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identical to a bill by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and Representative Fred Upton (R-MI), would have completely repealed the EPA's ability to set such standards.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.