On the Issues

The Americans who served in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq never hesitated when their nation called them to duty. I believe America owes her veterans the same unflinching support.

Yet federal lawmakers have consistently cut corners on veterans' programs, ignoring promises made when our soldiers were in the line of fire. As the daughter and wife of veterans, and as someone who has seen firsthand the sacrifices our troops make every day in Iraq, I consider this an unacceptable failure.

First and foremost, Congress should ensure funding of veterans' health care. Currently the VA must submit an annual funding request to Congress, and every year veterans' opponents chip away at badly needed funds.  By the time I was elected to office in 2006, underfunding had reached a crisis point, and Congress had to pump $18 billion of emergency funding into the system to prevent a disastrous loss of services.

I was proud to help secure those emergency funds, but they should never have been needed in the first place.  Congress should once and for all guarantee VA appropriations.  Not only would this step benefit our veterans, but it would promote the economy of the Kansas Second District, which serves as the proud home of two VA hospitals.

We could never repay the debt that we owe our veterans, and they don't ask us to. They only ask that we keep the promises originally extended by a grateful nation, and in Congress, I'll continue to fight to see those promises fulfilled.

The war in Iraq has stretched America's military readiness dangerously thin.  During my service on the Readiness Subcommittee of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, I have heard military leaders express their repeated, grave concerns about our military's ability to adequately respond to threats across the world.

General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, has spoken of a "red line" that represents the absolute limit of America's forces to sustain our current military operations.  Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated, "I think we're close to (the red line) now."

Whether or not you personally support the continuation of aggressive military operations in Iraq, the fact remains that our sustained presence is dramatically straining the U.S. military.  In this dangerous era, when we face threats as diverse as a nuclear-armed Iran, a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, and growing terrorist groups across the globe, I believe that America is poorly served by devoting all of our military resources to the Iraqi reconstruction.

We must continue anti-terrorism efforts in Iraq, and we should assist the Iraqi government in restoring essential operations. But our assistance cannot be a blank check extending indefinitely.  "Stay the course" is a political slogan, not a military strategy.

Congress should require the president to offer a clear strategy for the Iraq war, and we should insist upon a responsible redeployment of American troops.  Legislators should never dictate strategy, and we should not demand an immediate withdrawal -- but we can and must demand a reasonable timeline for drawing the war to a close and restoring America's military readiness.

When America relies on the Middle East for our energy needs, we tie our national security to unstable regimes halfway across the world.  Today's crippling dependence on foreign oil is simply not sustainable.  The only way forward is to invest in renewable sources of energy that can be grown right here in the Midwest.

Corn, wheat, and sorghum can be used to create ethanol, and soybeans can be used to make biodiesel fuel. These renewable energy sources are cleaner than gas and coal, and their use nationwide would ease our dependence on foreign oil.

Kansas should also lead America in the adoption of wind power.  Our state is the third-windiest in the nation, so we are privileged with an abundant supply of this free, clean, safe power.  I strongly support federal incentives to promote the development of wind technology.

When we stop sending billions of dollars to the Middle East and start generating fuel here in the Midwest, we'll strengthen the American economy and dramatically improve our national security.

Last year, the five major oil companies earned $123 billion in profits.  That's a truly staggering figure that breaks down to $3,900 every second -- night and day, every day, all year long.

In the next three seconds, Big Oil will make as much in profit as a minimum-wage worker will earn all year.  In only 11 seconds, Big Oil's profits will eclipse the entire annual earnings of the average Kansas family.  And in under 30 seconds, their profits could buy that family's home.

In light of these astonishing profits, you might expect Big Oil to help shield Americans from rising gas prices... but over the last year, the price you pay at the pump has shot up more than 30%.

America's current energy policy is broken.  It has resulted in record profits for oil companies, record prices at the pump, and runaway transportation costs that are pushing up the prices of groceries and other consumer goods.  The time has come for a change.

Congress has taken a first step toward reforming our energy policy by increasing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.  But real reform will require Congress to decisively rein in Big Oil - and regrettably, the oil companies' Washington allies are determined not to let that happen.

I voted for the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act, which would repeal billions of dollars in Big Oil tax breaks and invest those funds in renewable fuels.  Unfortunately, many lawmakers have caved under the oil industry's lobbying pressure, and the bill now faces a filibuster in the Senate and a veto threat from the president.

America can no longer afford to allow Big Oil's power to go unchecked.  Until we achieve true energy independence, our national security will remain jeopardized by the foreign nations we rely on for oil, and our children's future will remain in danger.

Today, one in six Americans lack health insurance, and millions more are under-insured.  Although our country has the most advanced health care system in the world, we are facing ever-increasing costs, difficulties finding care, and hassles from our insurance companies.

I worked in the pharmaceutical industry for over twenty years, so I'm only too familiar with the inefficiencies in our system.  Fully a third of every dollar spent on health care in this country goes toward paperwork:  endless forms and reports devoted, in large part, to passing the buck from patient to insurer to government programs and then back to the patient again.

Not only is this staggeringly inefficient system a drain on consumers, but it is an enormous burden to American businesses.  When businesses do the right thing by helping sponsor their employees' health care, they find themselves at a competitive disadvantage with overseas competitors who enjoy far more efficient, and far less expensive, health care systems.

Some would suggest that the solution to America's health care crisis is to throw more money at the problem.  I say we're already spending enough; we need only to spend our dollars more effectively -- and that means taking on the lobbyists who represent the big insurance and drug companies in Congress.

America's health care policy is a matter of life and death.  It should be crafted with American lives, and not corporate profits, in mind.

Too many pharmaceutical executives place profits above patients. In Congress, I have fought to refocus the prescription drug industry on America's top priority: improving the health of our citizens.

I believe the federal government has a role to play in helping senior citizens afford health care.  Almost every other industrialized nation negotiates for lower drug prices on behalf of their seniors; the VA does the same for America's veterans. But under current law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is explicitly forbidden from negotiating for lower prices for Medicare beneficiaries.

This restriction must be removed. When American law permits Medicare's forty million beneficiaries to work together, we'll see today's accelerating prices slow considerably and perhaps even drop to the levels that so many other nations enjoy today.

Reducing the cost of prescription drugs will help seniors afford the medications they need, but that's not enough.  Congress must also act to close the "donut hole" created by the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act:  a $2,800 gap in coverage under which Medicare pays none of a senior's drug costs.  This hole affects almost a quarter of all Medicare beneficiaries and creates a real barrier to effective care.  I am continuing to work in Congress to ensure that the "donut hole" doesn't prevent Kansas seniors from affording quality health care.

I began my pharmaceutical career in 1981 in research and development at Marion Laboratories.  It was a well-run company, and my colleagues and I took our mission very seriously:  We were saving lives.

But over the years, the pharmaceutical industry changed around us.  PhRMA's focus shifted from patients to profits.

In 1985, the FDA first permitted widespread advertising of prescription drugs.  Up until that time, pharmaceuticals could only be marketed in professional journals and similarly targeted venues; afterwards, advertisements could appear in mass-market magazines, in newspapers, and even on television.  In 1997 the FDA went even further and removed most of the remaining restrictions on prescription drug advertising.

In response to these rule changes, pharmaceutical companies' promotional expenses exploded.  Today, PhRMA spends as much on advertising as on research and development.

I believe that patients were already overmedicated before 1997, and due to these rules changes, they're now dramatically overmedicated.  Only PhRMA benefits from this trend.

In Congress, I am fighting for common-sense improvements to our pharmaceutical laws, such as reinstating reasonable limitations on direct-to-consumer drug advertising.

We are at a crisis point.  Over 12 million foreign citizens have entered America illegally, and today these unlawful immigrants are undermining our economy and our national security.

Any responsible plan to end illegal immigration must address the three glaring flaws in today's immigration policy:  our weak border security, the widespread employment of illegal immigrants, and the poor enforcement of existing immigration laws.  Until we fix these critical weaknesses, we cannot hope to control the immigration crisis.

In Congress, I am a leading cosponsor of the Secure America through Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act, which has earned the endorsement of Numbers USA, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, and the National Federation of Independent Business.  

The bill provides funding for 8,000 new border patrol agents.  It also provides significant new equipment to monitor border regions, and it expands the Tunnel Task Force, which aims to prevent illegal immigrants from entering America through tunnels.

The SAVE Act also implements a workable, mandatory E-Verify system to crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

Finally, the bill offers sweeping improvements to the enforcement of existing immigration laws.  By funding new detention facilities and streamlining the deportation process, the SAVE Act promises to restore America's standing as a nation of laws.

Regrettably, the Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives has refused to move the SAVE Act to a vote.  Immigration is the concern I hear about most frequently when I'm in Kansas, and I consider it unacceptable that Congressional leaders have refused to take action.

I have signed a discharge petition to require the House to bring the SAVE Act to an up-or-down vote, and I am actively encouraging other members of Congress to sign on as well.  We must not allow such a promising, bipartisan proposal for immigration reform to die before it even reaches a vote.

In early 2007, the Department of Transportation announced a pilot program that could permit hazardous, poorly regulated Mexican cargo trucks onto American roads.  Their plan was alarming on many levels:  It showed reckless disregard for America's border security, for our highway safety, and for the strength of the American economy.

Under longstanding federal law, Mexican-registered vehicles could only enter the United States within small, contained border zones.  Any cargo destined for inland locations then had to be transferred onto American trucks.  Not only did this requirement protect America's roads from unsafe Mexican traffic, but it provided a key safeguard against drug smuggling and illegal immigration, and it protected the jobs in America's transportation industry.

The DOT plan swept away all of these protections by allowing Mexican trucks to drive throughout the American heartland.  Worse, it held Mexican trucks to far less stringent safety inspections than are required for American vehicles.  To add insult to injury, the DOT intended to launch their program with no opportunity for public comment.

I introduced legislation called the Safe American Roads Act of 2007 to apply 22 strict safety standards to the Mexican trucking program.  My bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support on a 411-3 vote.

Very unfortunately, the Department of Transportation chose to disregard this legislation and moved forward with its trucking program as planned.  Even now, potentially hazardous Mexican trucks are rushing down American highways, sharing lanes with our Kansas families.

The DOT's rush to open America's border was reckless, but if there is a silver lining to this cloud, it is that the pilot program is limited to 100 Mexican trucking companies.  Although the DOT chose to ignore the desire of Congress to block the pilot program, Congress still has an opportunity to prevent the program from expanding more widely.  I will continue to work in Congress to protect America's borders and our roadways.

Tuition costs at Kansas universities are rising as much as twenty percent a year-far faster than the incomes of most middle-class Kansans. Worse, financial aid programs aren't keeping up with this pace, leaving too many students unable to afford the educations they deserve.

In Congress, I was a prominent supporter of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, which was recently signed into law by the president.  This single bill will save the average Kansas student $4,200 on a college diploma.  It cuts in half the interest rate on federal student loans, expands the maximum Pell Grant, and offers student loan forgiveness to public servants such as firefighters and police officers.

The importance of this law is impossible to overstate, but it is only a first step.  The cost of college continues to rise out of reach of too many Kansans.  In Congress, I am actively supporting efforts to further improve Pell Grants, to help students reduce their textbook costs, and to help military families afford college tuition for their children.  America's next generation deserves nothing less.

Kansas teachers are among the most dedicated and qualified in the nation, and they are capable of providing our children with the best education America can offer.

But I worry that we're not fully supporting our educators. Almost every day, I read about new financial troubles at a Kansas school. Rural schools cannot afford the latest technology, and cutbacks throughout Kansas are forcing schools to reduce spending, often by cutting critical teachers and management positions.

One reason our schools can't afford these essential resources is that they're forced to pay for massive federal mandates such as No Child Left Behind. These mandates set ambitious goals to improve education and promise financing to meet these strict requirements... but year after year, Congress fails to provide its promised funding.

In Congress, I am fighting to ensure that the federal government either fixes these mandates and funds them at authorized levels or else permits states to opt out of the laws' requirements.

Head Start and Early Head Start are remarkably successful programs. Over three decades, they have consistently helped millions of at-risk children achieve better health, increased educational opportunities, and greater success in kindergarten and their later lives.

Despite this proven record, the federal government provides only enough funding to reach three out of five children eligible for Head Start nationwide, and Kansas cut its funding to Early Head Start by $300,000 in 2003. Thanks to dedicated parents and teachers, some children denied access to Head Start are nonetheless succeeding... but many are not.

I believe that Head Start is an investment in our children-an investment that more than pays for itself in reduced costs for remedial education, savings from lower crime rates, and increase earnings later in life.

In Congress, I am a strong advocate for this vital investment in our future.

America should continue to expand the global economy through new fair trade agreements, as opposed to today's "free trade" agreements.  "Free" here is meant only in the sense of "unrestricted"; these agreements do nothing to guarantee freedom to foreign workers or to support the American economy.

For an illustration of the many pitfalls of unrestricted trade, look no further than the North American Free Trade Agreement.  Since NAFTA's enactment in 1993, America's trade deficit with Canada and Mexico has skyrocketed to $919 billion.  We've lost over one million living-wage jobs, and we've experienced a crisis of illegal drugs.  Today, the vast majority of the marijuana and cocaine sold in the United States enters our country through Mexico, and the trucks responsible for drug smuggling receive only lax inspections due to NAFTA's provisions.

Clearly, free trade has left America in a deep hole -- and when you're in a hole, the first thing you do is to stop digging.  We should carefully consider new trade agreements to ensure that they are fair, reasonable, and beneficial to the American economy.

We should also reconsider our existing trade agreements, including NAFTA.  I have coauthored legislation called the NAFTA Accountability Act, which requires the president to renegotiate NAFTA to address the trade deficit, the loss of jobs, and the plague of drug smuggling.  Unless that negotiation brings specific, concrete improvements, the bill calls for America to withdraw from NAFTA.

We do not have to sit still as our jobs disappear overseas.  Congress can, should, and must act to ensure that America's trade agreements support America's economy.

According to some estimates, the amount of money spent on federal earmarks shot up almost 1000% between the early 1990s and 2006. The increase cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars a year.

To add insult to injury, taxpayers had no way of knowing precisely who was responsible for the cost. Individual members of Congress secretly inserted earmarks into appropriations bills, with no transparency and no accountability. It was as though lawmakers could write checks for massive, pork-barrel projects without even signing their names.

In 2007, I voted for a new rule requiring each and every earmark to be accompanied by the name of its Congressional sponsor. This new spirit of accountability helped cut the number of earmarks in the 2008 budget by a third - the first decline in a decade.

Unfortunately, the new earmark rule requires the disclosure only of earmarks that are passed into law, not all earmarks that any member of Congress requests. To require disclosure of only certain earmark requests is to draw a distinction without a difference. If a member of Congress wishes to spend public money on a particular project, she should be willing to stand before her constituents and defend the request.

In that spirit, I have posted every earmark request that I have ever made to my official Congressional website, and I am always willing to discuss why I believe that each and every request would benefit the people of Kansas. This is a highly unusual stance - so unusual that, when I first posted my earmarks online, CNN called me a "maverick" - but there's no reason why this degree of transparency should be so uncommon.

I have introduced legislation to require all members of Congress to disclose their earmark requests online within 24 hours. I firmly believe that this sweeping transparency would immediately, significantly cut wasteful spending in the federal budget.

I believe that all law-abiding Americans have the right to own firearms, and I will continue to defend this Constitutional freedom in Congress.

I oppose adding any new federal laws that would infringe upon the guarantees of the Second Amendment. Instead, we should enforce existing legislation, which has already led to dramatic declines in violent crime across America.