What You Are Writing About

 

Top concerns from Idahoans

Impact of Sequester on Wildlife Conservation Programs

SCOTUS Decision on Obamacare

Whitetip Shark under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

Internet Radio Fairness Act

Immigration Reform

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.

Impact of Sequester on Wildlife Conservation Programs

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about sequestration and funding for wildlife conservation programs.  I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond. 

As you may know, the Budget Control Act (BCA) was signed into law on August 2, 2011.  This legislation provided the mechanism for raising our nation’s statutory borrowing limit in exchange for cuts in government spending.  Spending cuts were achieved in two ways:

• Discretionary spending caps beginning in Fiscal Year 2012.
• A sequestration of $1.2 trillion over ten years to be shared between defense and non-defense discretionary spending.

 

The sequestration feature is scheduled to take effect in January 2013, and is the result of the failure of the select committee empanelled by the BCA to recommend specific savings in government spending totaling $1.2 trillion over ten years.

Many Idahoans have contacted me with questions and concerns as to how sequestration will affect various government programs and agencies.  I am encouraged by H.R. 5872, the Sequester Transparency Act, which was signed into law on August 7, 2012.  This legislation required the Obama Administration to report to Congress and the public within 30 days how the sequester will be enacted, and outline how spending reductions will be implemented in the government agencies affected by sequestration.  The report was released on September 14, 2012, and may be accessed here:

Our country has been on a spiraling path of debt and deficits it can no longer sustain, and Congress must take immediate action to rein in our out of control spending.  I share your concerns about sequestration, as it achieves spending reductions in a rather broad way that lacks prioritization.  Additionally, the spending cuts achieved through sequestration do not significantly address the mandatory spending programs that are essentially on autopilot and serve as the main drivers of our national deficit.  Any serious effort to reform our budgetary shortfalls must include reforms to these programs.

Conserving and managing wildlife has long been an interest of mine, and certainly we all have an interest in being proper stewards of our natural treasures for future generations to enjoy.   Nonetheless, I remain committed to working toward a cost-effective federal government.  Please be assured that I will continue to advocate for sound, fiscally responsible policies regarding wildlife conservation efforts.

Back to top

SCOTUS Decision on Obamacare

Thank you for contacting me with your opposition to the health care law.  I appreciate hearing your thoughts and welcome the opportunity to respond. 

 

As you may know the Supreme Court released its ruling on the President’s health care law on June 28, 2012.  In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld the requiring of individuals to obtain health insurance or pay a tax.  The court also ruled that Congress may offer states funds to expand coverage under Medicaid, and states that accept this funding must abide by new rules and coverage requirements; however states can refuse to participate in the expansion and maintain some Medicaid funds.  States will have the option to continue with their current plan.   

 

The decision of the Supreme Court to uphold the individual mandate as a tax is very disappointing, and it is not the ruling that the American people wanted.  Americans overwhelmingly want solutions that deliver what they need—access to high-quality, affordable health care.  This law did not fix the rising cost of health care. 

During the debate on the Health Care Law, President Obama pledged to the American people that “no family making less than $250,000 would see their taxes increase—not their income taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, not any of their taxes.”  In response, I offered an amendment to strip the bill of any provision that would violate that pledge.  Despite receiving bipartisan support, my amendment was voted down, and the Court’s ruling further confirms that this bill violated the President’s pledge.  The Congressional Budget Office has stated that more than 75 percent of the individual mandate—a tax—will be paid by those middle-income families the President pledged to protect from any tax increase. 

This law is bad for the American people.  It fails on promises to lower health costs and premiums for working families.  It fails on promises for American people to keep their health care plan if they liked it, and millions of people have learned they cannot.  It increases the burden for small businesses to hire workers.  This law threatens our country’s financial strength and the American way of life.

The issue is now back in the hands of Congress, and I will work to repeal the law and replace it with true reforms that will help reduce health care costs and increase access to quality health care.  Ultimately the American public needs to decide if the government should control one-sixth of our economy and health care.  As a member of the Senate Finance Committee and the Gang of 6, I will continue to work to address our nation’s health care problems and to reform our tax code to make it simpler, not more complex and burdensome, for the American people.  We must get back to finding meaningful solutions to our nation’s health care crisis.

Back to top

Whitetip Shark under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

Thank you for contacting me to share your support for listing oceanic whitetip sharks under Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).  I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

As you know, CITES is an agreement between international governments regulating the trade of endangered species.  Domestically, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for overseeing participation in such activities.  As you noted, the U.S. has previously submitted a proposal to list the oceanic whitetip shark under Appendix II of CITES, which would have declared this species of shark as not currently threatened with extinction, but would have allowed restrictions on trade so as not to threaten the survival of the species in the future.  The proposal was not agreed to at the 2010 conference of parties.  Currently, the Pew Environmental Group, a public policy advocacy organization, is circulating a petition to urge the U.S. government to submit a new proposal for the oceanic whitetip shark to be included for consideration at the March 2013 conference of parties. 

Cooperative and collaborative efforts are essential in undertaking the significant challenges related to environmental and wildlife policies.  Additionally, the United States may benefit from engaging in international agreements, but only if such agreements are compatible with the goals of the American people.  Please be assured that I share your concerns regarding endangered species management efforts, and will continue to press for effective solutions to species recovery and protection that balance environmental, economic and recreational priorities.   

Back to top

Internet Radio Fairness Act

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for H.R. 6480, the Internet Radio Fairness Act.  I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond. 

As you may know, there is some debate surrounding how royalty rates are set for Internet radio services, also called noninteractive online radio services.  At present, the rates are based on part of a federal judicial standard that bases royalty rates on a “willing buyer, willing seller” standard.  This is a part of a wider topic of regulations for the telecommunications industry.  It also touches on the issue of intellectual property laws.

Clearly, the growth of the Internet and other technologies has generated new challenges for Congress and our court systems in maintaining a balance between the free-flow of information while still protecting intellectual property rights.  As you may know, authors and inventers are guaranteed an exclusive right, for limited times, to their respective writings and discoveries, as set for in Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

The Senate version of the Internet Radio Fairness Act, S. 3609, was introduced by Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) on September 21, 2012.   S. 3609 would change the way royalty rates are set so that noninteractive online radio services would determine royalty rates using the same standard as cable and satellite broadcast stations.  The measure would also allow webcasters to make digital copies of music they’ve already purchased.  Although I do not sit on the Committee, I look forward to reviewing its findings.  S. 3609 has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee for its review. 

It is my hope that mutually agreeable settlements can be reached between copyright holders and legal consumers so that a proper level of compensation and noncommercial use may be achieved.  In the meantime, I will continue to support efforts to ensure that courts apply fair use factors in a technology-neutral manner.

Back to top

Immigration Reform

Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration reform and border security.  I agree with you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

Rarely does an issue invoke more interest from so many Idahoans and people across the nation than the issue of immigration reform and border security. 

I have consistently maintained that there is a real need for a rational immigration policy.  As additional immigration proposals are considered in Congress, I will continue to press for an immigration policy that is built on several important principles:

     

• First, the United States must commit the resources necessary to have the strongest border enforcement realistically possible.  Preservation of the integrity of our borders is essential to both a sensible guest worker program as well as our national security.  When we have a stable and manageable guest worker and immigration system, we will be able to ensure that those who come to our country, whether they seek to come as a temporary worker or to obtain permanent residency, do so in compliance with our rule of law.

 

• Second, our immigration system must not grant amnesty to those who enter our country illegally.  No person who breaks the law and enters the U.S. illegally should obtain any benefit toward either permanent legal residency or citizenship as a result of their illegal conduct.  This is unfair both to American citizens and to those who have gone through legal channels for immigration to the U.S.

 

• Third, our guest worker programs must assure that American citizens have the first right to access available jobs.  There is significant debate about whether American citizens are losing U.S. jobs to workers from other countries.  However, this debate can be resolved by assuring that any jobs made available in a guest worker program are first available to U.S. workers.  Manageable ways to assure this have already been identified.

 

• Fourth, an efficient and workable guest worker program must be developed that will provide employers with a reliable, verifiable and legal system to identify guest workers who are legally in the country.

 

You may be interested to know that I am a strong supporter of border security and effective immigration enforcement.  I have supported multiple pieces of legislation to improve immigration enforcement by providing more funds for the removal of illegal immigrants and providing for additional Border Patrol agents, vehicles and reconnaissance.  These measures are critical to bringing security to our borders.

I remain committed to the enactment of sound immigration policy.  I understand the urgency expressed by many to enact a federal response to address our nation’s immigration and border security needs.  However, realizing the significant impact of legislation of this magnitude, I will continue to press for not just a temporary fix, but a solid solution that will secure our nation’s borders, not provide incentives for further illegal immigration through rewarding illegal entry, provide Americans with the first right to access available jobs, and enable an efficient and workable guest worker program.  

 

Please rest assured that I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress and all Idahoans to find sensible solutions to the challenges we face with regard to immigration.

 

Back to top