Constituent Letters
Rick Evans wrote Senator Hatch, via email, about the 2002 Winter Olympics. Read the letter and then read the Senator's response .
Dear Sir,
I have read everything possible that has been made public regarding Salt
Lake's acquisition of the Olympic Games. Given what President Clinton has
put our country through by not resigning his presidency, don't you think that
given the predominant perception the world has of the state because of the
perceived Mormon influence, we should take the moral high ground and resign the
games? It is clear to much of the world that we influenced the IOC's
selection by at the very least unethical, at most illegal means. Why not
show the world what we stand for and set the example. My family's business
stands to lose millions if the Games go elsewhere, we can accept this, why can't
the Utah leadership? All the tough talk means little to me.
Sincerely,
Rick Evans
Bountiful, Utah
Senator Hatch responded as follows:
Dear Mr. Evans:
Thank you for your recent e-mail message concerning the Olympic Games
scandal.
I certainly share the disappointment and embarrassment of all
Utahns regarding the revelation that the Salt Lake Olympic bid committee used
inappropriate means to try to win the Games for Utah. Utahns pride
themselves on playing fair and square, and there is no question that the bid
committee far overstepped the bounds of propriety. The bid committee
should not have given in to the unwritten "rules of the game" as played by
certain members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Those
individuals on the Salt Lake bid committee who are guilty of misconduct will be
brought to account. Changes will be made to ensure accountability in the
future. I will support Governor Leavitt and Mitt Romney, the new president
of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee, as they take these necessary corrective
actions. These problems did not begin in Salt Lake City; but, as our
governor has said, they will end here.
But, while the actions of the Salt Lake bid committee were wrong,
it seems that the root of corruption has existed for a long time within the
IOC. It is essential that the IOC take action to punish IOC members who
have not held to strict ethical standards and to reform its own site selection
processes. In this regard, it is possible that some good could come out of
this situation.
It is also important to remember that Salt Lake City had a
meritorious proposal for the Games. No amount of cash or gifts could have
compensated for a site proposal that was destined to fail. Utah has
excellent winter sports facilities, mountain terrain that provides a challenge
for world class competition, and warm and hospitable people. We have the
know-how to provide a workable transportation plan, security, accommodations,
and media support. In short, Salt Lake City has the ability to host the
best Winter Olympiad ever.
Even if Salt Lake City were to "resign" as host city for the
Games, it would be virtually impossible for any city, even a city which had
previously hosted the Games, to take over with fewer than three years to
go. Utah has already made significant progress preparing for the Games,
but much remains to be done. We must go forward and make these Games the
best in the history of the Olympic movement.
We cannot let the misguided actions of a few prevent our state
from doing the best job we can at hosting the Winter Olympic Games in
2002. Putting on a first class Olympic Games will be a challenge, but it
is one I believe Utahns are up to. And, I believe that how well we recover
and move forward from this scandal will, in the long-run, say more about our
state than the bad judgment of a few. The proof of Utah's ability,
sincerity, and integrity will be evident in how we host these Games, in
everything from the buses running on time to welcoming visitors.
Utahns placed their trust in the Salt Lake Olympic bid
committee. I join in condemning that breach of trust. But, if we
quit now, the goodwill of our citizens will be forever overshadowed by this
scandal. I believe we should rally around our new "Olympic team." We
can get back on track, apply ourselves to the tasks ahead of us, and be proud of
our efforts.
Sincerely,
Orrin G. Hatch
|
|
Susan Nelson wrote Senator Hatch, via email, about the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Read the letter and then read the Senator's response.
Dear Senator Hatch:
Please oppose the CTBT. The best defense is a good offense.
Thank you,
Susan Nelson
St. George, Utah
Senator Hatch responded as follows:
Dear
Ms. Nelson:
Thank you for your email regarding the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty. I appreciate hearing from constituents concerning matters of
national security.
I voted against the resolution of ratification on the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which failed on a vote of 48 - 51.
Under our Constitution, treaties require a two-thirds vote for ratification;
thus, the treaty failed by a substantial margin.
I do not believe the assertions that passage of the CTBT would
reduce the threat of global proliferation. I also believe that a permanent
commitment never to test our nuclear weapons would reduce the reliability of
those weapons and risk imperiling the deterrent that this country has relied
upon for half a century.
The territorial integrity of the United States has not had to face
a major threat during the past half-century precisely because we have a
modern, reliable nuclear deterrent.
The CTBT promoted by the Clinton Administration would prevent
necessary testing that improves the safety of our nuclear deterrent, guarantees
the on-going reliability of these complicated weapons, and could be used to
develop and modernize weapons to keep our deterrent relevant to shifting
technological threats.
Nuclear deterrence is not static. If we stop testing today,
we freeze our deterrent while technology advances throughout the world.
This gives our real and potential enemies a real advantage. Quite
simply, this means we are weakening our ability to defend ourselves.
The fact of the matter is that, today, testing cannot be
replicated by science alone; the technology simply does not exist yet that
adequately replicates real detonations.
Further, the CTBT does not address real nuclear threats: Iraq is
pursuing the ability to develop a nuclear weapon. It is certainly
questionable that Iraq, Iran, or North Korea are going to adhere to the niceties
of this treaty.
However, in the 1990 - 1991 Gulf War, Iraq did not use chemical
and biological weapons against our troops because we had a reliable
proven nuclear deterrent. This is a lesson we dare not forget.
Some terrorists are trying to either develop small nuclear weapons
or steal or buy tactical weapons from Russian armories. If terrorists wish
to develop them, testing small ones would not be detected by the CTBT's
capabilities. The CTBT does not address these concerns, but it does
promote a complacency about very real future threats.
I have supported nuclear arms treaties in the past. These
treaties reduced the numbers of warheads (such as the START treaties with
Russia), because they preserved this country's deterrent and because the
reductions were completely verifiable by effective on-site inspections.
The CTBT is by no means as rigorous.
While ideally we would like the complete cessation of nuclear
testing, in our current world situation, this is only a dream. And, it
would be dangerous to approve a treaty based on on a dream and not on reality.
Finally, I must say that I am disappointed that the Clinton
Administration has politicized this debate. Despite the fact that they
knew all along that there were not enough votes to pass the CTBT, the Clinton
Administration and the Senate Democrats threatened to obstruct the business of
the Senate unless the Republican leadership agreed to a vote. After the
Republicans agreed, the President then made an issue of the scheduling of the
vote. Just one day after the vote, there were political TV ads denouncing
Republicans for opposing the treaty.
Again, thank you very much for sharing on your opinion on this
critical national security issue.
Sincerely,
Orrin G. Hatch
|
|
R.K.D. recently wrote Senator Hatch about the high cost of prescription drugs. Read the letter and then read the Senator's response.
Dear Senator
Orrin G. Hatch
I am writing to you to express a great concern of mine that
impacts all seniors, myself included. Before I retired in 1997, I was for
many years employed professionally as a Manufacturing Engineer where I had
access to employer paid group health insurance that also covered prescriptions
with a $10.00 co-pay, which was very, very nice.
Now that I'm retired and don't have the same access, I have
recently had a rude awakening concerning the real-world prescription
pricing. Twice recently I have had to tactfully tell the young lady at the
pharmacy, that I absolutely refuse to pay the high asking price.
I discussed this situation with my doctor when I went in for my
annual physical exam, and he agreed that medications are priced way too high,
and some are outrageously high, especially for heart patients. He said
years ago, the pharmaceutical companies had reasonable prices, but they have
since hired business men to run the financial part of their business, and the
prices have steadily grown to the point that the retired people find them out of
reach in many cases. So my concerns are why are they so high priced here
in the USA. While living in Arizona three years ago, I read newspaper
accounts of seniors who would get a handful of prescriptions, and with several
friends travel to Tucson to cross the border at Nogales, Sonora, Mexico where
they could get the same medications for half the price. Looks to me like
we have pricing policies today, that I read about in my economics class in
college, where producers will price their products as high as the market will
allow. In the USA, the consumers generally will pay only the $10 co-pay,
so they probably don't know the real price, and couldn't care less – their
insurance carriers must then take the brunt of high prices (I'm surprised they
haven't complained more). In Mexico where there is abject poverty in many
places, the pharmaceutical companies are forced to price their products lower
than in America, at least this is the way I analyze the pricing problem.
So what do we do? Just sit back and take it? No! I'm writing this
letter looking for some relief on medications – I WILL NOT PAY THEIR EXCESSIVELY
HIGH PRICES!
I strongly urge you to vote for the legislation proposed by
President Clinton, where Medicare will pay for the Seniors medications, and to
ignore the millions of dollars the pharmaceutical companies are investing
through their lobbyists to kill the proposal. I would even agree to pay a
$10 co-pay out of my pocket if Medicare would pay the balance, just to have some
relief from the high asking prices. Some of the Social Security surplus we
have each year could easily give us seniors the relief we need, if we could just
keep the Democrats hands out of the Social Security bank account, as well as the
national surplus we have each year from the GNP.
The other way to bring prices down, is to have the pharmaceutical
companies to justify their high prices. So basically, since I'm retired
now with a Social Security income and small company pension, I simply can't
afford the medications that have been prescribed.
Thank you for listening.
R.K.D.
Centerville, Utah
Senator Hatch responded as follows:
Dear
R.K.D.:
Thank you for your letter sharing your concerns about a very
serious problem -- the high cost of prescription
drugs.
I appreciate the difficulties you and many others in similar
situations are experiencing. It is a real concern to me that some senior
citizens have to choose between paying the rent or buying necessary prescription
drugs, a Hobson's choice no senior citizen should have to make.
I think this is a problem that must be remedied, and I support a
prescription drug benefit. In fact, there is bipartisan agreement that a
drug benefit is necessary.
In order to make this a reality, Congress has to balance some
conflicting needs. First, we are facing a grave financial situation in the
existing Medicare program. The Medicare trustees have determined that the
hospital trust fund will begin running in the red in 2007 and will be completely
broke by 2015 unless structural changes are made or hundreds of billions of
dollars are infused into the program.
At the same time that we are searching for the funds to shore up
the current Medicare program, we are trying to find the money for much-needed
new benefits such as medicines and better preventive care. The costs
associated with adding a prescription drug benefit are enormous; they range from
$20 billion to $400 billion over a 10-year period.
Because of the tremendous costs of such a benefit, Congress needs
to carefully weigh the impact that such a benefit will have on seniors,
Medicare, and the federal budget. The many questions that should be asked
include: would all Medicare beneficiaries be covered, and, if so, what type of
financial burdens would be imposed on Medicare? Would all drugs be
covered? Would seniors be required to pay a deductible? Would
seniors have coverage for high-priced prescriptions? And, most
importantly, how much federal money is available for such a benefit?
Given other competing needs, such as the approaching fiscal
insolvency of Social Security as well, I believe that these questions must be
answered before a prescription drug benefit is added to the Medicare
program. Congress should not make the same mistakes it did in 1988 when
the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act was enacted. As you may recall,
once the 1988 legislation was signed into law, seniors had serious concerns
about the costsharing imposed upon them for prescription drugs. In
addition, the program's costs were seriously underestimated by Congressional
economists. The program ended up costing significantly more than
originally anticipated.
In addition to providing relief to seniors, we must remember the
impact federal policy may have on the ability of seniors to get the latest and
most effective new drugs. It costs $500 million or more to develop a
single new drug, test it, win FDA approval, educate doctors about its use, and
make it available to patients. Neither Canada nor Mexico, which are widely
cited as having cheaper medicines, has a pharmaceutical industry capable of the
same level of scientific success that American drug companies have had.
Other countries may impose heavy taxes, burdensome regulations, and often do not
have the intellectual property protections available as in the United
States. If America took away such incentives, the outlook for medical
breakthroughs will not be as encouraging. Clearly, we do not want to
stifle one of our country's greatest health care assets. So, as we work to
make prescription drugs affordable for seniors, we must also try to find a
balance between encouraging research on new breakthrough drugs and bringing
their costs down for patients.
Therefore, while I support a Medicare prescription drug benefit, I
believe that we have to face budget realities. The first step should be to
provide a drug benefit for low-income beneficiaries. Thirty-five percent
of seniors do not have access to prescription drugs. These individuals do
not qualify for Medicaid; they cannot afford Medicare supplement insurance or do
not have access to private coverage through retirement plans. I believe
they should be our first priority as far as prescription drug coverage is
concerned. Moreover, most seniors who have private coverage do not wish to
have their current policies disrupted or be thrown into a government plan.
I have a record of working to reduce the high cost of
pharmaceuticals. For example, legislation I authored, known as the
"Hatch-Waxman Act," paved the way for growth of today's modern generic drug
industry, which provides seniors with lower cost generic alternatives.
This is a success we should build upon.
I assure you that your concerns are extremely important to
me. I will welcome your further thoughts and suggestions as we work to
address this critical issue.
Sincerely,
Orrin G. Hatch
|
|
Office of
Senator Orrin G. Hatch
104 Hart Senate Office
Building
Washington, DC 20510
202/224-5251 (voice)
202/224-6331
(fax)
senator_hatch@hatch.senate.gov (Please provide your complete postal
mailing address in your email)
Office Hours:
Monday - Friday -- 9am - 6pm
(EST)
This website is optimized for Netscape Navigator 6 and Internet Explorer 5.5
