americans to lose their employer-sponsored coverage and still leave 23 million people uninsured.  Additionally, many of the taxes in this legislation would disproportionately affect small businesses, which may result in further financial hardships for hard-working Americans – especially in a time of double-digit unemployment rates.  

 

Health care spending currently exceeds 16 percent of the Gross Domestic Product and continues to increase at an alarming rate.  Unfortunately, this plan not only does not address this problem, it actually makes it worse.  The Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates that this legislation would increase national health expenditures by $222 billion between 2010 and 2019.  Total federal government health care spending would also increase by $279 billion during this time period.  This is unacceptable.

 

Over the last month, the Senate worked long hours and weekends on the Democrats’ health care reform legislation.  Given the size and scope of this effort, and the fact that it will affect every American and one-sixth of our economy, it is only reasonable to take all the time necessary to get it right.  However, the Senate Leadership and the President would stop at nothing to complete the bill by Christmas, despite the many polls that indicated that the vast majority of Americans oppose this legislation.  In an effort to obtain the 60 votes needed for final passage, the Senate Democrats included a series of “special interest” provisions in the health care reform bill. 

 

Louisiana would receive $300 million to cover the extra Medicaid costs that all states would face as a result of this bill.  Florida would receive a Medicare Advantage grandfathering clause, which would protect many Floridians from losing current benefits while the bill eliminates these benefits in other states.  The Senate is often called the world’s greatest deliberative body, but deal-making is not deliberation.  That final passage depended on such backdoor deals reflects a weak and unpopular bill.  This is not real health care reform, and, as the polls show, this is not the reform that Americans want. 

 

Quality and affordable health care is one of the highest priorities among Americans.  A successful health care plan would enable Americans to choose plans that fit their specific needs and those of their families.  Such a plan would permit insurance companies to compete across state lines, allow small businesses to collaborate to negotiate group insurance rates, require pricing disclosures from health care providers to promote a competitive, consumer-driven health care market, and offer incentives for patients and the private sector to create wellness programs and other efficiencies in health care delivery.

 

America deserves a better bill and a better process.  Any successful reform package must properly address all logistical and personal components of our nation’s health care system.  We need to start over with step-by-step reforms that would actually address real, specific issues that would make a positive difference for all Americans.

Back to top

 

Dept of Defense Arbitration (Franken Amendment)

Thank you for contacting me regarding my vote on the Franken amendment to the fiscal year (FY) Defense Appropriations bill, H.R. 3326.  I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to explain my vote on this amendment.

 

When he offered the amendment on October 1, Senator Al Franken (D-Minnesota) said it was inspired by the experience of a young woman, Jamie Leigh Jones, who was the victim of a sexual assault which occurred while she was assigned overseas by a defense contractor.  What happened to Ms. Jones is reprehensible, as are the actions of her employer following the attack.  Those who assaulted her or were responsible for the assault should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law—in both criminal and civil courts.  In fact, both the federal trial court and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals have held that Ms. Jones can bring a lawsuit on her claims directly connected to the assault, since the horrible attack she suffered was not “related to” her employment.  See Jones v. Halliburton Inc., No. 08-20380 (5th Cir. Sept. 15, 2009).  Ms. Jones was not prevented from suing either her employer or her actual attackers for rape and sexual assault as some claims erroneously reported.

 

My vote against the Franken amendment was not a vote against the prosecution of sexual assault crimes, or a vote to prevent persons who suffer a sexual assault to take their case to court.  My vote against the Franken amendment was a vote against its elimination of federal arbitration jurisdiction in areas unrelated to sexual assault.  Even the Obama Administration and its Department of Defense (DoD) opposed the amendment.

 

In addition, Senator Franken’s amendment provided neither universal nor permanent protection to victims of sexual assault.   It applied only to a narrow category of employers--DoD contractors--and, had it become law, as a provision in the FY 2010 Defense Appropriations bill, it would have expired next year in September.

 

To provide a true solution to this issue, I have worked with Senator Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) to introduce the Rape Victims Act (S. 2915).  This legislation would provide that employment-related arbitration agreements shall not be enforceable with respect to any claim related to a tort arising out of rape.  The Rape Victims Act would cover all employee-related contracts and for the first time put in statutory law that the enforcement of arbitration agreements is prohibited over any tort arising out of rape.  It is my hope that Congress will swiftly pass the Rape Victims Act to ensure an appropriate and lasting solution on this issue. 

 

I have consistently supported provisions brought before Congress intended to strengthen protections against rape and assault for employees who work overseas on federal contracts.  Ms. Jones’ tragedy has inspired these changes.  For example, the FY 2007 Defense Authorization bill instituted the requirement that the Defense Department, State Department, and USAID must collect and refer to the appropriate government agency any information relating to offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act involving contracts or contractors in Iraq or Afghanistan.  In 2008, those provisions were further enhanced to expand reporting and victim assistance requirements to all federal agencies.  Additionally, federal contractors are now required to report offenses and ensure that all contractor personnel receive information on how and where to report an offense and where to seek assistance.  In short, these provisions that I voted for make it very clear that crimes are to be investigated, victims are to be protected and all necessary actions should be taken to ensure that criminal charges could be pursued without delay.  Had these provisions been in place in 2005 when the attack on Ms. Jones occurred, much of what happened to her subsequent to the attack may have been prevented.

 

During my tenure in Congress, I have been a consistent champion of women’s, as well as children’s, rights and an ardent opponent of violence against women.  I have and will continue to support legislation that strengthens efforts to protect women and children against violence in the home or workplace and which protects their rights to pursue their claims in court.

Back to top

 

Bernanke Reappointment to Federal Reserve Chair

Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition to the reappointment of Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.  Many Idahoans have expressed similar concerns with this nomination and I agree with you. 

 

On August 25, 2009, President Obama announced Dr. Ben Bernanke’s reappointment to serve a four year term as the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.  His current four year term is set to expire on January 31, 2010.   As a member of the Senate Banking Committee, I voted against the nomination, which passed the Senate Banking Committee by a vote of 16 to 7.  The nomination will now go before the full Senate for a vote.      

 

As your United States Senator, I have the responsibility to carefully review nominations for federal positions made by the President.  I appreciate your willingness to share your insight about the nominations with me.  Please be assured that I understand the importance of this responsibility and will continue to review nominations in a way that reflects the interests and needs of Idahoans and the American people.  

Back to top

 

Interchange Fees (S. 1212)

Thank you for contacting me regarding legislation to regulate interchange fees.  I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

 

As you may know, Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) introduced S. 1212, known as the Credit Card Fair Fee Act.  This legislation would remove certain anti-trust exemptions pertaining to interchange fees.  If the retailers and providers do not reach a voluntary agreement on fees and terms, the matter would be brought before a panel of three judges appointed by the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. 

 

Supporters of this legislation contend that interchange fees are too high, resulting in higher costs for retailers, which are ultimately passed onto consumers.  Opponents, on the other hand, argue that regulation on interchange would adversely affect consumer options, competition and technological innovation by establishing price control through an outside group, rather than through meaningful negotiation.  Interchange fees allow business costs, including both operating expenses and the risk of consumer nonpayment, to be shared by the payments participants.  Currently, S. 1212 has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it awaits further action.

 

In November 2009, the U.S. Government Accountability Office released its study on the use of credit by consumers, interchange fees, and their effects on consumers and merchants.  It concluded that if these measures were adopted here, merchants would benefit from lower interchange fees but that the current proposals for regulating such fees present challenges for implementation.  It also states that identifying savings for consumers would be difficult.   

 

Please rest assured that I will continue to promote access to credit and competition in the marketplace.    

Back to top