Liberal in the Land of Conservative

Mr. Miller,

Thank You for your quick response to the request by Mr. Gary Gross for the O’Reilly Factor video. It is encouraging to me to see how promptly you were able to get back to him. Given this new promptness, I was wondering if you might answer a few questions for me.

To my knowledge, Mrs. Bachmann has yet to hold an open public forum to discuss any number of legislative issues. Is there a reason for this? Some months ago Mrs. Bachmann expressed her lack of access to the public due to the five day work week established by the leadership. Yet, in the months since then there have been many legislative breaks as well as a reduction to a four day work week and we have still not seen Mrs. Bachmann at any public forums within the district. When might we expect her to hold such an event? Could you provide me with a schedule of any and all future events at which Mrs. Bachmann will be appearing?

Some in her district, including myself, are concerned about the lack of direct access to Mrs. Bachmann.

Thank You,

'Political Muse'

Mr. Miller,

Earlier this month, Mrs. Bachmann joined only 22 of her colleagues in the House of Representatives to vote against H.R. 4848 which extended the 1996 law creating a certain amount of mental health parity.

Could you provide me with a statement from Mrs. Bachmann on why she chose to vote against mental health parity? Does she support the measure put forward by Republican Congressman Jim Ramstad on mental health parity?

Thank You,

'Political Muse'

Mr. Miller,

In January, Mrs. Bachmann sent out a press release about her participation in the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation’s Walk to Cure Diabetes. While I commend Mrs. Bachmann for her participation in such an event, she doesn’t appear to be very supportive of the goals set out by this organization.

For example, one of the organizations goals is increased funding for stem cell research. She voted against H.R. 3 (The Stem Cell Enhancement Act of 2007). How does Mrs. Bachmann justify participating in an organization whose goals for a cure run counter to her beliefs?

Also, this organization has been advocating for another bill, HR 2762, which reauthorizes special diabetes programs for Indians. Yet, Mrs. Bachmann has not signed on to this legislation even though it currently has large bipartisan support from 238 other representatives. Will Mrs. Bachmann be signing on to this bill?

Thank You,

'Political Muse'

Mr. Miller,

I am wondering if you could provide me with a statement or reaction from Mrs. Bachmann on a recent study done in California on the subject of immigration and criminal activity. The study found that immigrants were far less likely to be involved in criminal activity than the citizen population. In fact, the study looked at a subsection of those immigrants that are most likely to be “illegal” immigrants and found that even they were far less likely to involved in criminal activity.

From the article:

“Among men 18 to 40, the population most likely to be in institutions because of criminal activity, the report found that in California, U.S.-born men were institutionalized 10 times more often than foreign-born men (4.2 percent vs. 0.42 percent).

Among other findings in the report, non-citizen men from Mexico 18 to 40 -- a group disproportionately likely to have entered the United States illegally -- are more than eight times less likely than U.S.-born men in the same age group to be in a correctional institution (0.48 percent vs. 4.2 percent).”

I would be interested in what Mrs. Bachmann thinks of this particular study.

Thank You,

'Political Muse'

Mr. Miller,

During her appearance on the O’Reilly Factor, Mrs. Bachmann brought up an amendment that failed in the Minnesota legislature that would have provided an English Only drivers exam.

How does Mrs. Bachmann feel that this would have prevented the incident in Cottonwood, Minnesota? If we have an English Only exam, what is to happen to the large population of legal immigrants who have yet to learn the English language but are in need of a driver’s license? It seems to me that this is punishing an entire population of immigrants for the crimes of a few illegal immigrants. How would Mrs. Bachmann respond?

I would like to hear more from Mrs. Bachmann about how instituting an English Only provision will solve the problem of illegal immigration.

Thank You,

'Political Muse'

Dear **********,

Thank you for contacting me about the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

As you may know, Congress is engaged in a debate about the future of healthcare in America and what should have been a proposal to extend affordable coverage for low-income children.

SCHIP is set to expire soon. This decade-old program offers states federal funding to provide health insurance for children in households that do not qualify for Medicaid, but cannot afford private coverage.

Unfortunately, the program has become politicized, and Congress recently passed legislation to expand SCHIP coverage beyond children, beyond U.S. citizens, and beyond those who are truly in need, and that is where the problem lies.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, several million SCHIP-eligible children are still uninsured. Surely, children in need should have the health insurance promised to them before expanding SCHIP further up the income ladder or using more of the program's limited resources for adults.

Here's my idea. Let's cover the kids first. Let's focus on children in need without access to health insurance, and fund SCHIP as it was meant to be. I've publicly supported legislation that would accomplish these goals and keep SCHIP moving forward to help those it was intended to help.

But some want to move SCHIP in the wrong direction. Under the bill passed by Congress and vetoed by the President, SCHIP dollars could be used to cover childless adults and more affluent families - in some cases, households earning up to $83,000 per year. It also changes current law to make it easier for illegal immigrants to get SCHIP funds.

Rather than focusing on low-income, uninsured children, a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study shows that more than 77 percent of children affected by this expansion already have personal, private health insurance. In other words, the bill creates an incentive that pushes kids out of private insurance into a government-run program.

Worse, this legislation makes SCHIP financially unstable. In order to appear fiscally sound, it gives children health insurance for 5 years, and then it cuts SCHIP funding by nearly 80 percent - a classic bait and switch that will cause millions of American children to lose their health coverage.

According to the CBO, the bill will lead to only 800,000 currently eligible-but-unenrolled children being enrolled in SCHIP by 2012. The sad fact is that it would be cheaper to give each of these kids $72,000 than it would be to enact this bill, and it would probably show healthier results.

Rather than playing politics with children's healthcare or scoring political points with radio and TV ads, I believe Congress should show the American people that we are here to solve problems, and I will continue encouraging House leaders to do the right thing by bringing up an SCHIP bill we can all support.

Once again, thank you for contacting me. Please keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Michele Bachmann
Member of Congress

Dear Representative Bachmann,

Recently, you chose to vote against the reauthorization and expansion of SCHIP (H.R. 976). You have been quoted as saying, “This bill will not be signed into law because, sadly, it plays politics with children’s health care”. My question is, and I am truly trying to understand this, how are people “playing politics” when a bill has been given relatively large bipartisan support? Could you provide some details as to how both Democrats and yourself can compromise to make this important legislation, or any legislation for that matter, a reality?
I am pleased that you are, at the very least, supportive of the SCHIP program and encourage you to continue that support. However, the bill you are supporting (H.R. 3584) actually lowers the number of children currently being supported by SCHIP. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that in order to cover the children currently using SCHIP you would need to raise the budget by $13 billion. H.R. 3584 only provides $5 billion. If you are truly supportive of SCHIP, I urge you, at the very least, to sponsor legislation or an amendment that increases funding by the $13 billion needed so it does not actually cut children from the number of insured. Would you be willing to sign on to legislation that funds SCHIP at the level the CBO estimates is needed to keep the current numbers of children insured?

Sincerely,

*************