40 years of thanks

As I prepare to retire from Congress after 40 years of service, I want to take a moment to offer my public praise for the many women and men who help to make this institution run but who get too little recognition from us in the course of their day-to-day jobs.

To the cafeteria workers and cooks, the elevator operators, the custodians who keep our bathrooms and our offices clean, the Capitol Hill Police who keep us safe and the many employees who process our office paperwork every day, I offer my sincere gratitude and thanks for the work that you do for members of Congress and our staff and for the ways you keep the Capitol and House office buildings accessible for our constituents year in and year out.

{mosads}The Hill is a village unto its own. The role you each play to keep this place running deserves more than this singular moment of gratitude, but it is heartfelt nonetheless.

From Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), senior Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, Washington, D.C.

DACA youths need healthcare too

A recent article in The Hill (“Burwell makes HHS case for immigration reform,” Nov. 11) included an astonishing statement by Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell, in which she suggested immigration reform was needed so that children who received Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) could be eligible for healthcare: “This administration feels incredibly strongly that we need to fix that. We need to reform the system and make the changes that we need that will lead to benefits in everything from healthcare to economics.”

That’s a surprise to us at the National Immigration Law Center for one critical reason: Burwell and the agencies she oversees can fix the rule that excludes DACA recipients today. The rules were set by the Obama administration, and with a stroke of a pen, the administration can reverse them. It does not take an act of Congress.

Excluding DACA youths from affordable health insurance was widely opposed by the NILC and other immigrants’ rights advocates when the rule was introduced in August 2012 because it made absolutely no sense. There was no good reason for the administration to exclude young, generally healthy DACA recipients from having access to Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Affordable Care Act that went into effect this year.

Young immigrants who received DACA are considered lawfully present and are eligible for a work permit and a Social Security number. Yet, the administration’s rules governing access to affordable health insurance discriminates against DACA individuals. The reality is that these immigrants were brought to the United States as children and applied for DACA to be able to attend college, work and get on the path to citizenship. They are contributors to our communities. Why shouldn’t they be able to purchase affordable healthcare too?

We agree with Burwell that current policies need to be changed. And we’re glad that the “administration feels incredibly strongly” about fixing such an unfair exclusion. There is still time to undo the misdeed. Now that Burwell has seen the unfairness of the policy, we look forward to working with her to restore access to affordable health care for DACA recipients.

From Alvaro Huerta, staff attorney, National Immigration Law CenterLos Angeles

US must lead on carbon

The Hill’s Nov. 12 article “Inhofe blasts US-China pact as ‘non-binding charade’ ” cites comments from Sen. James Inhofe, the next head of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Their principal objections focus on the improbability of cutting carbon emissions as proposed by China and the fear that this plan will increase our cost of living and decrease job availability.

While it’s unlikely that any effective plan to curb carbon emissions will not have some effect on the way we live, it would seem that the deal does send a message that can prompt other countries to step up and cooperate in manifesting a climate accord in Paris next year. Beneath the face of this deal, the next agenda has to be how to bring about some legislation that will be agreeable to both parties in Congress.

Already several individual states and members of the American business community are independently planning how to reduce carbon emissions. The Department of Defense recently released plans for addressing the implications of climate change on our national security. There is diversity in this movement to adapt and mitigate effects of carbon emissions on our lives. It’s obvious that deniers fear changes to the current status quo, but the status quo is already changing.

Wouldn’t it be more advantageous to be in the forefront of developing a plan that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions while increasing jobs, putting money in the pockets of all Americans to offset any increase in energy costs, raise gross domestic product and decrease the number of deaths related to air pollution? This is what we would have with revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend legislation, according to a June 2014 report by Regional Economic Models Inc. comparing all regions across the U.S. over a period of 20 years. This is a plan that could support the efforts delineated in the US-China deal and be palatable to conservatives who want to hold on to what was.

There is no going back, and the way forward requires open minds and serious listening. The question is whether can we do it.

From Carol Capper, Rockaway Park, N.Y.

We can do more for mental health

From Bob Gallagher

There are an infinite number of reasons that could ultimately set a borderline psychotic “over the edge,” and an infinite number of ways for that person to commit harm to people or damage property, limiting the “take the weapons away” theories (“GOP gains slam door on gun control push,” Nov. 8).

A policy that could do some good, for instance, would be to allow anyone at any time who feels they are “on the edge” to walk into any hospital or therapist’s office and receive counseling for free. Do not make such a policy part of some enormously confusing law full of pork; rather, make it a standalone “anger management treatment” item that is free to the individual, and send the bill to the government, which wastes trillions of dollars anyway.

I am just guessing most people who commit atrocities gradually devolve to whatever point it takes to do such things. If this law or policy were in effect, just maybe these people, or at least some of them, might recognize their anger building and want to get help. Make it easier for them to do so.

East Taunton, Mass.