Today’s been quite eventful.

First, a participant in Gallatin County Treatment Court graduated the program after eighteen months clean and sober, responsible, honest, and with integrity. I’ve written about the Treatment Court and its participants before, and I’m honored that we as a society have a program for people to overcome their addictions, make right what they’d made wrong, and recover from bad events to improve their lives and the lives of their families, friends, employers. It’s an awesome thing to watch someone turn his or her life around; not many people do it without some intensive help, and that’s what the Treatment Court provides, for a time. The success of the program, and the success of the participants’ lives, is theirs to insure. It’s humbling and inspiring when each graduate of Treatment Court makes this last day of court supervision and ‘sheds the skin’ for a new and improved life.

Then, this afternoon, President Barack Obama held a town hall meeting in our very own little piece of the world! Big doings in our little burg!

This town hall meeting, unlike others around the country that have been disruptive and confrontational, was (I like to think) the way Montana does things. It was orderly, and people were respectful. Those who posed questions to President Obama were courteous, and so were his responses. Governor Schweitzer spoke before the president, and said that although we may disagree on things, we aren’t disagreeable people.

Other citizens of this great country could take a page from our book on town hall meetings. There was a wide diversity of people at the meeting, inside the hall and out, but it’s important to remember that when we discuss issues, when we try to find solutions, when we must try to persuade others about issues, it’s much easier to come to solutions when we’re not screaming at one another.

The meeting began with our good Senator Jon Tester, Governor Schweitzer, and Senator Baucus speaking, and then a personal story of victory over cancer–and dropped coverage from insurance companies–from a friend of mine, Katie Gibson. In the midst of fighting cancer, Katie also had to fight her insurance company to pay what they’d said they would. Later, Katie was dropped from coverage by a different company after they’d approved her claims. The President shared other stories of people around the nation who’ve fought health battles, and who’ve fought their insurance companies to pay.

It’s time for a change.

The President’s remarks:

Hello, Montana! It’s great to be here again. It’s always nice to take a break from the back and forth in Washington. And I’m thrilled to have the chance to spend some time with the folks in this beautiful state. After all, here in Montana, you’ve got bears and moose and elk. Back in Washington, we mostly see a lot of bull. So this is a nice change of pace.

I especially want to thank Katie for her introduction. I appreciate your willingness to talk about such a painful experience, because it’s important that we understand what’s at stake in this health care debate. These are the kinds of stories I’ve read in letters and heard in town halls all across America. The stories of hardworking people who are doing the right thing and acting responsibly, only to find out that they’re penalized because others aren’t doing the right thing – others aren’t acting responsibly.

On Tuesday, I was in New Hampshire talking about the people denied insurance coverage because of preexisting conditions. Today, we’re talking about folks like Katie who’ve had their insurance policies suddenly revoked, even though they were paying premiums, because of a medical condition. And tomorrow, in Colorado, we’ll be talking about the people who have insurance but are still stuck with huge bills because they’ve hit a cap on their benefits or they’re charged exorbitant out-of-pocket fees.

And when you hear about these experiences, when you think of the millions of people denied coverage because of preexisting conditions, when you think about the thousands who have their policies cancelled each year, like Katie, I want you to remember one thing: there but for the grace of God go I. These are ordinary Americans, no different than anyone else, held hostage by health insurance companies that deny them coverage, or drop their coverage, or charge fees that they can’t afford for care that they desperately need.

It’s wrong. It’s bankrupting families and businesses. And we’re going to fix it when we pass health insurance reform this year. And I want to thank Senator Max Baucus for his hard work on a bill as chair of the Finance Committee – and for his commitment to getting this done.

Now, this is obviously a tough time for families in Montana and across America. Just six months ago, we were in the middle of the worst recession of our lifetimes. We were losing about 700,000 jobs each month. Economists of all stripes feared a second coming of the Great Depression. That’s why we acted as fast as we could to pass a recovery plan to stop the freefall.

The recovery plan was divided into three parts. One third of the money in the Recovery Act went to tax cuts that have already started showing up in the paychecks of about 400,000 working families in Montana. We also cut taxes for small businesses on the investments that they make, and more than 200 Montana small businesses have qualified for new loans backed by the Recovery Act, including ten businesses in the Bozeman area alone.

Another third of the money in the Recovery Act is for emergency relief for folks who’ve borne the brunt of this recession. We’ve extended unemployment benefits for 40,000 Montana residents. We’ve made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who rely on COBRA while they’re looking for work. And for states facing historic budget shortfalls, we provided assistance that has saved the jobs of tens of thousands of workers who provide essential services, like teachers and police officers. We’ve prevented painful jobs cuts – and a lot of painful state and local tax increases.

The last third of the Recovery Act is for investments that are already putting people back to work. These are jobs rebuilding infrastructure; there are nearly seventy transportation projects already approved here in Montana. These are jobs fixing up the roads that run through national forests. These are good jobs doing the work America needs done. And most of the work is being done by local businesses, because that’s how we’re going to grow this economy again.

So there is no doubt that the recovery plan is doing what we said it would: putting us on the road to recovery. We saw last Friday the jobs picture is beginning to turn. We’re starting to see signs that business investment is coming back. But that doesn’t mean we’re out of the woods. You know that. In Bozeman, for example, the local job center recently reported seeing more than 8,000 job seekers for just 160 jobs. We cannot sit back and do nothing while families are still struggling.

Even before this recession we had an economy that was working pretty well for the wealthiest Americans – working pretty well for Wall Street bankers and big corporations – but it wasn’t working so well for everybody else. It was an economy of bubbles and busts. It was an economy in which recklessness, and not responsibility, was rewarded. We cannot go back to that kind of economy.

If we want this country to succeed in the 21st century then we have to lay a new foundation for lasting prosperity. And health insurance reform is one of the key pillars of this new foundation. Because this economy won’t work for everyone until folks like Katie and her husband can start that small business without fear of losing their health coverage; until companies aren’t slashing payroll and losing profits to pay for health insurance; until every single American has the security – the peace of mind – of knowing that they’ve got quality, affordable health care.

The fact is, health care touches all of our lives in a profound way. So it is only natural that this debate is an emotional one. And I know there’s been a lot of attention paid to some of the town hall meetings that are going on around the country – especially those where tempers have flared. You know how TV loves a ruckus.

But what you haven’t seen – and what makes me proud – are the many constructive meetings going on all over the country. Earlier this week, I held a town hall in New Hampshire. A few thousand people showed up. Some were big supporters of health insurance reform. Some had concerns and questions. And some were downright skeptical. But I was glad to see that people weren’t there to shout. They were there to listen. And I think that reflects the American people far more than what we’ve seen covered on television these past few days. And I thank you for coming here today in that spirit. But before I take your questions, I want to talk about what health insurance reform will mean for you.

First, health insurance reform will mean a set of common-sense consumer protections for folks with health insurance.

Insurance companies will no longer be able to cancel your coverage because you get sick. This is what happened to Katie. Think about this. You do the responsible thing. You pay your premiums each month so that you are covered in case of a crisis. And then that crisis comes. You have a heart attack. Or your husband finds out he has cancer. Or your son or daughter is rushed to the hospital. And at your most vulnerable – at your most frightened – you get a phone call from your insurance company. Your coverage is revoked. It turns out, once you got sick, they scoured your records looking for a reason to cancel your policy, and they found a minor mistake on an insurance form you submitted years ago.

One report found that three insurance companies alone had cancelled 20,000 policies in this way over the past few years. One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer discovered he hadn’t reported gall stones he didn’t know about. Because his treatment was delayed, he died. A woman from Texas was diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer and was scheduled for a double mastectomy. Three days before the surgery, the insurer canceled the policy. Why? In part because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, the cancer had more than doubled in size.

This is personal for me. I will never forget my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final months, having to worry about whether her insurance company would refuse to pay for her treatment. The insurance company was arguing that she should have known that she had cancer when she took a new job – even though it hadn’t been diagnosed yet. If it could happen to her, it could happen to any one of us. It’s wrong. And when we pass health insurance reform, we’re going to put a stop to it once and for all.

Insurance companies will also be prohibited from denying coverage because of your medical history. A recent report found that in the past three years, more than 12 million Americans were discriminated against by insurance companies because of a preexisting condition. No one holds these companies accountable for these practices. But we will.

And insurance companies will no longer be able to place an arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. That will help 3,700 households in Montana. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, too, because no one in America should go broke because they get sick. And finally we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies. That saves money and that saves lives.

This is what health insurance reform is all about. Right now we have a health care system that too often works better for the insurance industry than it does for the American people. And we’re going to change that.

Now, if you’re one of the nearly 46 million people who don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options. If you do have health insurance, we will help make that insurance more affordable and more secure. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep seeing your doctor. This is important: I don’t want government bureaucrats meddling in your health care – but I also don’t want insurance company bureaucrats meddling in your health care either.

Under reform, more than 100,000 middle-class Montanans will get a health care tax credit. More than 200,000 Montanans will have access to a new marketplace where you can easily compare health insurance options. And nearly 30,000 small businesses in Montana will be helped by new tax benefits as well. And we do all of this without adding to our deficit over the next decade, largely but cutting waste and ending sweetheart deals for insurance companies that don’t make anybody any healthier.

The fact is, we are closer to achieving health insurance reform than we have ever been in history. We have the American Nurses Association and the American Medical Association on board – because America’s doctors and nurses know how badly we need reform. We have broad agreement in Congress on about 80 percent of what we’re trying to achieve. And we have an agreement from the drug companies to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. The AARP supports this policy, and agrees with us that reform must happen this year.

Because we are getting close, the fight is getting fierce. The history is clear: every time we are in sight of health insurance reform, the special interests fight back with everything they’ve got. They use their influence. They run their ads. They use their political allies to scare the American people.

Well, we cannot let them do it again. Not this time. Because for all the scare tactics out there, what is truly scary – what is truly risky – is if we do nothing. If we keep the system the way it is right now. We will continue to see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day. Premiums will continue to skyrocket, rising three times faster than wages. The deficit will continue to grow. Medicare will go into the red in less than a decade. And insurance companies will continue to profit by discriminating against people simply for being sick.

So if you want a different future – a brighter future – I need your help. Change is never easy – and it never starts in Washington. It starts with you. I need you to knock on doors, talk to your neighbors, and spread the facts. The cynics will continue to exploit fear for political gain. But we know that this isn’t about politics. This is about families and businesses. And at this moment – at this time defined by so many challenges – this about whether we will look back years from now and say we did what was right. We did what was hard. We did what was necessary to leave for our children a country stronger than the one we found.

Thank you. And now, I’d be happy to take your questions.

Good news for athletes and sports fans across Montana today: the NCAA today clarified its sports wagering policy and specifically exempts Montana’s sports pools. Montana can continue to host NCAA and post-season games. Great news!

In June, I wrote about the NCAA issuing a decision that would have prohibited states that allow sports games in lotteries and sports betting from hosting NCAA playoff games. After I spoke with the Attorney General’s office and officials in the university system familiar with the policy, I felt sure that the NCAA would determine that the fears of influencing games could not happen in Montana; we don’t have live sports betting, but lottery games with sports themes. It took two months and a meeting of chancellors and presidents Thursday in Indianapolis, but the NCAA has found that all’s well with NCAA sports and post-season game-hosting in Montana.

The whole issue arose when NCAA officials threatened to ban all playoff games in Delaware as that state considered legalizing wagering on the outcome of sporting events. That policy then crept to states that have gaming, and sports-themed games, like Montana, even though we do not have legalized wagering on the outcome of live sporting events, like Delaware. Montana law allows betting on fantasy sports leagues, not on the outcome of single events, prohibited under NCAA rules.

The new NCAA policy states: “No predetermined or non-predetermined session of an NCAA championship may be conducted in a state with legal wagering that is based upon single-game betting (high school, college or professional) in a sport in which the NCAA conducts a championship.”

Sports are important in Montana, and we play by the rules–of the game and of the sporting associations. I’m glad the issue is resolved and Montana can continue its participation and enjoyment of the games.

Go, Cats. 🙂

I’m attending the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), the theme of which is A Declaration of Ideas. In Philadelphia, where our United States’ representative Democracy was launched, there continue to be substantive discussions about how to help this great country, state by state.

In many meetings over these first two days, I have represented Montana on the Environment and Agriculture/Energy committees. Yesterday, the discussion was on renewable energy. The NCSL proposes policies formulated, debated, and passed by committees, and our representation to Congress is based upon those policies. In one engaging policy discussion, a representative from Alaska proposed changing the terminology in our NCSL National Energy policy from “renewable” to “clean”.

Now, most everyone recognizes and defines renewable energy as that which is gained from a natural system, one that has no by-product or waste from generation, and from a force that is nearly constant, like wind or water. Wind power is generated when wind blows and turns a turbine, creating power for electricity. Hydro power is generated when water flows over a turbine, creating power for electricity. Renewable power is quite fundamentally different from fossil fuel or nuclear power, even those classed as “clean” energy, because fossil or other energies burn a fuel and emit a waste. That’s just the process, and the definitions.

In yesterday’s meeting, there were plenty of differing opinions about what types of power in which to invest. There are as many different opinions as there are legislators: one proposed that wind and hydro are not renewable. He said, “As soon as that water goes over the dam, that water’s gone. As soon as that wind blows by a windmill, that wind is gone. It’s gone.”

Wow.

That’s just completely incorrect. Wind moves on; once it turns the rotors on one wind turbine, it can continue blowing and turn other rotors. Water moves on; once it flows over a turbine, it can flow on, downriver, and turn other turbines. In Montana, there are five dams on 13 miles of the Missouri River; that water serves many purposes, energy generation among them. Water and wind (and solar) are truly renewable sources of energy.

That contrasts with fossil fuel energies, which burn a fuel, like coal or natural gas, and emit a waste–carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, SoX and NoX gases, heavy metals like mercury, etc. There is intense discussion and research about carbon capture and sequestration, which means to capture carbon emissions from energy generation, compress and pipe the carbon dioxide and other minerals and elements, to dispose of them in deep saline aquifers or in strata underground. But there are concerns over what happens when waste products are introduced to rock, saline, groundwater; it’s better to use a truly renewable energy rather than to use one that produces a waste we must then store or neutralize.

Another committee member proposed adding nuclear power, which is included in its own section of the National Energy policy, to the Renewable Energy section. That began the discussion about how we define renewable versus consumptive (my word) energy. Nuclear power most definitely has a waste product, and consumes a fuel; ask any uranium mine about fuel for nuclear power, or any Nevadan about how “renewable” nuclear power is, when their Yucca Mountain has been nominated by eight nuclear-power-producing states to store spent nuclear fuel.

The committee, after discussion and lively debate, did not add nuclear energy to the renewable energy section, and did not change the term “renewable” to “clean”. This was just one policy–National Energy Policy–on one afternoon of one meeting. All substantive stuff, and I’m honored to represent Montana among such differing perspectives on so many aspects of our great land.

I know we’ll be burning coal and oil and natural gas for some time to come, so let’s find the best solutions for carbon capture and disposal. Let’s insist that companies use best management practices (BMPs) for efficient energy production, and let’s develop and use much more renewable energy to lessen the amount of fossil fuels–and their wastes–in our energy mix.

Regards from Philadelphia, everyone. Wish you were here. The cheesesteaks are fabulous.

The annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) is convening this week in Philadelphia, and I’m a Montana delegate to the Environment committee and to the Agriculture/Energy committees. This morning, the week-long convention began with Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, delivering a keynote address on education.

The statistics on US students for science and math proficiency are lower than other nations’, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is donating to schools to try to improve students’ performance and to encourage students to excel.

Gates said that teachers should be evaluated on student test scores and on number of students advancing (graduating classes or grades), and that the US must invest in education. He supported distance learning and online tutorials, videos, and information. He mentioned high-tech high schools, talented and engaging teachers that make learning fun, and investing time and energy into teaching; it’s one of the best returns-on-investment we have.

more later. very tired.

Last week, I attended a conference of the Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER), made up of northwestern states and Canadian provinces. Montana is a member of PNWER.

I participated in energy and environment sessions, and learned more details of treaties and water agreements between the US and Canada, a newly-signed carbon sequestration agreement between Saskatchewan and Montana, and water marketing. Our region–especially Montana and the provinces that border it on the north, British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan–is actively engaged in important energy and environmental policies and initiatives.

During the last legislative session that adjourned just seventy-five days ago, I served as Vice Chair of the House Natural Resources committee, which considered many bills about water quality and quantity and the importance of keeping our waters and watersheds intact, protected, and available for responsible use. The committee also considered some bills about carbon capture and sequestration, the process of capturing carbon dioxide (and other) emissions from fossil fuel production and then finding deep saline aquifers or basalt deposits and piping or injecting the carbon dioxide deep underground, so that it doesn’t further degrade the atmosphere. At the PNWER conference, I asked about the new agreement between Montana and Saskatchewan for Montana to dispose of (store) thousands of tons of carbon piped down from Canada. Who owns the minerals and elements (the carbon)? Who has the liability for the storage, or any ill effects, or leaks? The question of ownership is important. In Canada, mineral rights are retained by the national government, but in the US, property rights are retained almost always by the surface owner of the land. The problem–or complication–is that natural formations don’t end at state or province or land parcel borders.

The House Natural Resources committee considered many bills proposed by the 2007-8 Fire Suppression Interim Committee, so while I was at the PNWER conference in Boise, I visited the InterAgency Fire Center. The center is built on 55 acres in Boise and combines all the federal agencies in a single spot for fire management.

Next week, I’ll serve on national committees at another conference; the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). There is much to know about neighboring states’ and provinces’ policies and how they affect Montana.

In discussions on water policy and water pollution flowing from Canada to Montana, and the importance of considering watersheds, not necessarily state and provincial borders, I said at the PNWER conference, “Water doesn’t honor borders. We need to consider watersheds as regions and develop our policies around the watershed.” I’ll work to do that.

Today, the Bridger Mountain Pony Car Club held its 2009 Show-n-Shine car show, and I entered my smart car in the green/hybrid category.

The smart car took first place (a green trophy) in the category! Woo hoo!

My smart car gets 42 mpg, uses 100% recyclable synthetics for things like the dashboards and wheel housing covers, and has fewer components (for instance, the dashboard air system was reduced from twenty separate pieces to one single molded part).

The smart shared the category with a Ford Escape hybrid, as well as two solar bugs, made locally in Bozeman, Montana by Steve Titus. They’re battery- and solar-driven; amazing! Steve says he runs his solar-powered car on a dollar a week!

Some photos from today’s car show:

Yesterday, the last details of my solar hot water system were completed! Now, there’s a solar panel on the roof of the house, a solar hot water tank in the utility room…and lower natural gas consumption and cost at my house! Nice!

Some photos of the project:

It’s been a while since I posted; didja miss me? It’s been a really, really busy couple of weeks, with important work going on.

I just returned from Washington, D.C., where I joined 80 small business owners from twenty states to lobby our Congressional delegations on health care reform. There were four of us from Montana, and we spoke with staffers in Senator Baucus’ and Rep. Rehberg’s offices and met with Senator Tester himself.

Small business owners from across the state have been contacting me since I was elected to talk about health care. In many cases, coverage is too expensive for them to offer health insurance to their employees, but health insurance is a deal-breaker for workers. They might be perfectly suited for a job, but will hire on to a company that offers health care rather than one that doesn’t. Health care coverage has become a competitive advantage–or disadvantage–to businesses.

I’ve helped pass laws in the Montana Legislature to expand health coverage, including an expansion of Insure Montana, a program that small businesses can use to group together to buy health insurance for their employees in a larger pool, when ordinarily, they could not afford the policies individually.

In Montana, small business is defined as one with one hundred employees or fewer; for the vast majority of our business, that’s the standard. And small business, Main Street Montana, is the engine that keeps this state running.

Every small business owner in our group supported and lobbied for a public option to be included in the health care reform bill.

In Washington, D.C., Shahid Haque-Hasrath, an immigration attorney in Helena, Montana, and Mike Craighill, a restaurant owner from Billings, joined me in lobbying our Congressmen. Shahid would like to hire on some paralegals and clerks and add attorneys to his law firm, but he cannot afford health insurance for his employees. Mike has two restaurants, and he and his wife had to cash out–at a significant loss–their retirement savings to pay medical debts. They still cannot afford health insurance, after their premiums doubled one year, then doubled again the year after that, with no major medical costs, no reason.

From other small business owners across the nation, there are similar stories. Chris Peterson, a family farmer in Iowa, told us that he recently he needed hernia surgery. The surgery was pre-approved by his insurance company, but after the surgery, the company wouldn’t pay. They denied the claim after approving it initially, dropped Chris and his wife’s policy, and Chris was left to pay all of the medical costs. He could participate in Iowa’s pool for uninsured people–at $1300 a month in premiums–so really, he cannot participate in that plan. It’s prohibitively expensive. Chris says, “For what private insurance has done to me and my family, I’ll trust the government to do a much better job for health insurance.”

Dan Sherry owns an engraving store in Illinois. When he interviews for jobs in his shop, he considers someone’s skills and pay. But the question that ends the interview, he says, is whether or not he can provide his future employee health care. It’s the deal breaker, he says. He may have the perfect graphic designer in the interview, but that person goes to work for his competition, who can offer (minimal) health coverage. Dan and and his wife had paid premiums to a health insurance company for twenty-one years, and during a particularly busy time at their business, his wife missed just one payment to the company. They were promptly dropped from coverage. They rejoined the company, at a much higher rate than they’d been paying, and for Dan’s high blood pressure medication, his claim was denied as a pre-existing condition, uninsurable. For missing one payment in 21 years.

There are similar–or worse–stories from thousands more people.

The important thing is to include a public option in health care reform. Small business owners ask for it, and so do 47 million Americans currently with no health care coverage at all.

More soon on my individual meetings with our Congressmen.

As part of the re-roofing/home improvement, there’s now a light tube (a self-contained skylight) called a solatube at the top of the stairs in my home. It’s just an unbelievable difference. I’m convinced I could light my entire home with solatubes and natural light refracted through these structures.

Lo, the power of refraction. Two sets of before-and-after photos:

This afternoon, I was in a meeting about small business cost for health insurance for employees, and my phone rang (silently). When I checked the message twenty minutes later, it was a call about NCAA championship events in states where gambling on sports is legal. Montana does offer legalized gambling, but no betting on live games.

The issue arises from some court decisions in other states recently, Oregon, Nevada, and Delaware, where NCAA events and state gambling laws have come into conflict. But Montana prohibits live game betting and internet gambling. We prohibit any betting by student athletes, coaches, university personnel on the outcome of games. The Montana Lottery does have fantasy sports games, and has had them since 1991, but the game was on race cars until recently.

I called the Sports Information Director at Montana State University, Bill Lamberty, a friend of mine for many years and a fellow member of the MSU Bobcat Football Stat Crew (I’ve been on the stat crew 19 years!) He explained that the NCAA has taken a position against sports gambling, and that the NCAA language applies only to actual game betting as the criterion for hosting a post-season championship game.

I called the Montana Lottery and left a message for the director to call. Then I called the University of Montana Law School. I spoke with David Aronofsky, UM Legal Counsel, who graciously described the issue.

The NCAA language says, No session of an NCAA championship may be conducted in a metropolitan area with legal wagering that is based upon the outcome of any event (i.e., high school, college or professional) in a sport in which the NCAA conducts a championship.

It seems that the NCAA is reviewing state laws across the nation after a decision last month in Delaware.

Aronofsky is working with the NCAA, and he is confident that Montana law is sound and does not conflict with NCAA rules. If there is some conflict, a bill could be introduced in the legislature to clarify state law.

I’m confident that, after a review, the NCAA will find that Montana teams and athletes comply with state law and NCAA rules, and that there is no conflict.
Montanans follow the rules. We’ll comply with state law, federal law, NCAA rules, and any other good sporting policy.

Aronofsky will continue working with the NCAA and their rules that determine eligibility for holding championship games.