Q & A with Senator Merkley

Kevin Kamberg

When Sen. Merkley's Online Media Director Sarah offered me the chance to interview Jeff I immediately jumped at the opportunity. I posted some excerpts from it on my blog earlier this morning, but this is the "full monty" version in it's entirety.

Q:

You recently co-sponsored the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act which, as you put it, "is a step in the right direction to make sure that all Americans are compensated equally under the law." Would this extend to members of the military, or civilian employees of the DoD?

A:

The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act will extend the same employee and health benefits that married couples have to all federal employees regardless of their sexual orientation and that includes employees at the DOD. However, the bill does not extend health and employment benefits to members of the military because it’s in conflict with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. I believe it is long past time to get rid of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and allow members of the military to receive the same benefits married couples have as well as be able to serve openly in the military.

Q:

Concealed handguns are prohibited in federal facilities without regard to whether they're allowed in state facilities - in Oregon they are generally allowed under state law. So why should concealed handguns be allowed in federal parks? After all, you can't even put a canoe in Yellowstone without a permit while none is required for Wyoming's state waterways.

A:

Right now, a person could be driving down the highway going from state to federal parkland and be totally unaware they are breaking federal law. The amendment I supported simply puts the matter in the hands of the states and allows them to determine whether or not firearms are allowed on parklands within the state’s borders.

Q:

During the 2008 election season the Insurance Research Organization published a report asserting that "Blue Cross of Massachusetts employs more people to administer coverage to 2.5 million New Englanders than are employed in all of Canada to administer single payer coverage to 27 million Canadians." In light of this claim, what are your thoughts on the various health care plans going through Congress, which do you feel is most effective, and why?

A:

Currently, America spends nearly twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care but we rank 37th in terms of outcome. The issue is not health care spending – it’s wise health care spending. We must take steps to ensure that health care funding is used to actually improve patients’ health and cover more Americans.

For the last several months the Senate HELP Committee, which I am a member of, has been working diligently to design a health care reform bill that will provide health care to every American. I am fighting for the plan to include aggressive strategies to reduce costs including prevention, disease management, evidence-based practices and wellness strategies.

I am also fighting for the plan to include a public option. I believe citizens should have a choice of the type of plan they want, including a Medicare-style option. This would encourage competition and keep the insurance companies’ feet to the fire on policy pricing.

For both cost-saving reforms and a public option, these battles are not yet won. We need all the help we can get from the progressive community to push on these issues.

Q:

Given the recent passage of the Credit Card Act, do you feel that the time is approaching for a potential interest rate cap? Would you want to help lead the charge on this idea?

A:

In Oregon, we had a situation where predatory payday lenders were charging triple digit interest rates, draining the wealth from our families and ensnaring them in a cycle of debt. We put an interest cap on those loans and the worst offenders went out of business. Workers are still able to access short-term loans if necessary, but now those loans are made on a much more level playing field.

It makes sense to pursue a similar strategy with credit cards and I supported Senator Sanders’ amendment that would cap interest rates. It wasn’t successful but it is an issue we may want to reconsider in the future. I’m very pleased with the strong reforms in the CARD Act, and hopefully by informing and empowering consumers we’ll get reasonable interest rates without a cap.

Consumer protection is the best systemic risk regulation. I believe we also need a financial products safety commission which will regulate and ban deceptive practices in financial products such as mortgages, credit cards and consumer loans.

Q:

Are you thinking of anything particular that can be done to improve on the gains you've seen so far for homeowners with respect to mortgages?

A:

Absolutely. We must regulate the mortgage industry and end deceptive practices that trap families into mortgages they can’t afford. Recently I introduced two bills that will help prevent mortgage crises in the future. The first is the Promoting Mortgage Responsibility Act which will ban prepayment penalties that charge excessive fees and make it nearly impossible for a family to renegotiate into a more affordable loan. The second is the Transparency for Homeowners that will ban steering payments that lure homeowners into mortgages they can’t afford.

We also need to revisit the issue of mortgage modification. I’m closely monitoring the implementation of the Administration’s foreclosure prevention programs and trying to ensure that families with homes that are underwater or who are looking at short-term income loss have options. The lifeline option that would allow bankruptcy judges to alter the terms of home mortgages – just as they do with yacht loans and vacation home loans – is also an important part of the solution. Millions more families face foreclosure over the next few years. If we do not have the tools to prevent these foreclosures, we’re just going to continue down the spiraling path of empty homes, lower home values and more foreclosures.

Q:

What are your thoughts on the recent California Supreme Court ruling on the state's Proposition 8? In light of this ruling, what do you feel is the future of marriage equality in Oregon?

A:

As a supporter of gay marriage, I am very disappointed that Prop 8 was allowed to stand, but glad that the couples who married while gay marriage was allowed in California had their marriages upheld. But the court decision in California shouldn’t overshadow the tremendous gains that have been made in just the last few months. It was exciting to see Iowa become the first state in the heartland to end marriage discrimination. In addition, a number of states decided that the politics of division weren’t strong enough to prevent them from doing the right thing. Moreover, polls show an ever-increasing number of Americans support extending marriage rights to same sex couples.

While Oregon’s constitutional amendment defining marriage is a significant obstacle to the establishment of equality in Oregon, I am hopeful that the conversation in Oregon will continue and that Oregon will eventually choose to support marriage equality as the only right course under our U.S. constitutional guarantee of equality under the law for all Americans.

Q:

Senator Wyden and former Senator Smith famously met weekly over lunch to discuss policy priorities for Oregon. Have you and Senator Wyden continued the tradition? Has the fact that both of you are members of the same caucus changed the nature of the tradition?

A:

We do carry on the tradition and meet for breakfast every week. Senator Wyden and I are forging a strong partnership based on a belief that a united effort will reap benefits for the people of our state.

Q:

In light of President Obama nominating Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, would you speak to your own personal guiding principles on where non-judicial criteria such as gender, ethnicity and religion rank compared to judicial criteria such as legal expertise and temperament?

A:

Strong experience in various legal fields is incredibly important when it comes to being qualified for a judicial appointment. In regards to other criteria, I do believe that a person’s life experiences provide insight on constitutional issues. The job of a Supreme Court justice is in large part about making judgments regarding competing values, and how a person views the world is relevant. It is important, therefore, to build a Supreme Court that reflects the diversity of America in gender, race and life experience.

Q:

The bean soup served in the Senatorial dining room is legendary. Could you slip on a food critic's hat and describe it for Oregon foodies?

A:

I have not tried it yet, but I heard it’s pretty good.

On a side note, Carla noted in her write up of Sen. Merkley's visit to Washington County that "there seemed to be an especially high population of anti-immigrant folks among the questioners." Well, that was not by accident. Turns out that it was a planned crashing of the Town Hall specifically to target Senator Merkley, and the same folks are planning another act of what they call Resistance when Sen. Merkley visits the Salem Saturday Market on June 20th. Barring something unforeseen at this point, I'm planning on showing up too and would encourage others to do the same.

By Kevin Kamberg June 09, 2009