Recent Response letter from Senator Vitter Dear Mr. Lieberman, Thank you for contacting me in opposition to the nomination of John McConnell. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. As you know, President Obama has nominated Mr. McConnell to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Rhode Island, and the U.S. Senate must vote to confirm Mr. McConnell for this position. I will carefully review Mr. McConnell's record, including his work as a trial lawyer. Like you, I have concerns about whether Mr. McConnell is qualified to be a federal judge. Rest assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind as the Senate considers his nomination. Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about any other issue important to you.
Dear Friend,
We recently hit a milestone: our national debt exceeded $13 trillion. While the rest of
The time is now for a Balanced Budget Amendment. The constitutional amendment I have co-authored would require the president to submit a balanced budget, and to ensure the budget won't be balanced merely by massive tax increases, it would require a two-thirds vote to raise taxes.
If we continue on the current path, our debt level will be insurmountable. Recently, even modest proposals to trim spending, such as my amendment to cut $40 billion from the stimulus, have been rejected. Instead, we continue to see more and more bailouts and budgets from President Obama that continue down the path of doubling our debt in five years and tripling it in ten.
It's not too late if we take bold steps, like passing the Balanced Budget Amendment and stopping the endless bailout programs. I will continue to oppose this debt explosion and work to get us to fiscal responsibility.
Sincerely,
David Vitter
U.S. Senator
|
Dear Mr. Lieberman, Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to increased carbon dioxide (CO2) emission regulations. I appreciate hearing from you about this important issue, and I completely agree with you. I share your concerns about the economic impact of imposing new CO2 emissions standards on motor vehicle manufacturers, various industries, and consumers. Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring component of air, and any effort to substantially regulate CO2 emissions would have costly and disruptive impacts on our economy. As you may know, a Supreme Court decision last year found in part that the Environmental Protection Agency would be allowed to make an "endangerment finding" on CO2. An endangerment finding is a mechanism of the Clean Air Act (CAA) used for identifying potential pollutants that should be regulated because they may endanger human health or the environment. Also, a finding would trigger a host of expensive and complicated regulations. The CAA was written to cover pollution emissions from large industrial facilities, but proposed CO2 regulations would cast a much broader net, subjecting hundreds of thousands of factories, farms, and other businesses to expensive and burdensome regulations. You may be pleased to know that I cosponsored a joint Senate resolution disapproving of the EPA's recent decision to make an "endangerment finding" on CO2 and regulate it under the Clean Air Act. I consider the preservation of our environment for future generations to be of the utmost concern, but we must consider sound science and economic costs of regulations. I also currently serve on the United States Senate's Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee, both of which have jurisdiction over climate issues. Rest assured I will keep your thoughts in mind and that I will continue to fight efforts to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act. Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about any other issue important to you. |
|
Sincerely, |
Dear Mr. Lieberman,
Thank you for contacting me in opposition to the new financial reform bill. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue, and I agree with you.
As you know, Senator Dodd's proposed legislation would overhaul government regulation of the financial industry and create new regulatory agencies designed to protect consumers and regulate financial institutions. I believe that regulatory reform should focus first and foremost on ending the continued bailouts and the broken philosophy of "too big to fail." Also, I do not believe a new agency like the Consumer Financial Protection Agency that would separate consumer protection from safety and soundness considerations is the right answer.
I fear this legislation does nothing to change the expectations in the market that some firms are "too big to fail." Like you, I believe the bailouts and massive spending in Washington have gotten out of control. That is why I opposed the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout, the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, and the auto industry bailout. I also introduced a resolution to prevent the Treasury Department from releasing the second half of the original TARP bailout funds. As a member of the Senate Banking Committee, I will keep your thoughts in mind as the Senate considers financial reform.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about other issues important to you.
|
Dear Mr. Lieberman, Thank you for contacting me in opposition to taxpayer money funding abortions. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue, and I completely agree with you. You may be pleased to know that I cosponsored an amendment that would prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion except in the cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. I voted for it during the Senate's health care debate, but it was unfortunately defeated. I will continue fighting against public funding for abortion. My voting record from my earliest days as an elected official in Louisiana to my days in the Senate has reflected my belief that life is sacred and that no one has the right to destroy innocent human life at any stage. Also, I have introduced the Title X Family Planning Act, which would prevent our federal tax dollars from going to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. Rest assured that I will continue to support pro-life legislation and to fight against tax dollars supporting abortion. Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about any other issue important to you and your family. |
|
Sincerely, |
|
Dear Mr. Lieberman, Thank you for contacting me in opposition to President Obama's budget. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue, and I completely agree with you. The president's proposed budget would raise taxes and increase Washington spending to a record $3.8 trillion for next year. It will continue on the path to double our national debt in five years and triple it in ten years, and it proposes more than $2 trillion in new taxes. The projected deficit is estimated to be $1.6 trillion, completely shattering all previous records. Also, the "spending freeze" the president is proposing would only affect 13 percent of the total budget while overall spending and debt will continue to rise. Instead of more Washington spending, we need to cut spending and reduce our tax burden. Families continue to make sacrifices during our tough times, but Washington is continuing on an irresponsible spending spree. It is unacceptable, and I will continue to fight against it and work for real budget reform and to reduce the size of government. Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about other issues important to you. |
|
Sincerely, |
Dear Friend,
I was very disappointed when President Obama initially announced his decision to close the detention facility at Guantanamo in 2009, and I had hoped that the administration would have listened to the American public who overwhelmingly oppose closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. Yet, President Obama and his liberal allies continue to oppose the will of the American public.
This week Obama and his liberal cronies asked for $245 million dollars to upgrade a prison facility in Illinois to house the terrorists currently being held in the secure location of Guantanamo. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I voted against this administration proposal during a defense authorization bill, and thankfully, we were able to defeat this ill-conceived proposal. I continue to strongly believe terrorists should stay at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and not in the United States. I also voted for and helped pass an amendment that restricts the transfer of terrorist detainees to countries where al Qaeda has an active presence.
Rest assured, I will oppose President Obama and his liberal allies who support closing Guantanamo, and in addition, I will continue to fight against granting foreign terrorists the same legal rights as U.S. citizens.
Sincerely,
David Vitter
U.S. Senator
** To unsubscribe please visit my web site here and indicate that you would like to "unsubscribe." Please do not reply to this email.
For any other questions or concerns visit my Web site at: www.vitter.senate.gov
|
Dear Mr. Lieberman, Thank you for contacting me in opposition to taxpayer money funding abortions. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue, and I completely agree with you. You may be pleased to know that I cosponsored an amendment that would prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion except in the cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. I voted for it during the Senate's health care debate, but it was unfortunately defeated. I will continue fighting against public funding for abortion. My voting record from my earliest days as an elected official in Louisiana to my days in the Senate has reflected my belief that life is sacred and that no one has the right to destroy innocent human life at any stage. Also, I have introduced the Title X Family Planning Act, which would prevent our federal tax dollars from going to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. Rest assured that I will continue to support pro-life legislation and to fight against tax dollars supporting abortion. Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about any other issue important to you and your family. |
|
Sincerely, |
|
Dear Mr. Lieberman, Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to increased carbon dioxide (CO2) emission regulations. I appreciate hearing from you about this important issue, and I completely agree with you. I share your concerns about the economic impact of imposing new CO2 emissions standards on motor vehicle manufacturers, various industries, and consumers. Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring component of air, and any effort to substantially regulate CO2 emissions would have costly and disruptive impacts on our economy. As you may know, a Supreme Court decision last year found in part that the Environmental Protection Agency would be allowed to make an "endangerment finding" on CO2. An endangerment finding is a mechanism of the Clean Air Act (CAA) used for identifying potential pollutants that should be regulated because they may endanger human health or the environment. Also, a finding would trigger a host of expensive and complicated regulations. The CAA was written to cover pollution emissions from large industrial facilities, but proposed CO2 regulations would cast a much broader net, subjecting hundreds of thousands of factories, farms, and other businesses to expensive and burdensome regulations. You may be pleased to know that I cosponsored a joint Senate resolution disapproving of the EPA's recent decision to make an "endangerment finding" on CO2 and regulate it under the Clean Air Act. I consider the preservation of our environment for future generations to be of the utmost concern, but we must consider sound science and economic costs of regulations. I also currently serve on the United States Senate's Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee, both of which have jurisdiction over climate issues. Rest assured I will keep your thoughts in mind and that I will continue to fight efforts to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act. Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about any other issue important to you. |
|
Sincerely, |
Recent Response Letters from Senator Landrieu
Mr. Boyd Lieberman
Dear Mr. Lieberman:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding H.R. 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
As you may know, the joint conference committee of both Senate and House members passed the bill, and the House passed the revised bill on Wednesday June 30 by a vote of 237-192. A vote is expected in the Senate in the coming weeks
The excesses of Wall Street cost many people their life savings, retirement accounts, children's college tuition, and home equity. This bipartisan bill puts a stop to those abuses so that American families' savings and investments are never again put at such risk. You may be pleased to know, that during this process I worked closely with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that this legislation did not put unnecessary burdens on community banks, credit unions and traditional mortgage lenders. These individuals and institutions did not cause the meltdown. Instead they played by the rules and should not be regulated out of business. I focused on two topics that specifically helped traditional lenders: mortgage risk retention and banks' capital requirements. I successfully helped to add a bipartisan amendment to protect
Critics of the bill point to its inability to fix every aspect of the financial and mortgage systems in this country as a reason to vote no. While I agree that the bill is not perfect, and that there is more work to be done, I do not see this as reason enough to vote against the bill. If a home is fundamentally sound and secure, a missing window does not make the house valueless. I understand that banks will have increased requirements, and I have tried to minimize those additional burdens for the good lenders in
Most importantly, this bill creates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which will have the sole job of protecting American consumers from unfair, deceptive and abusive financial products and practices. It will ensure people get the clear information they need on loans and other financial products from mortgage brokers, banks and other financial institutions.
Currently, the Senate is waiting to vote on the bill until after the July 4th holiday. Please rest assured that I will keep your views and the best interests of
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to hear from you and I hope you will continue to contact me on issues of mutual concern. Please also feel free to visit my website at http://landrieu.senate.gov for more information on legislative affairs.
With warmest regards, I am
Sincerely
Mary L. Landrieu
United States Senator
Mr. Boyd Lieberman
Dear Mr. Lieberman:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding S. 3217, the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
As you may know, the Senate passed S. 3217 on
The excesses of Wall Street cost many people their life savings, retirement accounts, children's college tuition, and home equity. This bipartisan bill puts a stop to those abuses so that American families' savings and investments are never again put at such risk. You may be please to know, that during this process I worked closely with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that this legislation did not put unnecessary burdens on community banks, credit unions and traditional mortgage lenders. These individuals and institutions did not cause the meltdown. Instead they played by the rules and should not be regulated out of business. In addition, I successfully helped to add a bipartisan amendment to protect
The bill also ends the problem of “too big to fail” by providing for strict new requirements as companies grow in size and complexity, with significant requirements on companies that pose risks to the financial system. The bill provides a process for winding down large, complex financial institutions that are failing, rather than the current options of a taxpayer bailout or bankruptcy. In addition, the legislation establishes the Financial Stability Oversight Council to focus on identifying, monitoring and addressing systemic risks posed by large, complex financial firms as well as products and activities that spread risk across firms.
Most importantly, this bill creates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which will have the sole job of protecting American consumers from unfair, deceptive and abusive financial products and practices. It will ensure people get the clear information they need on loans and other financial products from credit card companies, mortgage brokers, banks and others.
Currently, Congress is assembling a joint committee comprised of House and Senate members to address the differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation. Please rest assured that I will keep your views and the best interests of
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to hear from you and I hope you will continue to contact me on issues of mutual concern. Please also feel free to visit my website at http://landrieu.senate.gov for more information on legislative affairs.
With warmest regards, I am
Sincerely,
Mary L. Landrieu
United States Senator
Mr. Boyd Lieberman
3508 WOODLEAF DR
Shreveport, LA 71118-3612
Dear Mr. Lieberman:
Thank you for conveying your views on the Senate health care bill. The "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" was passed by the Senate on December 24, 2009 and now awaits passage by the House of Representatives. After a thorough and careful review, I voted for this bill because it achieves the goals I believe most of us share: it stabilizes costs and expands affordable health care choices for families and small businesses in Louisiana and throughout the country.
Under our current system, Louisiana's working families spend about one-third of their total income on health care. Since 2000, health insurance costs have increased by 91 percent. During that same time period, however, wages increased by less than 3 percent. In fact, most economists believe that by 2016, healthcare costs will consume about 60 percent of average family income - leaving only 40 percent to cover food, shelter, and everything else. The current health care system is placing Louisiana's working families and businesses under severe strain and exploding our state and federal budgets. I am proud to be part of the effort to reform our health care system.
The health care reform bill that the Senate passed in December will reduce costs for families, businesses and governments. It will also expand insurance coverage and increase choice and competition for Louisianians. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office analyzed the bill and determined that if enacted, insurance premiums will go down or stabilize, and the U.S. budget deficit will be reduced by $132 billion over the next 10 years. The Senate health care reform bill also includes cost-containment measures that encourage employers to spend less on health care and more on employee wages. Economists estimate that this change is likely to result in a pay raise for working American families- by as much as $660 per household in 2019. This is an important and much needed change.
Small businesses will no longer be confronted with extreme and volatile cost increases. Small business owners have repeatedly told me how their financial viability has been threatened by skyrocketing insurance premiums when an employee gets sick. That is why I authored a package of small business amendments that strengthened the bill by extending and enhancing tax credits for small businesses, ensuring the insurance marketplaces are as robust as possible, and eliminating penalties associated with waiting periods, to name but a few. In all, these changes will provide small businesses with $40 billion in tax relief - relief that small businesses desperately need.
This bill will also reduce taxes for working families. According to independent analysts at the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the bill provides nearly $450 billion in individual income tax cuts over the next 10 years. By contrast, if Congress does not act, working families in Louisiana will continue to pay a hidden tax of approximately $1,000 a year to cover the costs of the uninsured. Doing nothing is hurting Louisiana, and I'm not going to let this hidden tax continue to burden our working families.
Some of the bill's most impressive provisions will benefit the most important population -- children. This bill will allow children to stay on their parents' insurance until the age of 26. At my request, this bill ensures that youth who age out of the foster care system will be able to stay on Medicaid until the age of 26 as well. Guaranteeing quality health care for our youth will go a long way toward helping them as they transition into their adult lives. Also, immediately after this legislation is signed into law, insurance companies will not be able to drop children for preexisting conditions. This is crucial for children battling with cancer or diabetes.
These are just some of the many ways that this bill will reduce costs and expand access to health care for millions of Americans. The bill is not perfect, but we should never let the perfect become the enemy of the good. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will make a positive difference in the lives of Louisianians and millions more across America.
Sincerely
Mary L. Landrieu
United States Senator
Recent reponse letters from Congressman Flemming
Dear Mr. Lieberman,
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 5175, the "Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act." It is a privilege to serve as your Representative in Congress. I welcome your thoughts on this important issue.
In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court invalidated the provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), finding that it was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The decision struck down the 60-day "electioneering communications" ban before elections by any group or entity, not-for-profit or for-profit.
The Court held that all such groups may spend amounts on independent communications that either expressly advocate the election or defeat of clearly identified candidates, or simply mention candidates in the course of discussing political issues or policy. This constitutional right extends to both for-profit and not-for-profit corporations.
While groups may now freely spend money to independently support federal candidates, disclosure and disclaimer requirements and the ban on corporate contributions to federal candidates are still very much in place. Members of Congress are still prohibited from soliciting or accepting corporate donations, and their elections are still regulated by the FEC.
In response to the Supreme Court's ruling, H.R. 5175 was introduced by the person responsible for electing democrats to Congress, DCCC Chairman, Congressman Chris Van Hollen from
I look forward to continue serving you in the 111th Congress and hearing from you again soon. If my staff or I can do anything to assist you, please do not hesitate to contact my office. You can also visit my website at www.fleming.house.gov for further information or follow me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/repjohnfleming or on Twitter at www.twitter.com/repfleming.
Sincerely,
JOHN FLEMING, M.D.
Member of Congress
Thank you for contacting me regarding proposed reforms of our financial system. It is a privilege to serve as your Representative in Congress. I welcome your thoughts on this important issue.
I hear from Louisianans everyday who are struggling just to make ends meet. Unemployment has risen to nearly double digits, Americans struggle to provide necessities for their families, and our government continues to overspend without regard for the taxpayer who will repay the deficit.
Reforms of our financial system have been front and center in Congress over the course of the last year. The implosion of financial institutions and mammoth Wall Street companies and the rippling effects throughout our economy have illustrated all too clearly that reforms must be made. I am deeply troubled, however, by the direction the majority in Congress has taken the proposed reforms, attempting to remove all risk from business and investments. I believe that a moral hazard exists when any institution is protected from exposure to certain market risks and behaves without discipline as a result. For example, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were protected from the risks usually associated with financial institutions due to their status as Government Sponsored Enterprises. These firms knowingly engaged in risky behavior confident that the government would bail them out if their investments failed. Ultimately, it was the taxpayer who shoulders significant risk of loss as a result.
Recently, the Senate has undertaken consideration of S. 3217, the "Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010," a bill introduced by Senator Christopher Dodd from Connecticut on April 15, 2010 that would overhaul our financial system. I am concerned this bill would put too much control of our economy in the hands of bureaucrats instead of allowing the American people and businesses the freedom to face the risks and reap the benefits of competing in a free market economy. This bill remains to be considered on the Senate floor. Rest assured, I will keep your thoughts in mind if this bill reaches the House floor for a vote.
Again, I agree that our current financial regulatory regime is far from perfect, but any attempts at meaningful reform must begin with addressing the fundamental causes of instability and risk. It is unwise and unfair to make the American taxpayer the financial backstop for imprudent business decisions of private firms. As such, we must abandon taxpayer funded bailouts and end the practice of the government picking winners and losers. Insolvent firms must be permitted to fail rather than become a burden to the taxpayer.
I look forward to continue serving you in the 111th Congress and hearing from you again soon. If my staff or I can do anything to assist you, please do not hesitate to contact my office. You can also visit my website at www.fleming.house.gov for further information or follow me on facebook and twitter.
Sincerely,
JOHN FLEMING, M.D.
Member of Congress
May 20, 2010
Dear Mr. Lieberman,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the freedom of choice in the wireless marketplace. It is a privilege to serve as your Representative in Congress. I welcome your thoughts on this important issue.
As you know, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is currently evaluating competition in the wireless marketplace. I agree that freeing the marketplace for competition gives consumers the ability to choose the best service to meet their needs and fosters technological innovation.
The FCC can best support the wireless marketplace through smarter expansion of competition and allow consumers to access higher quality wireless services. In a free-market economy, streamlining government intervention can create more efficient businesses that can offer higher quality services at lower prices. Rest assured I will monitor this debate in the FCC and will keep your thoughts in mind should any Congressional action be required regarding wireless market regulation.
I look forward to serving you in the 111th Congress and hearing from you again soon. If my staff or I can do anything to assist you, please do not hesitate to contact my office. You can also visit my website at www.fleming.house.gov for further information.
Sincerely,
JOHN FLEMING, M.D.
Member of Congress
May 6, 2010
Dear Mr. Lieberman,
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 2499, the "Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009." It is a privilege to serve as your Representative in Congress. I welcome your thoughts on this important issue.
H.R. 2499 was introduced by Congressman Pedro Pierlussi from Puerto Rico on May 19, 2009. The bill was passed through the House Natural Resources Committee on October 8, 2009. And, although I voted against this bill, on April 29, 2010, it passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 223 to 169. The legislation would allow the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to conduct a referendum to allow residents to decide whether Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status or choose between independence, sovereignty in association with the U.S., or statehood. Under the bill, if Puerto Ricans voted to keep their current political status, the referendum would be held again every eight years. In addition, the bill stipulates that all costs associated with any vote held under this Act would be paid for by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
This plebiscite would be one more in a string of plebiscites that Puerto Rico has held. It should be noted that Puerto Rico can, and has, conducted referendums without Congressional approval such as it did in 1967. Following the recommendation of the Commission on the Status of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico organized a popular vote on the status options. The commonwealth option received a majority of the votes. In 1991 the issue was once again revisited when the Puerto Rican legislature provided for a referendum to be held in December, 1991. The voters in the referendum were asked to vote on self-determination or rights that would be incorporated into the commonwealth constitution, if the majority of voters approved. The voters rejected this proposal. Once again the issue was put on the ballot in 1992 when the legislature agreed that a plebiscite on status be held "after the U.S. Congress failed to approve" status legislation. Although issues of the constitutionality of the ballot measure were raised, notably, no option received a majority of the vote.
The last plebiscite to be held in Puerto Rico was held in 1998. Earlier that year the House of Representatives had approved legislation authorizing a vote at least once every ten years to allow the people of Puerto Rico to decide among three status options, commonwealth, independence or statehood. The U.S. Senate did not pass that legislation, although it did pass a non-binding resolution supporting Puerto Rico's right to referendum. Puerto Rico then conducted a plebiscite on December 13, 1998. Five alternatives were listed on the ballot: "limited self-government"; "free association"; "statehood"; "sovereignty"; and "none of the above." Disputes arose as to the definition of each of the ballot alternatives. In the end, a slim majority of voters in that plebiscite selected "none of the above" (50.3%). There have been no further plebiscites or referenda on the status issue since the inconclusive 1998 vote.
Should Puerto Rico choose statehood through the Plebiscite, Congress can establish any standard it wants as a precondition for statehood. For example, in 1807, the formerly predominantly French territory of Louisiana adopted English as its official language as a precondition for its admission into the Union as a State. I believe this would help the people of Puerto Rico make their case for Statehood to Congress. As a Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over U.S. territories, I voted for an amendment that would make English the official language of Puerto Rico should they choose Statehood. Unfortunately, this amendment did not pass.
Similarly, when this bill came to the Floor of the House of Representatives, I supported an amendment setting for the provisions that should Puerto Rico be admitted as a state, its official language would be English, all official business would be conducted in English, and residents would be able to own, possess, carry, and lawfully use firearms and ammunition in accordance with federal law, was defeated. Despite my support, this amendment failed by a vote of 194-198.
I look forward to continue serving you in the 111th Congress and hearing from you again soon. If my staff or I can do anything to assist you, please do not hesitate to contact my office. You can also visit my website at www.fleming.house.gov for further information or follow me on facebook and twitter.
Sincerely,
JOHN FLEMING, M.D.
Member of Congress
FLEMING HEALTH CARE REPEAL UPDATE
Reports estimate the Federal Government will spend $10 billion in taxpayer money to hire 16,000 NEW IRS agents to enforce this bill!
In March, the House and Senate passed the government regulation of health care, which was signed into law by President Obama along with a package of amendments. Among many egregious provisions in this legislation is a government mandate that requires every American to purchase government approved health care insurance. And who will be watching over your shoulder to be sure you adhere to this new mandate? The Internal Revenue Service. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the IRS will require as much as $10 billion in additional funding, allowing the IRS to hire as many as 16,000 or more new agents, in order to be sure we all comply.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU: In 2014, the health care reform law requires that you either purchase "government approved" health insurance or pay a tax.
In 2014, the health care reform law requires that you either purchase "government approved" health insurance or pay a tax.THE DOCTOR'S DIAGNOSIS: We must repeal this unprecedented reach into individual American liberty. Instead, we need common-sense health reform that will lead to quality, affordable health care, without breaking the bank, or expanding the IRS.
We must repeal this unprecedented reach into individual American liberty. Instead, we need common-sense health reform that will lead to quality, affordable health care, without breaking the bank, or expanding the IRS.As this process unfolds, I will continue to work to represent you, bring common-sense to this debate, and work to repeal what I believe to be an intrusive law.
Sincerely,
April 20, 2010
Dear Mr. Lieberman,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the safe and legal use of medical equipment. It is a privilege to serve as your Representative in Congress. I welcome your thoughts on this important issue.
The "Medical Device Safety Act of 2009" HR 1346 was introduced by Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr. of New Jersey on March 5, 2009. The bill is currently in the House Subcommittee on Health, where it awaits further consideration. Under this legislative proposal, companies that produce and sell Food and Drug Administration-approved medical devices could be held liable when a patient injury occurs while using one of the company's devices. Current FDA regulations preempt device manufacturers from certain lawsuits under state tort laws. This bill would amend the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 to allow medical device companies to be held legally responsible in the same way that drug manufacturers are held liable in patient lawsuits.
As a physician, I have first-hand knowledge of the importance that medical devices play in the effective delivery of patient care. While the FDA works hard to ensure that medical devices used in our clinics and hospitals are safe and effective, certain mistakes can still result in injury to a patient. We must be careful to minimize these mistakes while also being careful to hold the appropriate party responsible when problems do arise. Congress must allow the system to compensate patients injured by medical devices while preventing frivolous lawsuits. I will keep your thoughts in mind as changes to our medical liability system continue to be debated.
I look forward to serving you in the 111th Congress and hearing from you again soon. If my staff or I can do anything to assist you, please do not hesitate to contact my office. You can also visit my website at www.fleming.house.gov for further information.
Sincerely,
JOHN FLEMING, M.D.
Member of Congress
April 15, 2010
Dear Mr. Lieberman,
Thank you for contacting me regarding federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. It is a privilege to serve as your Representative in Congress. I welcome your thoughts on this important issue.
As you know on December 7, 2009, the Obama Administration through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ratified an endangerment finding that classified carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants.
I, like you, have serious concerns about this ruling. In time, the new permitting and pollution control rules for these entities would potentially affect millions of very small sources of "greenhouse gas" (GHG) emissions - office buildings, hotels, restaurants, hospitals, churches, farms and other small businesses.
I agree with you that this regulation is reckless and establishes a new way to tax the American people. I am a proud cosponsor of H.J.Res. 77, the House companion bill to S.J. Res. 26, disapproving the EPA endangerment finding and the classification of greenhouse gases as "pollutants" under the Clean Air Act. This regulation lays the ground work for a type of bureaucratically enacted national energy tax which could destroy millions of American jobs and result in trillions of dollars in lost economic activity. Regulations based on emissions will disproportionately negatively affect rural areas like my district in Northwest Louisiana and have an equally devastating effect on farmers and small businesses across the country.
In Congress, there have been several measures that would prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions and remove greenhouse gases from the definition of "pollutant" in the Clean Air Act. H.R. 4396, the "Save Our Energy Jobs Act," introduced by Congressman Earl Pomeroy from North Dakota on December 16, 2009 and would remove greenhouse gases from the definition of "pollutant" in the Clean Air Act. H.R. 4572, introduced by Congressman Ike Skelton from Missouri would amend the Clean Air Act to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. These bills, including H.J. Res. 77, have been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee where they await further consideration.
During the State of the Union, we heard President Obama proclaim that job creation should be this country's main focus. Yet, with more than 15 million Americans unemployed, we see this Administration advancing climate change policies that will drive up costs and ship American jobs overseas. I urge the President to stay true to his word and work with Republicans to advance common-sense ideas that will reign-in government spending, cut our deficits and restore the thing this country wants most: jobs, jobs, jobs!
Thank you again for contacting me regarding EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. I look forward to continue serving you in the 111th Congress and hearing from you again soon. If my staff or I can do anything to assist you, please do not hesitate to contact my office. You can also visit my website at www.fleming.house.gov for further information or follow me on facebook and twitter.
Sincerely,
JOHN FLEMING, M.D.
Member of Congress
Recent Response letters from Senator Bond
Dear Mr. Lieberman:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding health care reform and the massive government takeover of health care that President Obama recently signed into law. I appreciate your taking the time to share your views with me on this very important issue.
Like most Americans, I agree that we need health care reform to help folks struggling with rising premiums and higher health care costs, as well as hospitals, doctors and other health care providers struggling with the rising costs of treating the uninsured. Unfortunately, the Democrats' solution - to expand vastly the role of government in health care and pay for it by raising taxes on small business and cutting seniors' Medicare benefits - is not the answer.
Despite nationwide opposition, President Obama and the Democrats who control Washington ignored the will of the American people and forced through a partisan measure that will increase health care costs, raise taxes, cut Medicare benefits for seniors, and cost more than $2.6 trillion over 10 years once fully implemented. This new law will also force Americans into a government-run health care plan, ration care, and limit access to life-saving treatments, and put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor. Just as important, the law is a job-killer that places more burdensome taxes and mandates on small businesses at a time when they can least afford it in our struggling economy.
Republicans offered our own common-sense reforms to lower health care costs and increase access to quality care. Unfortunately, Democrats rejected our reforms time and time again to lower costs, protect Medicare, eliminate the job-killing taxes and mandates on small businesses, protect our military members and veterans' health care benefits, and get rid of the backroom deals like the Louisiana Purchase.
This is not the kind of reform the American people wanted from Congress. Republicans will continue to stand on principle, hold President Obama accountable for his promises, and fight to replace this government takeover of health care with common-sense reforms that lower costs for families, farmers and small businesses.
That includes real reforms I have fought for in Congress for years, including: ending junk lawsuits which would save tens of billions in dollars, curb defensive medicine and increase access to care; encouraging competition by allowing Americans to buy insurance across state lines to lower costs; allowing small businesses to pool together to offer their employees health insurance at lower cost; giving individuals tax equity; common sense insurance reforms that would increase access and lower costs; investing in prevention and wellness programs.
These are common-sense proposals that should have bipartisan support and can be implemented without a government takeover of health care that raises taxes and destroys jobs. Missourians know there's a better way.
Again, thank you for your letter. Please do not hesitate to contact my office again if I can be of further of assistance.
Sincerely,
Christopher S. Bond
United States Senator
Recent Reponse Letter from Sentaor McCaskill
May 21, 2010
Dear Mr. Lieberman,
Thank you for contacting me regarding transparency at the Federal Reserve. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
As you know, the Federal Reserve has been active in U.S. monetary policy and bank regulation since it was established in 1913. Its decisions regarding interest rates have a significant impact on inflation, growth, and other aspects of the economy. As such, the Federal Reserve was designed to be independent from political influence so it could set monetary policy without being subject to political game-playing. However, the actions of the Federal Reserve during the recent financial crisis have caused major concern.
As you know, to buoy the economy, the Federal Reserve used its emergency powers to keep afloat numerous ailing financial institutions. To accomplish this, the Federal Reserve took several actions, such as issuing guarantees on commercial paper and providing more than $2 trillion in credit to banks. I understand that the Federal Reserve had to use its emergency authority to stave off a prolonged recession, but I, like many Americans, am concerned about the lack of transparency the Federal Reserve exhibited during this process.
I believe that Americans have a right to know which institutions received special help from the Federal Reserve and why. At the same time, we have to be sure to protect monetary policy from the whims of politics. That is why, on May 11, 2010, I joined 95 other Senators in voting to pass bipartisan legislation to provide for an independent audit of the Federal Reserve's actions during the financial crisis.
Specifically, the measure I voted for requires the non-partisan Government Accountability Office to complete an audit within the next year of all loans and financial assistance provided by the Federal Reserve since December 1, 2007. The audit will thus bring to light the Federal Reserve's reasoning in determining who to assist, whether there were conflicts of interest, and how effective the Federal Reserve was at mitigating risk to taxpayers. Furthermore, the legislation I supported requires the Federal Reserve to publish on its website the identity of each entity that received financial assistance from the Federal Reserve and the amount and terms of the assistance provided.
With successful passage of this legislation, Americans will finally know how the Federal Reserve allocated trillions in taxpayer funds and who were the recipients. I look forward to working with my colleagues to assure that this measure makes it to the President's desk and is signed into law.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.
Sincerely,
Claire McCaskill
United States Senator
April 9, 2010
Dear Mr. Lieberman,
One of my goals in the Senate has been to restore fiscal discipline to the federal government. At a time when many Missourians are being forced to tighten their belts on spending at home, it defies sense that our government isn't doing the same. I recognize that bringing about spending control in Washington will not be easy. A balanced budget will require tough and often unpopular choices, and Congress will need to tighten its own belt as well - something I have repeatedly voted to do.
I have aggressively fought for fiscal reforms. Some of the proposals I have advocated include:
Caps on Discretionary Spending: Like many Missourians, I think that discretionary spending (the part of the Budget that Congress sets every year for defense, highways, and education) is increasing too quickly. This year I joined forces with Republican Senator Jeff Sessions to introduce legislation to place binding caps on discretionary spending. While discretionary spending is not the primary cause of our long term debt, it must be considered in any budget reform initiative. Unfortunately on January 28, 2010, this legislation was voted down by a vote of 56 to 44, with 60 votes needed for passage. Undeterred, Senator Sessions and I will continue fighting to enact these caps.
Like many Missourians, I think that discretionary spending (the part of the Budget that Congress sets every year for defense, highways, and education) is increasing too quickly. This year I joined forces with Republican Senator Jeff Sessions to introduce legislation to place binding caps on discretionary spending. While discretionary spending is not the primary cause of our long term debt, it must be considered in any budget reform initiative. Unfortunately on January 28, 2010, this legislation was voted down by a vote of 56 to 44, with 60 votes needed for passage. Undeterred, Senator Sessions and I will continue fighting to enact these caps.Pay-As-You-Go Law: I introduced legislation last year that would require that any increases in mandatory spending (spending for Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, etc. that is set by law) or tax cuts to be paid for. Under the bill, any tax cuts or spending that increases the deficit would trigger across-the-board spending cuts. Pay-As-You-Go rules and discretionary caps were both in place in the 1990s, and they helped produce the first budget surpluses in a generation. I am pleased that on January 28, 2010 this legislation, having been slightly amended, won passage and has since been signed into law. I am also pleased that the first major piece of legislation considered since passage of Pay-As-You-Go, a bill to incentivize hiring in these tough economic times, was paid for, a direct result of the new Pay-As-You-Go law.
I introduced legislation last year that would require that any increases in mandatory spending (spending for Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, etc. that is set by law) or tax cuts to be paid for. Under the bill, any tax cuts or spending that increases the deficit would trigger across-the-board spending cuts. Pay-As-You-Go rules and discretionary caps were both in place in the 1990s, and they helped produce the first budget surpluses in a generation. I am pleased that on January 28, 2010 this legislation, having been slightly amended, won passage and has since been signed into law. I am also pleased that the first major piece of legislation considered since passage of Pay-As-You-Go, a bill to incentivize hiring in these tough economic times, was paid for, a direct result of the new Pay-As-You-Go law.Earmark Reform: I oppose the practice of earmarking (in which legislators direct funding to specific, hand-picked projects). While many earmarks pay for worthy initiatives, too often they direct funding to low priority projects or the pet causes of senior lawmakers. By putting lawmakers' personal priorities in place of merit in distributing federal funding, meritorious Missouri projects lose out on funding opportunities. I am one of six senators who do not seek earmarks, and I have worked with other earmark opponents, like Senators John McCain (R- Arizona) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin), to reform the earmark process. I have introduced my own legislation (S.RES.63), and I plan to continue efforts to reform this inefficient and corrupting process. On February 4, 2010, I also signed on to a resolution introduced by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) that would impose an immediate ban on any legislation containing earmarks through FY2011.
I oppose the practice of earmarking (in which legislators direct funding to specific, hand-picked projects). While many earmarks pay for worthy initiatives, too often they direct funding to low priority projects or the pet causes of senior lawmakers. By putting lawmakers' personal priorities in place of merit in distributing federal funding, meritorious Missouri projects lose out on funding opportunities. I am one of six senators who do not seek earmarks, and I have worked with other earmark opponents, like Senators John McCain (R- Arizona) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin), to reform the earmark process. I have introduced my own legislation (S.RES.63), and I plan to continue efforts to reform this inefficient and corrupting process. On February 4, 2010, I also signed on to a resolution introduced by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) that would impose an immediate ban on any legislation containing earmarks through FY2011.Bi-Partisan Fiscal Task Force: While Pay-As-You-Go rules and spending caps will prevent our fiscal situation from getting worse, existing policies will drive the deficit and debt to unsustainable levels on their own. In order to balance the budget, we will need to examine those policies. I co-sponsored legislation (S. 2853) that would create a bi-partisan fiscal task force to review the entire federal budget and recommend legislation to address the long term fiscal gap. Congress would have to vote to approve or disapprove of these recommendations. This legislation did not achieve the 60 votes needed for passage into law; however, on February 18, 2010, the President signed an executive order to establish a similar bi-partisan commission. This is an important step toward addressing our long term deficit and debt and I look forward to reviewing the commission's proposals.
While Pay-As-You-Go rules and spending caps will prevent our fiscal situation from getting worse, existing policies will drive the deficit and debt to unsustainable levels on their own. In order to balance the budget, we will need to examine those policies. I co-sponsored legislation (S. 2853) that would create a bi-partisan fiscal task force to review the entire federal budget and recommend legislation to address the long term fiscal gap. Congress would have to vote to approve or disapprove of these recommendations. This legislation did not achieve the 60 votes needed for passage into law; however, on February 18, 2010, the President signed an executive order to establish a similar bi-partisan commission. This is an important step toward addressing our long term deficit and debt and I look forward to reviewing the commission's proposals.The real challenges to our nation's long term fiscal health will require courageous decisions and hard choices. Increased health care costs and an aging population require spending on Medicare and Social Security, that will consume an increasing proportion of the federal budget every year. In 1962, less than 30 percent of federal spending paid for mandatory programs. Today, mandatory programs account for over half of our federal budget, and that number continues to grow. That is why bringing down the cost of care in the long term is so important - it is also why I would only support a health care reform bill that was fully paid for and promises to bring down costs.
I am working to implement comprehensive budget reform. Measures like discretionary spending caps, Pay-As-You-Go rules, earmark reform, and a bi-partisan fiscal task force are all necessary and important steps to restoring fiscal discipline to Washington and getting our nation's books in order.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.
Sincerely,
Claire McCaskill
April 8, 2010
Dear Mr. Lieberman,
Thank you for contacting me regarding health insurance reform. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to discuss how reform will affect you and your family.
Our nation is facing a healthcare crisis. The burgeoning cost of medical care is bankrupting families, financially endangering employers, and causing our national deficit to balloon. Nearly 750,000 Missourians do not have health insurance and in the past eight years, health insurance premiums have grown four times faster than wages. The status quo is unsustainable and jeopardizes the health of our citizens and our economy.
On November 18, 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590) was introduced in the Senate. After over a month of debate on the Senate floor, I joined my colleagues in voting for the measure which passed by a supermajority vote of 60 to 39 on December 24, 2009. The House of Representatives followed suit on March 21st of this year and the bill was then signed into law by the President. A second bill, The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872), which amended H.R. 3590 by removing certain provisions including special deals like the "Cornhusker Kickback", was signed into law on March 30, 2010. I supported these two bills because over years they will stabilize healthcare costs for families, allow hundreds of thousands of Missourians to access health insurance, stop private insurance abuses, and significantly reduce the deficit over the long term.
While the crafting of H.R. 3590 took place over the course of nearly a year and involved two Senate committees and hundreds of hours of televised debate both in committees and on the full Senate floor, this was really only the latest act in an effort to reform healthcare in our country that has included our own Harry Truman. In 1945, in a statement that is as true today is it was then, he stated "Millions of our citizens do not now have a full measure of opportunity to achieve and to enjoy good health. Millions do not now have protection or security against the economic effects of sickness. And the time has now arrived for action to help them attain that opportunity and to help them get that protection."
In the process of trying to realize Truman's vision of opportunity, this legislation was drafted in a way that incorporated ideas from both sides of the aisle and resulted in a bill that protects patients in a comprehensive fashion while providing access and choice. Given the complexity of the healthcare system and the improvement brought about by this bill, I want to take this opportunity to explain some of what this legislation will do for Missourians, as well as set the record straight about what is not in these bills.
Missourians will see some positive changes immediately. Small businesses that are currently paying for their employees' health insurance will get immediate relief with tax credits of up to 35% of the employer contribution toward insurance premiums. Starting this year no child will be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions and all children can stay on their parents' insurance plan until they turn 27 years old. For seniors facing high drug costs, the Medicare Part D "Doughnut Hole" is shrunk by $500 and seniors who reach the doughnut hole will receive a $250 rebate check. The financial burden borne by seniors in the doughnut hole will be further reduced next year when name brand drugs must be offered at a 50% discount to seniors while they are trapped in this coverage gap. Over the coming years the doughnut hole will eventually disappear. Further, beginning next January, seniors will have no cost for preventive care, like cholesterol screenings and checkups, and women will no longer have to pay more for healthcare just because they are women.
Every year new provisions will continue to phase in, and in a few short years all Americans will be able to shop for insurance on state-based exchanges where the power of competition, pooled risk and transparency will ensure maximum choice and value for anyone buying insurance. Insurers will no longer be able to discriminate against anyone based on preexisting conditions and policies will be affordable for all through premium assistance available for those with limited means. Small businesses will likewise be able to partake in exchanges, allowing them to leverage group purchasing power that previously was unavailable to them due to their small size. Through the competition and high standards set by these exchanges everyone will have access to the kinds of choices of private insurance plans that were once only reserved for federal employees and members of Congress. In fact, these new laws require that all members of Congress and their staffs purchase their insurance on these exchanges.
I've highlighted a few of the new benefits brought by these laws, but I think it is important to be clear about what is not changed by these laws. These laws do not represent a government takeover of healthcare. There is no new government-run insurance and this law does not change the fundamental relationship between the patient and his or her healthcare providers. In fact, the majority of Missourians will continue to get coverage from their employer just like they do now. What this law does do is provide common-sense regulations for the behavior of insurance companies regarding preventive care, cancellations, preexisting conditions and requirements on how much insurance companies can spend on non-treatment areas like marketing, profit dividends, and hiring people to figure out how to deny coverage. And this law defers to the states the power to set up the exchanges and other health-related programs.
These laws also do not change the long-standing prohibition of using taxpayer money to fund elective abortions. Individuals who purchase private insurance plans which include abortion coverage will have to write a separate check that goes into a separate account. No federal funds can go into this account and payments for elective abortions must come out of this account and no other account, ensuring complete separation of funds. Every exchange will have plans that do not cover elective abortions, ensuring that no one will be forced to buy a policy covering abortion. These bills were endorsed by religious and lay pro-life groups, with NETWORK, an organization of Catholic nuns, calling the legislation "life-affirming" and the Catholic Health Association, the group which represents Catholic hospitals, likewise encouraging passage of this legislation. It is important to note that these new laws defer to states if they have existing laws regarding insurance coverage of abortions. Missouri already has existing laws regulating the coverage of abortion by insurance policies and therefore Missouri's state law will control and supersede national law with regard to abortion coverage.
Contrary to reports otherwise, these laws do not remove any of the Medicare coverage guaranteed to seniors. This package removes waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies and has been endorsed by AARP, a group representing the interests of seniors. Lastly, under these new laws, illegal immigrants will not be able to access any of the benefits offered even if they try to pay for it themselves.
The path leading to healthcare reform has been a long and often bumpy one. Over the past year I've heard from thousands of constituents with passionate views on all sides of the issue. From the town halls I held across Missouri last August to the phone calls, letters, and visitors to my office, I have heard arguments both for and against reforming our healthcare system; many wanted to do nothing and others wanted to go much further to a single payer government run system. In the end it is clear to me that doing nothing was simply not an option. Healthcare costs account for nearly one quarter of the federal budget and are one of the major contributors to our national debt. This package of laws is not only completely paid for, it is also projected to reduce our federal deficit by a trillion dollars over the next twenty years. It may have been easier to kick the can down the road, letting someone else tackle this tough issue, but the voters of Missouri sent me here to deal with the tough issues. The laws passed this year are not perfect, but they mark a step forward in reforming a healthcare system that all agree has problems.
I know that there are many questions about the details of the changes that will occur over the next several years. I urge you to learn more about the changes brought about through reform by visiting a non-partisan website like the one sponsored by the Kaiser Family Foundation (<<http://www.kff.org/). >>; I believe the more you learn about this legislation, which, because of the nature of our healthcare system, had to be very complex, the more you will be pleased and comfortable that we have made important improvements that will have a positive impact on you and your family.
<>Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.
Sincerely,
Claire McCaskill
United States Senator
RECENT RESPONSE LETTERS FROM CONGRESSMAN GRAVES Recent Response Letters from Congresman Graves Mr. Boyd Lieberman 6308 North London Avenue, Apartment F Kansas City, Missouri 64151 Dear Boyd: Thank you for contacting me regarding the recently enacted health care law. I appreciate hearing from you. I voted no. The President promised the American people a health bill that would reduce health care costs, lower premiums, expand access to care without raising taxes on small businesses or working families and without adding to the deficit or the debt. Not only does this plan fail to meet any of these objectives, it makes them worse. This bill will raise premiums for the vast majority of people who currently purchase their own insurance or receive it as a benefit from their employer. It imposes massive new taxes and mandates on small businesses that will kill jobs creation. It cuts more than $500 billion from Medicare and imposes more than an additional $500 billion in taxes, including on the very same people the President promised he'd never tax, and it will add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit and debt once it's readily discovered that the myriad budget gimmicks and other fiscal slights of hand this bill contains don't work. Early in this process, many of my colleagues and I expressed our desire to work with the Administration on common sense solution to these problems. Instead, what's been offered is a big-government takeover that fails to lower costs, raises premiums, puts federal bureaucrats between patients and doctors, raises taxes, kills jobs and buries future generations under a mountain of debt. This is not health reform. As your U.S. Representative in Congress, I will continue to highlight the problems of this bill and will work for solutions to its most onerous provisions. The fight for real health care reform is not over. Once again, thank you for contacting me. If you have any further questions regarding this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or visit my website at www.house.gov/graves. .. for contacting me regarding the recently enacted health care law. I appreciate hearing from you. I voted no. The President promised the American people a health bill that would reduce health care costs, lower premiums, expand access to care without raising taxes on small businesses or working families and without adding to the deficit or the debt. Not only does this plan fail to meet any of these objectives, it makes them worse. This bill will raise premiums for the vast majority of people who currently purchase their own insurance or receive it as a benefit from their employer. It imposes massive new taxes and mandates on small businesses that will kill jobs creation. It cuts more than $500 billion from Medicare and imposes more than an additional $500 billion in taxes, including on the very same people the President promised he'd never tax, and it will add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit and debt once it's readily discovered that the myriad budget gimmicks and other fiscal slights of hand this bill contains don't work. Early in this process, many of my colleagues and I expressed our desire to work with the Administration on common sense solution to these problems. Instead, what's been offered is a big-government takeover that fails to lower costs, raises premiums, puts federal bureaucrats between patients and doctors, raises taxes, kills jobs and buries future generations under a mountain of debt. This is not health reform. As your U.S. Representative in Congress, I will continue to highlight the problems of this bill and will work for solutions to its most onerous provisions. The fight for real health care reform is not over. Once again, thank you for contacting me. If you have any further questions regarding this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or visit my website at www.house.gov/graves. April 9, 2010 Mr. Boyd Lieberman 6308 North London Avenue, Apartment F Kansas City, Missouri 64151 Dear Boyd: Thank you for contacting me regarding the restructuring of our financial regulatory system. I appreciate hearing from you on such an important issue. As you know, the House Financial Services Committee has begun to hold hearings addressing regulatory reform of the financial markets. Among the many proposals brought forth by President Obama, two ideas most concerning include the elimination of the federal thrift charter and the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. First and foremost, I believe the removal of the thrift charter may harm borrowers by reducing the number of lenders explicitly devoted to mortgage lending. The thrift charter specializes in real estate lending, participating in loans for single-family homes and other residential properties. Maintaining a well-supervised charter that is focused on home mortgage creation is important both to encourage and maintain competitive mortgage lending as well as to prevent abusive lending practices. In recent months, thrifts have significantly expanded their mortgage lending market share to help stabilize markets. Essentially, by proposing to eliminate the thrift charter the Administration is eliminating the very institutions that specialize in serving the home mortgage market at a time when their experience is most needed. Secondly, I remain skeptical with the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency. The agency would regulate financial products sold to consumers by banks and non-banks. The proposal would consolidate most of the existing consumer protection laws under one roof, and the new agency could write rules and enforce compliance through orders, fines and penalties. I do not accept the premise that the remedy is to deny consumers decision-making power altogether. The creation of such an agency would be very significant departure from the notions of liberty and personal responsibility that have previously guided our regulatory efforts. Additionally, this new agency would stifle innovation, limit consumer choice and ultimately raise the cost of credit. As my voting record has demonstrated, I am not convinced expanding the government's reach will address consumer fraud concerns. Instead, it will only continue the vicious cycle of irresponsibility in the marketplace. Don't get me wrong, we need a regulatory overhaul - but not more regulation, just more effective regulation. Our new millennium financial system is governed by a New Deal regulatory structure. Many of our difficulties today stem from the fact that our regulatory infrastructure could not contemplate and hold in check robust financial innovation. Similarly, government policy is also to blame as it forced institutions to offer credit to some individuals who had no capacity for repayment - a financial house of cards.
LETTER FROM REP JERRY NOLTE DIST. 33
Thank you for your e-mail and support of HB 1231. I am the chairman of the House Committee on Immigration and International Trade and a cosponsor of this bill. We heard this legislation in my committee and passed it on for debate on the floor of the House. This is a great addition to the legislation we passed two years ago (HB 1549) which dealt with employment of illegals, banned sanctuary cities, increased cooperation between our police and ICE, required commercial driver licenses being given in English (no translators) and several other measures. I appreciate hearing your opinions on this or any other issue.
Jerry Nolte
Dist 33
