JOHN CARTER

There are two philosophies at work in Washington, D.C. On the one side, there are those who, like you and me, believe the government should be responsible in its spending. Taxes should be low because that is the key to economic growth and job creation. But, on the other side, there are those who believe there should be a big government program to solve all your problems– and they will take the money from your paycheck to pay for it.

This week the House of Representatives began discussing the Fiscal Year 2008 budget resolution in the House Budget Committee. The federal budget that emerges from the Committee and receives a vote on the House Floor will serve as an outline to prioritize the government’s expenditures for the next fiscal year.

Since taking the reins of Congress in January, the Democrat leadership has made no secret about their desire to raise your taxes. Under this liberal stewardship, the tax cuts enacted by this Congress in 2001 and 2003 will be allowed to expire; effectively raising taxes on the American people. This tax increase would be the largest in American history - $392.5 billion over the next five years.

Included in the Democrats new “tax and spend” strategy for America is a $27 billion reduction to the Child Tax Credit, a $13 billion increase in the marriage penalty, and an astounding $91 billion increase in the Death Tax. In addition, they have instituted “pay-as-you-go” (PAYGO) measures that require raising taxes to pay for their wasteful spending.

The PAYGO measures are especially worrisome because liberals in Congress have never met a government project they didn’t like. For each and every government fix they can devise, they are going to take the money out of your pocket. Already the stage is set for an additional $115 billion in federal spending. Current-year spending had been increased $6.1 billion to date, and then last week $24 billion in additional funds were added to the emergency war supplemental spending bill. Now, this budget is adding $22.5 billion in non-defense, non-emergency spending for the next fiscal year.

In addition to higher taxes and runaway federal spending, the Democrats’ budget refuses to deal with one of the largest looming threats to our fiscal security – entitlement spending. Social Security and Medicare at their current rates must be reformed, or runaway growth will consume the entire federal budget in the future. This budget, in current form, leaves a big mess for our children and grandchildren.

There is no accountability for the massive growth of government being proposed by liberals in Congress. While tax cuts may expire, there is no expiration for new spending - these programs will continue indefinitely.

Congress must function like an American family – with balanced books. There must be a sense of accountability to the taxpayers and a commitment to spend the hard-earned money of American families with responsibility. If our economy is to continue to prosper and create jobs, then the tax burden must remain low, and we must control spending. As this debate continues, Congress should err on the side of fiscal restraint, and not enact the largest tax increase in American history. You can count on me to fight for our Central Texas values and oppose massive federal spending and the tax increases to pay for it.

Due to technical restrictions, Congressman Carter is unfortunately not able to directly answer questions posed on this forum.

The U.S. government is funded through a series of annual spending bills that provide for such basics as our Armed Services, homeland security, and Medicare. Much of this funding is routine, only requiring slight adjustments from year to year. But certain unforeseeable circumstances, such as 9/11, the War on Terror, and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita can require additional federal funding. This additional funding forms what is called a, “supplemental spending bill,” or sometimes, “emergency supplemental spending bill.”

Our brave servicemen and women in Iraq and Afghanistan regularly receive funding through these supplemental spending bills. As money is needed to supply armor, ammunition, or equipment and supplies, Congress authorizes the additional funding. By nature these bills are intended to fund the unexpected, yet immediate, needs as they arise.

Next week, the House of Representatives will be discussing an emergency war supplemental bill to provide for the basic needs of our servicemen and women serving in harm’s way. But sadly, the Democratic majority has opted to play politics with this very basic responsibility, by loading it with an additional $21 billion in pet programs and projects unrelated to our soldiers.

In doing this, liberals in Congress have made light of a very serious obligation – to fully fund those protecting our freedom. The reason the Democrat leadership is loading this bill with so much pork is because they have added provisions to set a timeline for defeat in Iraq. This dangerous attempt to micromanage the war has met much resistance from liberals and conservatives. In order to secure enough votes to pass the bill, the leadership is attempting to win votes with pork. Their antics jeopardize the timely need to pass such legislation by increasing the chances of a presidential veto.

The projects that Democrats inserted into the supplemental are completely irrelevant to the mission of our soldiers. For example, $60 million for California and Oregon’s salmon fishery disaster of 2006, $400 million for a timber revenue program in Oregon, $400 million in low-income home energy assistance for state grants, $448 million un-requested funds for state children’s health insurance programs, and a half a billion dollars for wildfire management and suppression.

Many of these are undoubtedly valuable projects, but they don’t belong in an emergency war supplemental. Instead, they appear to be nothing more than an attempt to buy votes at the expense of our soldiers in the War on Terror. The supplemental is meant to be an emergency troop funding vehicle, and there’s no excuse for $21 billion worth of pork in that supplemental.

There is plenty of time for Democrats and Republicans to debate and discuss these programs on their own merits without making a political statement in the war supplemental. The emergency war supplemental is the wrong time and the wrong place for picking political fights.

For the sake of fiscal discipline, and a commitment to our soldiers, we must pass this bill without it being held hostage by those who wish to micromanage the commanders in the field or load this bill with non-military pork. As this debate goes forward, I trust that Congress can set aside politics, do our duty for those protecting our freedoms, and cut the pork from this bill.

Due to technical restrictions, Congressman Carter is unfortunately not able to directly answer questions posed on this forum.

The past few weeks, many of us in Congress have argued the necessity of fully supporting and funding our servicemen and women in harm’s way. But the recent reports of substandard conditions at an outpatient facility at Walter Reed Army Medical Center are a disturbing reminder of the need to also ensure for the health and well-being of those already returning from the front lines.

Our government has an obligation to provide the highest quality medical care for our brave servicemen and women when they are wounded in the course of defending freedom. Walter Reed is known throughout the world as a first-class medical facility and it is Congress’ responsibility to exercise the oversight necessary to ensure its continued vitality. I was encouraged to hear that President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have acted swiftly to put personnel and protocols in place to immediately address the situation.

As the federal representative for Fort Hood, the world’s largest military installation, I have many opportunities to visit Walter Reed and the men and women receiving treatment there. I am disturbed by what Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England called a “leadership problem”. Rightly so, additional federal funding cannot solve problems of oversight and accountability. After visiting Walter Reed and describing the conditions as “unacceptable”, Secretary Gates accepted the resignation of Army Secretary Francis Harvey. In addition, the Army relieved Major General George Weightman of his command at Walter Reed.

I appreciate the President firmly addressing this problem by designating a bipartisan commission to determine whether similar problems exist at other military and VA hospitals. The goals of this commission will be to 1) improve the transition from deployment to civilian service, 2) ensure high-quality services for returning wounded service members, and 3) increase access to benefits and services. In this process, the commission will consult with foundations, veterans’ service organizations, non-profit groups, and faith-based organizations as needed.

In addition to the President’s commission, Congress is taking this matter very seriously by making it a top priority. Hearings have begun, or are being scheduled, by Subcommittees of the House Oversight and Government Reform and Appropriations panels. The Armed Services Committee will also convene hearings to receive testimony on this matter. As a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans’ Affairs, I look forward to ensuring that proper protocols are in place to avoid any recurrence.

I have also scheduled visits to the Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood and the Olin E. Teague Veterans’ Center to tour the facilities and ensure that similar circumstances do not present themselves in the 31st District.

It is important to remember that countless Army medical centers and veterans’ hospitals are doing a wonderful job providing the care that our servicemen and women deserve. I trust the situation at Walter Reed, although unfortunate and inexcusable, is not indicative of most Army medical units. With the President’s bipartisan commission, and the oversight of Congress, I believe that we will once again be able to get back to the important mission at hand – properly caring for our servicemen and women.

Preserving the right to free and fair elections is a basic tenet of democracy. In providing this assurance, it is vital that privacy be guarded to protect citizens from harassment and retribution for their beliefs. But basic democracy is not good enough for Democrats in Congress who required a vote on H.R. 800, the misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act” this week.

Unfortunately, this legislation will eliminate secret ballots in organizing elections, making it easier for union bosses to pressure workers to support the formation of a union. This legislation enables union bosses to form a union if they are able to “compel” enough workers to sign a card – not by a secret ballot of workers voting their conscious.

In a recent poll of union workers conducted by Zogby International, 63% of union workers expressed their belief that stronger laws are needed to protect the secret ballot elections and to ensure workers can make their decisions about union membership in private, without the union, their employer, or anyone else knowing how they voted. However, labor union bosses, along with Democrats in Congress, are aggressively working against the wishes of their members in an effort to increase their membership rolls. These efforts are at the expense of the traditional secret ballot election, by promoting card-check recognition. In the card-check process, a union gathers “authorization cards” signed by workers expressing their desire for the union to represent them.

During the card-check election process, workers are required to sign cards in front of organizers, fellow employees and sometimes employers; a process that invites coercion, intimidation and threats in the workplace. At the same time, organized labor operatives are increasingly pressuring employers (by way of threat, boycott, or public relations and public pressure) to recognize unions based on a card-check agreement rather than the customary secret ballot election supervised by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

While employers may voluntarily recognize unions based on card-checks under current law, they are not required to do so (current law allows employers to insist upon an election administered by the NLRB). Yet an employee’s right to vote in a secret ballot election, and an employer’s right to demand a secret ballot vote to protect their workers’ rights, was eliminated by this legislation.

American workers deserve legislation that guarantees the right to a secret ballot election. Instead of the flawed Democratic measure, an obvious pay-off to the labor bosses who funded their campaign efforts in last fall’s elections, Republicans introduced H.R. 866, the Secret Ballot Protection Act. This bill, instead of removing choice, will lock in critical employee rights by preserving worker free choice and protecting workers from intimidation, threats, misinformation, or coercion when making decisions regarding union representation.

Only 12 percent of the nation’s workforce and only 7 percent of private sector workers are unionized. It is no wonder that union leaders view this as the final push to increase their membership rolls and the dues that accompany greater participation. Rest assured that I will stand behind our Americans workers – the best in the world. In the future, I will work with my colleagues to pass legislation which actually protects the American worker without removing their basic rights.