April 26, 2011

Dear XXXXXXXX,

Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns about the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) role in setting clean air standards, including standards for greenhouse gases.  While we may disagree, I value knowing your views on this important matter and appreciate the opportunity to share my perspective.

The Clean Air Act has been used to set common-sense standards for air pollution for more than three decades.  In 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks, 130,000 heart attacks, and 86,000 emergency room visits.  In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA is required to assess whether greenhouse gases are a threat to public health and welfare and, if so, the EPA is required to regulate them.  Under the Bush administration, the EPA's top scientists conducted an extensive review concluding that greenhouse gases do indeed endanger public health and welfare.  Such pollution contributes to smog formation and an increase in asthma attacks, among numerous other negative consequences.  The Obama administration finalized this official finding and, following the Supreme Court's order, proposed limits on carbon pollution. 

The regulations that the EPA has implemented to date fall into two categories.  One category is gas mileage standards for cars and trucks.  Repealing the EPA's authority would undermine the agency's ability to implement and enforce these standards, increasing our dependence on foreign oil by hundreds of millions of barrels, and costing Americans tens of billions of dollars at the gas pump.  The second category is for facilities like coal-burning power plants or factories that burn fossil fuels.  These rules have exempted all but the largest sources of pollution, and in general are expected to require regulated facilities to simply improve the efficiency of their plants.  I believe these are common-sense standards that American businesses will be able to meet and comply with in a cost-effective way, just as they have for other Clean Air Act rules that have saved lives and reduced pollution.

I therefore oppose efforts to limit the EPA's ability to set standards to protect public health and the environment from greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.  On April 6, 2011, I voted against an amendment offered by Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY).  The amendment, identical to a bill by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and Representative Fred Upton (R-MI), would have completely repealed the EPA's ability to set such standards. 

I respect that some Oregonians have a different perspective on this issue and I appreciate that we can share our views with one another.  As a United States Senator, I represent all Oregonians, including those who may reach different conclusions than I do.  While I sometimes cast votes that not all Oregonians agree with, I do not take your concerns lightly.  I weigh the view of all Oregonians in making decisions, but it is also the nature of our democracy that people will be divided on some issues.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me.  I hope you will keep sending your observations and concerns my way.

Dear XXXXXXXXXXX,

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts about the federal debt.  I appreciate hearing from you. 

I share your concern about our nation's debt, particularly as a father of two school-aged children. I agree that Congress must act in a fiscally responsible manner when making policy decisions.  Just over a decade ago our federal budget was running a surplus.  Over the next eight years, Washington passed massive tax cuts largely benefiting the very affluent, launched two long wars, and created a new Medicare drug benefit, without paying for any of it.  On top of these billions of dollars in new costs, poor policy choices led to the financial crisis and a deep recession, which dramatically reduced tax revenues and necessitated emergency responses.  We are now paying the price for those irresponsible choices. 

Still, our long-term deficit projects are mostly due to rising health care costs and an aging population.  We will need to continue pursuing strategies for lowering health costs without harming seniors and others.  Bringing the deficits down will be a challenge and I believe must be pursued in a balanced way that doesn't cost jobs now or damage our long-term economic competitiveness.  It will require good faith efforts to find compromise and I am committed to working with my colleagues toward that goal. 

Again, I appreciate your input. I hope you will continue to send me your thoughts and concerns.  

Dear XXXXXXXXXXX,

Thank you for contacting me to share your views about the Public Online Information Act. 

Given the complexities and range of issues our nation faces, it is always helpful to be able to draw on the ideas, perspectives, and passions of Oregonians.  I appreciate your input and will certainly keep your thoughts in mind as I work to address the challenges of our state and our country.   Please keep in touch.

Thank you for contacting me to express your views on gun control legislation.  It is an honor to serve as your Senator, and I appreciate hearing your views on this important issue. 

I understand that many Oregonians cherish their second amendment rights, and I support the ability of law abiding gun owners to own and use firearms.  At the same time, however, I believe that we must protect our children and ensure that deadly weapons do not fall into the hands of criminals.  For this reason, I support common sense measures that help keep our communities safe including mandatory background checks and closing the gun show loophole that permits unlicensed private vendors to sell privately-owned guns at gun shows without background checks.

I will continue to stand for sportsmen and law abiding citizens, and protect their constitutional right to bear arms. 

Thank you, again, for sharing your thoughts with me, and please continue to keep me informed about issues that concern you.

June 8

Thank you for contacting me to share your support for restoring civil liberties protections that were eroded under the USA PATRIOT Act. I appreciate hearing from you.

Like you, I strongly support efforts to reverse policies that have provided the government with overly broad authority to engage in surveillance of American citizens. Unfortunately, on May 26 the Senate voted to extend three expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act for an additional four years.

I was deeply disappointed that the extension passed, particularly without the full debate and consideration that these complicated constitutional issues warrant.  The expiring provisions provide the government with the power to access our most private information, including medical records, phone calls, emails, and library records, all secretly, with few checks or balances.  The government will not even disclose to the American people how they interpret these provisions, including whether they consider there to be any limits at all on their powers.  These authorities should not have been extended without full and open debate, as well as votes on amendments to limit this authority or create new checks and balances.

While we must undoubtedly provide law enforcement with the tools necessary to keep Americans safe, we must also protect Americans' most fundamental constitutional rights. We can both protect our privacy and maintain a high standard of national security. 

Please know that I will continue working to ensure that the privacy and constitutional rights of American citizens are properly protected. 

Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns about the need to continue pay for troops in the event of a federal government shutdown.  I appreciate hearing from you.

Like you, I was concerned about the negative repercussions of a government shutdown and am pleased that this event did not come to pass. However, should a shutdown occur in the future, the men and women serving our nation in uniform should not bear the burden of Congress' failure to approve a federal budget.  I am keenly aware of the special debt of service we owe to the men and women who serve our country in the military, and believe that disrupting servicemembers' pay could create significant financial hardships and emotional burdens for servicemembers and their families.  While I hope that all efforts are made to prevent a shutdown of government operations, I have co-sponsored the Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011, S. 724, which would put a contingency plan in place to ensure that servicemembers receive pay on time in the event of a government shutdown. 

 Again, thank you for your input.  I hope you will continue to send your thoughts and observations my way.

Dear Phillip,

Thank you for contacting me with your support for the fiscal year 2012 budget resolution passed by the House of Representatives on April 15, 2011.  Although we disagree, I value knowing your opinion and I appreciate the opportunity to share my perspective.

The House budget proposal represents a vision for our country with which I disagree, and I joined with a majority of my colleagues in the Senate in voting down the plan on May 25, 2011.  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed the budget proposal and determined that, under the plan's replacement for Medicare, seniors would pay substantially more for health care – on average $6,000 more – and receive fewer options for coverage.  Additionally, the House budget proposal would significantly cut support for college financial aid and dozens of other critical programs that people depend on, while providing another round of special tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.  Much of the money saved by cutting Medicare, financial aid, and programs like Head Start, education, and research into disease cures would go to pay for these additional tax cuts, not to reduce our nation's debt. 

Many Oregonians are concerned about the federal debt, and as a father of two school-aged children, I am too.  Congress must act in a fiscally responsible manner when making policy decisions.  The annual deficits of recent years are largely a result of tax cuts that were not paid for, exploding costs from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the financial crisis, recession, and responses to them.  In fact, before President Obama took office, the CBO predicted that the 2009 deficit would be $1 trillion dollars.  According to an independent analysis, about $500 billion of the actual deficit from 2009 was directly attributable to the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while $400 billion was the direct result of the financial crisis and subsequent recession.  Looking further out, our longer-term deficit projections are mostly due to rising health care costs and an aging population.  In both cases, there are no easy or pain-free solutions to close the fiscal gap.  Tough choices will have to be made, but a key part of any deficit solution will be putting Americans back to work.  It will require good faith efforts to find compromise and I am committed to working with my colleagues toward that goal. 

Please know that I will fight for a budget that fosters job growth, lays the foundations for long-term economic growth, reduces the deficits in a fair and balanced manner, and reflects our core values as Americans.  Again, I appreciate your input.  I hope you will continue to send me your thoughts and concerns.