Do you support the Second Amendment?
I took an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution, and this includes the Second Amendment. That's why I sponsored legislation, the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act," which prohibits frivolous lawsuits against the firearms industry, and why I have consistently voted for legislation that protects our right to "keep and bear arms." I believe that law-abiding Americans should be allowed to possess firearms to protect their property, themselves and their loved ones.
There are already over 20,000 gun control laws on the books. Instead of enacting even more gun control legislation, I believe that we should vigorously prosecute and punish those criminals who unlawfully posses and use firearms.
|
Energy/Gas Prices
How can we lower gas prices and become more energy independent?
America has the ability to increase domestic energy production, and I am working with my colleagues in Congress to reduce our dependence on imported oil. I believe that Congress should open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to environmentally sensitive production, increase offshore drilling at least 125 miles from the coast, reduce bureaucratic barriers to build more nuclear power plants, and allow more refineries to be built.
In addition, America possesses about one-quarter of the world's coal supply, enough to meet current demand for 250 years. There is already a workable process that turns coal into a liquid fuel for trucks and automobiles, and clean-coal technologies are reducing the environmental impact of using this fuel.
What legislation have you cosponsored that will increase our domestic energy supply?
H.R. 6107 - would allow environmentally sensitive production of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Energy exploration will be limited to just 0.01% of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s total acreage.
H.R. 6108 - authorizes the exploration, development, and production activities for mineral resources on the Outer Continental Shelf.
H.R. 6132 - would authorize DOE to enter into a competitive, long-term contract with the private sector to recycle spent nuclear fuel.
H.R. 5656 - would repeal section 526 of the 2007 energy bill, which banned government purchases of oil from sources such as tar sands, shale, coal-to-liquids and gas-to-liquids.
H.R. 6138 - would repeal the FY2008 Udall amendment that banned development of western shale oil.
H.R. 2208 - would provide loan guarantees for up to six coal liquefaction plants in the United States.
H.R. 6139 - would streamline the permitting and sitting process for refiners while preserving environmental protections.
Through this agenda, we would increase production of American-made energy – including next-generation oil, natural gas, clean-coal, renewable and alternative energies – while protecting our nation’s natural resources. And we would cut bureaucratic red tape and increase energy supplies by spurring the construction of new refineries and nuclear power plants.
What are you doing to encourage the use of alternative and renewable energy?
We must develop renewable and alternative fuels. As a member of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I am working to increase the use of new fuels and technologies, including renewable energy sources, along with promoting more energy efficiency. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, of which I was an original cosponsor, promotes clean and renewable fuels by providing incentives for clean-coal technology, hydrogen fuel cells, and renewable energies such as biomass, wind, solar and hydroelectricity. In addition, it requires greater energy conservation by establishing new mandatory efficiency requirements for federal buildings, and efficiency standards and product labeling for battery chargers, commercial refrigerators, freezers, heaters and other household products.
What are you doing about the use of Nuclear power?
No new nuclear power plants have been constructed in the United States since 1971 and we have fallen behind the rest of the world in nuclear power generation. Currently, nuclear power plants generate about 20 percent of the United States' total electricity and 73 percent of its carbon dioxide-free electricity. It is the only large-scale, clean-air electricity source that can be expanded widely to produce large amounts of electricity.
To help spur the construction of new nuclear power plants, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which I helped write and cosponsored, continued the Nuclear Power 2010 Partnership between the government and the nuclear power industry. It also offered a new form of federal risk insurance for the first six builders of new nuclear power plants. As many as 32 new reactors are currently under consideration because of this legislation. These reactors represent an investment of approximately $80-$100 billion to build. Once constructed, these new nuclear plants will supply as much as 50,000 megawatts of additional clean and affordable electricity to meet our growing energy demand.
Why don't we develop our resources on the Outer Continental Shelf?
Since the 1990s, the federal government has placed severe restrictions on new energy development, particularly in some of our most promising areas like the Outer Continental Shelf. These moratoria currently place 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf off limits to energy development, making the United States the only developed nation that prevents development of its Outer Continental Shelf. In fact, Cuba wants to let the Chinese drill in some of the very parts of the gulf that American producers are currently forbidden to touch, as close as 45 miles off the Florida coast.
Through production and site surveys, the Interior Department knows that there are 8.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 29.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf and estimates that there could be as much as 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This would be enough oil to replace all of our oil imports for more than twenty years. And with current technology, these vast sources of energy could be developed while safeguarding the environment.
I am a cosponsor of H.R. 6108, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act, which would end the moratoria on drilling off American coasts while giving states the ability to determine whether they want to restrict energy production up to 100 miles off their shores. This legislation strikes a balance between the energy needs of the nation and the wishes of all Floridians.
Sandia National Laboratories Congressional Visit
As part of the Canada/United States Inter-Parliamentary Group, I had the pleasure to see first-hand the extraordinary research being conducted at Sandia National Laboratories.
Currently, about 22 percent of the United States’ electricity consumption is used for general lighting, which is provided by inefficient incandescent and fluorescent bulbs. Sandia National Laboratories is conducting groundbreaking research on light emitting diodes or LEDS that are more energy efficient, longer lasting and less expensive than conventional products used for general lighting. These new high-efficiency light emitting diodes have the potential for massive energy savings.
Another vital area of research that is being conducted at Sandia National Laboratories is the production of ethanol from cellulose or plant matter. Their cellulosic ethanol efforts include investigating new approaches to convert plant biomass into fermentable sugars and to then convert those sugars into ethanol via mixed microbe communities that can tolerate high temperatures and ethanol concentrations during the transformation. This research will help achieve President Bush’s bold initiative to make cellulosic ethanol viable as a transportation fuel by 2010 as a means to help reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign sources of oil by as much as 30%.
The potential of solar power in the Southwest U.S. is comparable in scale to the hydropower resources of the Northwest. A desert area 10 by 15 miles could provide 20,000 MW of power, while the electricity needs of the entire U.S. could theoretically be met by a 100 square mile area. Sandia National Laboratories is working on a means to harness solar energy to provide large-scale, domestically secure and environmentally friendly electricity through the use of mirrors to concentrate the sun’s energy to produce electric power. With the current desire to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and pollution, the time is ripe for the production of large-scale solar power plants in the near future.
Sandia National Laboratories is also conducting research into advanced nuclear energy technologies. Sandia is leading the development of small-scale nuclear reactors that could be deployed anywhere in the U.S., coupling hydrogen and nuclear energy production to generate large-scale quantities of hydrogen with no CO2 emissions, developing innovative technologies for packaging and transporting radioactive material, and determining whether the Yucca Mountain site in southern Nevada is suitable for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
AMERICAN-MADE OIL AND GAS: A HISTORY OF SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION
(PERCENTAGES ARE FOR EVERY SUPPLY VOTE IN THE HOUSE)
When it comes to taking meaningful steps to provide affordable energy to the American people, Congress has both the ability and responsibility to act. Unfortunately, a clear pattern has emerged over the years as one party consistently has fought to increase access to homegrown energy reserves, while the other has consistently voted to expand America's dependence on foreign, unstable energy instead.
BY THE ISSUE
ANWR Exploration
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed
Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed
Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed
SUMMARY
91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas
86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas
source: House Republican Whip
|
Immigration
What is your position on illegal immigration?
I am extremely concerned about illegal immigration. The thousands of immigrants that pour into our country illegally each year drain precious resources from both federal and state government. Further, illegal immigration is tremendously unfair to those who have gone through the rewarding process of obtaining legal United States citizenship. Rest assured that I will remain committed to opposing all forms of amnesty for those who have broken our laws and entered our country illegally.
I regularly support and cosponsor legislation designed to curb illegal immigration. For example, I am a proud cosponsor of the SAVE Act, which proposes to provide immigration reform by securing America's borders, clarifying and enforcing existing laws, and enabling a practical employer verification program. In addition, in December 2005, I introduced an amendment to H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act, that prohibited the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. Attorney General, and all courts from granting any kind of legal immigration status or benefits to an alien until, at a minimum, the alien's name is first completely checked against a database of criminal records and terrorist watchlists, using the Treasury Enforcement database. The House approved my amendment by a vote of 420 to 0.
I also believe that it is essential for those who have legally come to the United States to be able to speak the English language. By establishing English as the official language, immigrants will be better equipped to achieve success in their new home, and the bond between immigrants and those already living in the United States will grow stronger. That is why I have signed on as a cosponsor of the English Language Unity Act of 2005, which will establish English as the official language of the United States.
|
Iraq and the Global War on Terrorism
The War in Iraq has been difficult for all Americans. I understand and share the American people's frustration about how the war has been conducted. No one wants to bring our troops home more than I do, but conditions on the ground should dictate when our troops should leave. Events, not an arbitrary timeline, need to guide our strategy.
Certainly, mistakes have been made in Iraq and a change of strategy was long over due. Now that the surge has been fully implemented and has been given time to work, there is no doubt that the security environment in Iraq continues to improve. General Petraeus has said that security progress is still fragile and reversible. Much work still needs to be done, but progress on the ground is undeniable.
An open-ended American military commitment is both unwise and dangerous. Withdrawal needs to be based on events, not politics. Progress in Iraq must be measurable, enforced and based on more than just military success.
Iraq is just one front in the overall Global War on Terrorism. We are in a war against Islamist militant extremists with battlefields around the globe. The enemy is opposed to freedom and democracy and will stop at nothing to destroy America and our allies. In a religious edict, Osama bin Laden ordered his followers that to be in compliance with God's orders, killing "Americans and their allies is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it." We did not start this war, but we must take the fight to the enemy to help protect our homeland.
In a speech in the House of Representatives on February 14, 2007, Congressman Stearns argued against a resolution proposing the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but outlined a proposal for a strategic sequence of event-driven military and political benchmarks, which would lead to a legitimate withdrawal of troops without compromising the security of Iraq.
The benchmarks are highlighted in the text of the speech below.
House of Representatives
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. What this debate is really all about is whether you wish to make a statement in support of our new strategy in Iraq or whether you oppose this new plan.
By simply supporting this resolution, you are saying you want to leave Iraq as soon as possible. I am not willing to do this. I am willing to support the administration and to give our military and our troops the benefit of the doubt, and I will vote against this resolution because I want to give this new strategy a chance, a simple chance to succeed.
My colleagues, let me repeat. If you vote for this resolution, then you are saying you do not wish to give the military and General Petraeus a chance to succeed. In fact, this resolution declares the new strategy in Iraq is a failure before it has even had a chance to be implemented.
This is inconsistent with the unanimous vote the Senate gave to the man selected to carry out this strategy, General Petraeus. Everyone agrees he is the best man. This resolution is undercutting the general and our troops at the very time they need our support.
Now, many will argue that there has been ample opportunity to succeed and that we have failed at this point. Certainly mistakes have been made and a change of strategy is long overdue. However, what should this strategy be? Should the U.S. immediately pull out of Iraq, leaving the terrorists emboldened and potentially put more Americans at risk?
The advocates for this resolution have no answer. In fact, they beg the very question, What happens when we leave? What happens in Iraq if we leave precipitously? And what do we do if it turns into a Middle East conflagration?
If Shiite Iran succeeds in exerting its influence through Shiite Iraq, it will threaten to spill over the sectarian violence across the Middle East and elsewhere. Now here is how the head of the Arab League views this potential conflict. This is what he said. ``If this happens we will enter hell itself.''
The supporters of the resolution keep talking about the past, but they do not talk about the future and how we are going to solve this problem without creating a more serious problem.
Edmund Burke, the great conservative leader from Britain, this is how he put it: It is not a question of how we got into this situation, but how do we get out. They have no answers, and by not answering this latter question they are begging the question.
Now, this is circular reasoning. It is one in which a premise presupposes the conclusion in some way. In a course of logic, this is called the core relative. So this resolution is faulty reasoning.
Any professor of logic would simply recognize the false choice. We need this new strategy that General Petraeus is implementing so that we can hand over this country to the constitutionally elected government. My colleagues, this can be done and will be done soon one way or the other.
Any new strategy must be accompanied by a set of strategic benchmarks designed to measure progress in Iraq and to hold the administration and the Iraqi Government accountable for their role in achieving this success.
Mr. Speaker, I ask to include in the Record a list of these benchmarks that I recommend be part of this new strategy to allow our troops to come home.
Why not consider a resolution that incorporates these benchmarks?
But I do offer a warning to the administration. We must have benchmarks that demonstrate our progress in Iraq. I, for one, and many others, cannot support continued funding without measurable benchmarks. And we need to know if we are making progress; and if we are not, then we can employ other tactics and different measures, all of which will lead to the Iraqi Government taking on the responsibility for their own country.
My colleagues, the political easy thing to do is to vote for this faulty resolution because you are not willing to give a final chance for success and you have no ideas on achieving success. The harder, political vote is ``no,'' and that is what I intend to do.
If I have a few more moments, I just want to bring to my colleagues' attention a quote that has been declassified from bin Laden's deputy. And if you will bear with me and follow this quote. ``It is my humble opinion that the jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage, expel the Americans from Iraq; the second stage, establish Islamic authority, and then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate; the third stage, extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Iran; the fourth stage, it may coincide with what came before, the clash with Israel because Israel was established only to challenge a new Islamic entity.''
My colleagues, that is what is at stake. The war in Iraq is a central front in the global war on terrorism and a central battleground for Islamic militant extremists in this worldwide mission to simply destroy all Western democracy. And you don't have to take my word for it. You can see this declassified deputy to bin Laden, his opinion.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this resolution. While no proposal guarantees success, a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. support would guarantee failure. The stakes are too high to fail in Iraq. It remains in America's strategic interests to ensure regional stability in the Middle East and to deny terrorists a safe haven in Iraq.
Certainly mistakes have been made and a change of strategy is long overdue. However, what should this change of strategy be? Should the U.S. immediately pull out of Iraq, leave the terrorists emboldened and potentially put more Americans at risk? Or do we need a new strategy to win the war and finish the job? I think the latter.
Instead of a politically motivated resolution, my colleagues and I have developed a strategy for victory in Iraq. We need to establish measurable benchmarks for success in Iraq while expressing unwavering support for our troops.
Any new strategy must be accompanied by a set of strategic benchmarks designed to measure progress in Iraq and to hold the Bush administration and the Iraqi Government accountable for their role in achieving success. Threatening to reduce the future commitment of American troops and economic aid if they are not implemented, we must enforce these benchmarks. It is important to stress that an open-ended American military commitment is both unwise and dangerous. In the business world, no successful enterprise gives enormous sums of money without accountability, and nor should we.
The military benchmarks I would like to see utilized include:
* Measuring the level of Iraqi government cooperation with the U.S. Military;
* Iraqi progress in removing terrorists and others from its own security forces;
* Identifying the level of combat experience for all Iraqi Army battalions;
* Tracking the expenditure of funds supporting Iraqi defense forces.
The political benchmarks include:
* Advancing a strategy to promote tolerance and co-existence among Iraqis;
* Providing fair access to all Iraqi resources;
* Promoting the rule of law;
* Reforming the judicial system to ensure equal application of the law; and
* Measuring cooperation and coordination of neighboring countries in stabilizing Iraq.
Why not consider a resolution that incorporates these benchmarks?
This resolution sends an inappropriate message to our troops. This resolution declares the new strategy in Iraq a failure before it even has the chance to be implemented. This is inconsistent with the unanimous vote the other body gave to the man designated to carry the strategy out, General Petraeus. Congress is undercutting General Petraeus and our troops at the very time they need our support.
As cochair of the Congressional Air Force Caucus, I joined in leading a delegation of members to Iraq. This trip provided valuable insight into our operations and conditions on the ground. The situation in Iraq poses multiple problems--Sunni al Qaeda terrorists, committed Baathists who are largely Sunni, Shiite militias, and Shiite interference from Iran. This is truly an unholy brew.
The war in Iraq is a central front in the global war on terrorism and a central battleground for Islamist militant extremists in their worldwide mission to destroy democracy. But don't take my word for it. Take the words from a declassified letter from bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri.
It is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority ..... then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate ..... The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.
These Islamic extremists view victory in Iraq as paramount to their establishment of a worldwide Islamic kingdom. Here is what Osama bin Laden has to say about Iraq from a 2006 audiotape--``The epicenter of these wars is Baghdad, the seat of the caliphate rule. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars and a beginning to the receding of their Zionist-Crusader tide against us.''
Sectarian violence rages in Iraq, fanned by Iran and Syria, and this could well spill over throughout the region. Look at these charts. They show the sectarian divide in Iraq among Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds; and the other shows the regional divide between Sunnis and Shiites.
If Shiite Iran succeeds in exerting its influence through Shiite Iraq, it will threaten the spillover of sectarian violence throughout the Middle East and elsewhere. Here is how Amr Mousa, head of the Arab League, views this potential Iranian-backed Shiite conflict with the Sunni nations--``We will enter hell itself.''
The Islamist terrorist threat is real and directly connected to defeating the insurgents in Iraq. Democrat plans to abandon Iraq will not make this threat disappear.
America cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past by withdrawing from a direct confrontation with radical
Islamist terrorists. They will continue to intensify their attacks against America, just as they did following other attacks such as in:
1979: 66 American diplomats taken hostage and held in Iran for 444 days.
1983: A truck bomb kills 241 marines at their barracks in Beirut.
1988: Pan Am 103 bombing kills 270, including 189 Americans, over Lockerbie, Scotland.
1993: Six killed in first World Trade Center bombing by militant Islamic terrorists.
1996: 19 U.S. service members are killed in Khobar Towers bombing.
1998: 225 people killed in bombings at the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.
2000: Al Qaeda's attack on the destroyer USS. Cole kills 17 American sailors.
2001: Al Qaeda hijackers fly planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, while passengers force a fourth to crash in Pennsylvania. Total number killed: 2,973.
It is vital that we succeed in Iraq for these reasons: A stable Iraq dedicated to the rule of law will weaken extremism in the Middle East; we cannot allow terrorists to gain a safe haven in that nation; and curbing Iran's regional ambitions.
But I do offer a warning. We must have benchmarks that demonstrate our progress in Iraq. I for one cannot support continued funding without measurable benchmarks and we need to know if we are making progress. If we are not, then we can take other tactics and different measures. All of which will lead to the Iraqi Government taking on the responsibility for their own country.
In conclusion Mr. Speaker, one thing is for certain: The men and women fighting in Iraq must never be used as a political tool. They deserve our unmitigated support. They do not deserve political posturing. We must continue to provide the troops with the support they need to be safe and successful. I urge all my colleagues to oppose this resolution and seek a real resolution that includes military, political, and social benchmarks for success.
|
Veterans
As an Air Force veteran myself, I have an appreciation for our veterans and the sacrifices they have made and continue to make to ensure our freedom. I have been a leading advocate for increased funding for the VA. For years, I pushed for establishing a VA cemetery in the Jacksonville area, and my proposal was finally enacted, with a new VA cemetery set to open in 2009. I have also actively supported the VA’s Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) plan, which calls for a new Regional Health Care Facility in Marion County and expansion of the VA Hospital in Gainesville. I am proud to report that significant progress has been made in this area, and groundbreaking ceremonies were held for The Villages VA Outpatient Clinic in Summerfield, FL on June 16th and the Malcolm Randall VA Hospital Bed Tower in Gainesville, FL on July 19th. These are projects I have been working on for years, and I look forward to finally seeing them come to fruition.
Currently, I serve as the Deputy Ranking Republican Member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. Previously, I was Chairman of the Veterans Health Subcommittee from 1997 to 2000, and I was Vice Chairman from 2001 to 2005. I am proud of the following legislative achievements:
* In 1999, my Veterans Millennium Heath Care & Benefits Act (H.R. 2116) was signed into law. Those health provisions have improved access to long-term care for disabled veterans and expanded the VA’s obligation to provide alternatives to nursing home care.
* In 2000 the provisions from the Veterans Affairs Health Care Personnel Act that I authored (H.R. 5109) were combined with other veteran legislation and enacted as S. 1402. The health-care personnel provisions contained in that Act guarantees annual pay raises for VA nurses; revises and increases the rates of special pay for VA dentists; and includes pharmacists among those exempt from special salary caps.
* In September 2005 the House passed my resolution commemorating the 60th Anniversary of V-J Day
* I succeeded in getting VA health clinics placed in Ocala and Leesburg
During the first session of this 110th Congress, I introduced H.R. 3646, the Veteran Effective Training Job Opportunities and Benefits Study Act, or the “VET JOBS” Act of 2007. I am proud to have authored this important piece of legislation, which directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Labor to post on the VA website the results of a joint study on the greatest employment needs in various job markets across the country. Often, when our brave service men and women returning from combat they are forced to train for entirely new careers, and unfortunately, sometimes there is a void of information on labor market conditions that causes veterans to train for jobs that don’t exist in their communities. My bill would allow veterans to easily access a list of the jobs that are most in demand in and around a specified zip code, thus allowing them to use their federal job training more effectively. The Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity recently held a hearing on my VET JOBS bill, and I hope to see it come before the Committee for markup sometime in the near future.
I am a long-standing leader in advocating, and voting for, generous funding for veterans’ earned benefits, particularly in the area of education. I am therefore proud to have cosponsored a bill that comprehensively updates and reforms the outdated Montgomery G.I. Bill. H.R. 5740, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008. In particular, H.R. 5740 would extend educational benefits to all members of the military who have served on active duty since September 11, 2001. This includes both Reservists and the National Guard. Furthermore, this bill would allow veterans to use their educational benefits for up to 15 years after they leave active duty. H.R. 5740 also would provide payments to cover the most expensive in-state public school, thus allowing veterans who are pursuing an approved program of education to receive payments covering the cost of the program in which they are enrolled. Through this bill, the government would match, dollar for dollar, any additional voluntary contributions from academic institutions whose tuition is more expensive than the maximum educational assistance provided for in-state public schools. I look forward to implementation of this important bill, and to continuing my service to our nation’s veterans and the people of the sixth district of Florida.
|
Tax Reform
Americans are overtaxed and overwhelmed by our current tax code. The United States Tax Code and its corresponding regulations are 67,000 pages long, include 7 million words, and cost American taxpayers $265 billion a year to navigate. This inefficient display of government bureaucracy must be scrapped in favor of a simplified tax code. I strongly believe that this country would be better served by a straightforward, simple, and efficient tax collection system. Two proposals have been introduced that I support and that I believe would accomplish this needed overhaul of our tax system.
Fair Tax
The Fair Tax would repeal the individual income tax, the corporate income tax, all payroll taxes, the self-employment tax, and the estate and gift taxes and levy a 23% national retail sales tax as a replacement. The Fair Tax would be collected only once at the time of purchase of new goods and services. This uncomplicated, yet badly needed, tax system would revolutionize business and our economy. The Fair Tax would allow you, the American citizen, to keep 100% of your paycheck, while at the same time creating a tax free atmosphere for the companies, corporations, and small businesses in which you work and invest to operate free from the archaic and burdensome federal tax code.
The Fair Tax would:
•Enable workers to keep their entire paychecks
•Enable retirees to keep their entire pensions
•Refund, in advance, the tax on purchases of basic necessities
•Allow American products to compete fairly
•Bring transparency and accountability to tax policy
•Ensure Social Security and Medicare funding
•Close all loopholes and bring fairness to taxation
•Abolish the IRS
Taxpayer Choice Act
This legislation would establish a simplified alternative to the current individual income tax code. Simply put, the taxpayer would choose either to pay their taxes under a new and simplified tax system or to continue to pay taxes under the existing code. The advantages of the simplified tax system lie mainly in its simplicity and transparency. The new system would have just two income tax rates of 10% and 25%, a generous standard exemption amount, and no special tax preferences. Americans value choice and I believe this piece of reform legislation gives them that while lowering taxes and making our tax code fair.
The Flat Tax would:
•Eliminate the AMT: Eliminate the $841-billion tax increase that would result from the automatic expansion of the Alternative Minimum Tax [AMT], or from other tax increases imposed ostensibly to “offset” the AMT.
•Maintain Growth-Oriented Tax Relief: Make permanent the capital gains and dividend tax relief of 2003.
•Retain the Current Allocation of Tax Burdens: If all taxpayers chose to pay taxes under the Simplified Tax, the distribution of tax burdens among income groups would remain close to what it is today. Thus there would be no special advantages for higher-income taxpayers under this proposal.
•Deter “Gaming”: Deter year-by-year tax code switches (“gaming”) aimed at avoiding legitimate tax liabilities.
I understand Americans’ frustration with burdensome taxes. As your Representative, I have consistently worked to reduce the size of our government and thus keep more of taxpayers' money in their pockets. In the past, I have voted against spending bills that I believed to be excessive and costly to American taxpayers. I routinely score favorably with taxpayer advocacy groups, such as Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste, and the National Taxpayers Union. In addition, I support making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent and I have cosponsored legislation that would make permanent the state sales tax deduction and legislation that would permanently repeal the death tax.
|
Social Security
Social Security is our government's most popular domestic program, for over seven decades, Social Security has provided retirement security for tens of millions of Americans. Four generations of Americans have relied on the Government to keep the promises it made to them during their working years. Like many, I am concerned with meeting the challenge of Social Security solvency and longevity. Currently, only three workers pay taxes to finance benefits for each retiree - compared to 16 workers for each retiree in 1950. I am committed to ensuring that current beneficiaries and those nearing retirement face no reduction in benefits, while preserving this vital program for future generations. Any reform ought to be accompanied by deficit reduction, fiscal responsibility, and must not raise taxes. Today, Social Security receipts exceed payouts; in the past I have supported efforts to create a "lock box" mechanism to protect Social Security surpluses. I feel strongly that the federal government should not overspend in other government programs and pay for it with people's retirement security.
I will continue to fight for lower spending and greater fiscal responsibility. I have voted against many appropriations bills, when I feel the bill is fiscally irresponsible. In addition, I support paying down our national debt and reducing the tax burden on Americans. It's through this type of commitment from our government that will solve this current Social Security dilemma and ensure that our children and grandchildren can attain retirement security.
|
Medicare
The Medicare sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula on which Medicare reimbursement rates are based was forecast for a 10% "negative update" in 2008. However, on December 19, 2007, Congress, with my support, passed the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007. This law replaced the scheduled 10.1 percent cut to the Medicare physician reimbursement rate in 2008 with a one-half percent increase. While in recent years, Congress has stepped in like this to reverse or freeze SGR cuts for Medicare doctors; I understand that this uncertainty is distressing to physicians, administrators, and patients alike.
I recognize that such legislative action is a temporary "fix" to a permanent, flawed formula. As a member of the Committee on Energy & Commerce, which oversees Medicare Part B, please be assured that I will be engaged in evaluating alternative physician payment systems. I will expeditiously work with my colleagues to address this critical issue. I wholeheartedly believe that physicians ought to be adequately compensated for their services. Unfortunately, this legislation only provides funding to stave off this cut though June 30, 2008. I confident Congress will act to address this critical issue for our nations doctors and Medicare beneficiaries.
|
|
|
|