You are here: Home >> Round Rock/Pflugerville >> People >> U.S. Representative, Congressional District 31

U.S. Representative, Congressional District 31

Attention: open in a new window.

Written by Patrick Brendel Friday, 03 October 2008

John Carter, Republican (incumbent)

Lived in District: 35 years
Education: Bachelor's degree, Texas Tech University; Juris Doctor, University of Texas Law School
Career: General practice lawyer; appointed judge of 277th District Court of Williamson County in 1981; District Judge 1982-2001; Congressional District 31 representative since 2002
Contact: 246-1600 • carter.house.gov

Q. What are the three or four most important issues for your constituents?: A. Well the No. 1 issue, probably large issue, is the economy overall, energy being a subsection of the economy. Right now [constituents] they’re more concerned about energy and the cost of fuel than any other single issue right now across the country. The war in Iraq always remains an issue, and the war in Afghanistan, the war against terrorism. Healthcare is an issue. This time last year immigration would have been the No. 1 issue, clearly, in my district. It's a sleeper, probably the No. 2 issue besides energy. Energy is the top one only because people remember it every time they fill up their car.
Q. What actions would you take on these if re-elected?: A. Well I've been taking action on all of these issues since I've been in Congress. The issue of the economy is very simple. You have to look at the economy and decide what your view of how the economy works is. There's two big prevailing views. I happen to be one who believes that the best economy is the economy in which we keep most of the taxpayers' money in his pockets, so he makes the spending decisions, and he grows the economy through his investments and spending decisions. That's the conservative view. I believe that if we raise taxes, which is being proposed this year by the Democratic Party, we will see the economy begin to decline. There's clear evidence that upon the cut of taxes, the overall revenues to government actually go up, and there's clear evidence. It's been demonstrated the past 20 years, 30 years. I think we'll see revenues eventually go down. The first lift is big, but after that, because people have to pay more taxes and invest less, less jobs, there's less opportunity and the economy stagnates. The Jimmy Carter era is the example.
Q. What do you think are the greatest international threats to the United States?: A. Terrorism is the No. 1 threat to the United States, but I think we have to keep an eye on some folks that some people would say are old enemies. I think that we're clearly seeing the emergence of the Russians, and some would say they may even be trying to put back together the old Soviet Union. But their clear invasion of the sovereign nation of Georgia is something that ought to concern us all as we look down the tunnel of time. We also ought to be concerned about China. Right now China is very much into competition with us, and that's good. I'm not against competition. But they still have and maintain a very aggressive army and a very aggressive spy network, and in fact we've had some computers on the Hill that have been invaded, according to multiple sources, have been tapped into by the Chinese intelligence folks. And so they're still spying on us and that means we should be cautiously watching our Chinese trading partner.
Q. What steps do you think the government should take to meet the country's future energy needs?: A. All of the above. Everything that’s out there should be left on the table. It is a huge mistake to start off by saying, "We need to deal with energy, but we're going to let you deal with those energy things that I like, but we're not going to deal with the ones that I don’t like." So the proposal that the Democrats put forward initially was "No more hydrocarbons. We're not going to deal with hydrocarbons." It's kind of a joke, Mrs. Pelosi said, "We've got to get off our hydrocarbons. We're going to go with natural gas." Sorry, that's a hydrocarbon. But that's another story. Facts are when they say no hydrocarbon, you're talking about oil, gas and coal. If you put oil, gas and coal together, as far as the sources of power for the United States, both industry and transportation, they make up about 75% or 80% of the energy that the United States use it today, maybe a little less than that. Let's call it 60%. I have a pie chart someplace, but I don't know what the numbers are. I personally think that we have to reinstate our nuclear. I think nuclear should be on the table. I think geothermal should be on the table. I think wind should be on the table. I think solar. I think hydroelectric. I think we ought to look at using the tides. We ought to use lots of things. We ought to be creative, and that's why I say "all of the above." The American people, if you turn creativity loose, will come up with a lot of solutions that will reduce our dependence on oil. We do need to clearly reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but we also need to explore and produce those resources that are American resources. We probably have the largest coal deposits in the world. Let's figure out a way to use coal in a clean manner, coal as a liquid in a clean manner. Let's look at the shale oil in the mountain states. Let's look at offshore drilling up and down the coast. If we do it cleanly, there hasn't been more than a tablespoon of oil spilled by drilling offshore in the last five years. Total worldwide. By everybody. And believe me, we're the best, but there's some other people who aren't as good as we are. But the facts are we know how to drill and produce effectively. Our issues are with shipping. That's where we've had oil spills. The transportation of those things is a challenge in some incidences, but the drilling for those resources, there's just no indication it's any kind of a challenge anymore. the days of big gushers and spilt blowouts have been gone for decades and decades and decades. So let's look at everything. A very interesting side is there's some people working on a refinery. They're putting $250 million to $350 million of private money, no government money, in a refinery that they're going to put beside the garbage dump of Fort Hood in Killeen, up in our neighbor to the north, Bell County, and they're going to refine garbage. And from that they say they will produce 50,000 barrels of gasoline and 50,000 barrels of diesel and 50 megawatts of electricity every day. They will sequester 18 truckloads of CO2, and their entire process will not have an emission in the air or in the water. So it's pretty exciting stuff if it works. And somebody thinks it will because they're putting that much money into it.
Q. What do you think about the National Animal Identification System?: A. The National Animal Identification System is the offshoot of the Mad Cow Disease and the anthrax in China. I think it's going to be a burden upon American agriculture. And if it was modified in such away that the individual small ranchers and farmers wouldn't have to pay to tag and track their animals.
The concept is good and some of the cattle ranchers and livestock producers favor it. And quite frankly I'm not in that business, and I'll take advice from the cattlemen in my district, and they're pretty well divided on it quite frankly. This district is pretty well divided on it, but it has its pros, and it has its cons. But to be honest with you, the overall concept goes a little bit against my conservative nature. If they make it useable to where it's not a burden on industry, I could support it, but I've got to make sure it doesn't hurt the small producer.
Q. What is your stance on the Trans Texas Corridor, and how do you feel about eminent domain?: A. I think the Trans Texas Corridor by its presentation and its concept has been a huge mistake, and it has frightened the dickens out of everybody involved in it. And it has people just madder than Cain in my district and across the state. And it's just the concept, by the very way that they've presented it. It's a bad concept, but we've got transportation issues that are just about second to none in this state. And so I'm a very big proponent of creative transportation solutions, but they have basically messed up the concept of Trans Texas corridor so badly by the way they have brought it forward, that I think that it's back to the drawing board. There's got to be a better solution. On eminent domain, eminent domain is the law of the land since the beginning of the Republic, and one of the number one reasons why eminent domain is allowed is for highways, railroad right of ways and other things. When I was a judge, my court had jurisdiction over eminent domain cases. We would, there were three of us -- later in my career there were three district judges in our county, and we would basically rotate. We'd draw names out of a hat, and we'd rotate each year who had the eminent domain cases. I handled probably most of the eminent domains cases that went to our court on [Hwy.] 183A, the condemnation of [Hwy.] 183A. I don't think you can eliminate eminent domain. It has been around forever. The issue is, are people being treated fairly? At least in the cases that went to trial or that were settled as a result of trails I watched, the landowners were very very adequately compensated for their taking.
Q. Do you feel that the immigration system in the US is in need of reform? If so, how do you suggest changing it? Do you support the border wall? Do you support sanctions for people who employ illegal immigrants?: A. The immigration system, in my personal opinion, is broken from top to bottom. We, for some reason, have a policy that looks the other way for people who break the law. An unwritten policy — it just seems to have evolved that way. Millions break into our country, and then those who try to do it the right way… We have created a system that is so onerous and punitive that they have a very difficult time trying to come here and do the right thing. That's kind of completely backwards from the way it ought to be. This country needs to have an active source of new labor and new human beings making new Americans, and we ought to have a legal system that is manageable so that you don’t frighten them or punish them so badly that they don't want tot try to do it the right way. But, in turn, I spent 20 years of my life saying I don't approve of breaking the law. I'm not going to change that. For 20 years I put people in prison for breaking the law. I'm not going to change that by saying you can break into my country, and I'm going to give you everything free and pat you on the back and say, “Congratulations, here's your citizenship.” I am opposed to that. As I analyze the problem of the illegal immigration issue, it has, and that's where we should start. That's what people are upset about. That's where our national risk is, the illegal immigration. We should start out by defending our borders, and we should use all the tools. Fences, and if you want to call them walls, walls, but really it's fences in certain places help with the immigration problem. In other places they're worthless. A fence between Del Rio and the Big Bend is pretty well worthless. By the time anybody got to where the fence was, you could have cut a hole that you could drive an 18-wheel truck through it. So it's just a joke to put it out there. However, I sat with a border patrolmen down in Laredo one night for most of the night. And he pointed out to me that — he had basically four miles he was watching by camera — if he could just slow them down, it didn't have to stop them, but just slow them down, he could catch them. Even though it was difficult, because the way his particular sector was, you had the river bottom, which was very brushy, and then a road. If the illegal immigrant could get across the road — it was a three- or four-lane city street — they were in a densely populated area of Laredo, and they were not identifiable from anyone else there. So they were gone. He said if there's a fence there along the side of that road it could slow them down. The fence wouldn't keep them from going over the fence, but he'd be able to get there to enforce the law. That's the kind of intelligent fencing we can do, and I think that’s needed. We need to have electronics. We need to have more people. I would personally propose that until we can enforce our borders effectively north and south, we should increase the border patrol by 2,000 border patrol agents every year until we get the resources around to get it fixed. The second thing we need to do is, we need to be able to identify, we need to have a new identity system for ourselves and for those people who are coming into this country. I propose a biometric Social Security card. For those people who have Social Security cards today, it would be voluntary. You wouldn't have to do it. For those people, those kids that are born tomorrow, if it went into effect today, would have a biometric Social Security card. By biometric, you'd have electronics built into it, which would identify at least a fingerprint or a photograph and possibly like an iris scan or something like that. The whole purpose of this is not just immigration, although it helps a lot with immigration and helps the employer know the person that hired is the person whose social security card that is. But in addition to that, the largest single crime in the United States today is identity theft. It's the fastest growing crime in the world. Texas is number two in the nation in having our identities stolen. So from Texas' standpoint, the fact that we have a cardboard piece of paper with a series of numbers on it as our identity form, that identifies us for almost everything we do these days, just is a magnet to those who would steal our identity and use it for their purpose. That’s why I think the idea is not just an immigration idea; it's protection for all Americans.
The next thing we need to do is figure out what to do with the people who are here. For 20 years, I put people on what is called deferred adjudication probation, which means you come in and you sign a document where you admit to the crime you are charged with. That document is the evidence against you, but we won't use that evidence. We set it aside and place you on probation and give you a set of rules to live by. These rules are not onerous. They start off with "Don't break the law." Well every American citizen is not supposed to break the law anyway so that's not onerous. Work at suitable employment, take care of your dependents. Don't take benefits that you're not entitled to. And set out a series of rules. They would have to have an employer who would have to notified that they are under this system, because one of the things they would get by being on deferred adjudication probation is the right to work. If they are employed, they would be given the right to work. But the employer in turn, who employs the type of people on probation, would have to report if they took off. They would also have to report to the Immigration and Naturalization System every year from between Jan. 1 and let's see, it's Jan. 31; there's 31 days in January. By the way my wife's an immigrant. That's what we had to do when she came to this country. We had to re-register so she could keep her green card every year between Jan. 1 and Jan. 31. It was done at the post office with basically a post card. It's not that big a deal, but you had to do it. And in fact my daddy would call us on New Year's Day for the five years until Erika became a citizen. It was just like religion. He would call us on New Year's Day and say, “Don't forget to go down and register my daughter-in-law so they don't kick her out of this country because I love her.” OK. And to accompany that way of dealing with the people who are here, then we would set up a work program that would be at the border or at stations that would count as the border, so that people could come in to, like New York City, and go to a station and apply to be on a limited work visa to come here. And they would have to follow certain rules too. So like I say, it takes a long time to talk about this. I have a Hispanic counsel that is in, that has representatives from all over my district. We've met on this issue on numerous occasions. American citizens are good law-abiding people and that includes all American citizens. And they agree that people shouldn't be breaking the law, and they agree there should be consequences. But they say it should be done with compassion. I think this could be done with compassion. A person who serves out his probation would get a priority for work permit. But no pathway to citizenship. You want citizenship, now go back and get in line with those people coning back from the country of your origin that are applying for citizenship. These things that I've just outlined fix the immediate problem. Then we have to go through and redo the entire immigration system to make it less onerous and yet secure.
Q. Would you do away with the lottery on skilled worker visas?: A. Actually the skilled worker visas need to be expanded. I have expanded it. I have cosponsored a bill to expand a first-come first-serve, it's an H1-B, first-come first-serve, 50,000 I think. I guess it’s not a lottery then. I don't know what the number is. The last two sessions we have expanded that number because the high-tech industry is very critical to our area, and they are very concerned about making sure they have these visas that get trained people in here they need, especially the PhDs in physics and engineering.
Q. Do you support sanctions for people who employ illegal immigrants?: A. Yes, there should be sanctions. But that's why you have to give them a good, identifiable card. And then I would propose as part of this plan that they would have access, if they were large enough, they could pay to have a machine installed in their company. If they are smaller businesses, they could go to a location like the post office, the city hall, wherever you set it up in the community. They could take the applicant or applicants, their documents, feed it into the machine, let them check their biometrics and see that that is the right person. And then I think we'd help them meet their obligation. Then those who don't do that, those who intentionally employ people that are illegal, then they should be punished. Because if you don’t, you're never going to stop the lure of employment.
Q. What are your plans for ensuring that Americans have adequate access to health care? What changes, if any, should be made to Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security? Or is it even a proper function of government to help citizens get health care?: A. The proper function of government. First, I will tell you that I am opposed to socialized medicine. And you can call it anything you want to, single-pay system or whatever you want to call it. But I am opposed to socialized medicine. I have lived under it in Holland. It is not a good system, and I don't think the American people would be happy with it or be well served with it. What we have to do is learn, through things like Association of Healthcare Plans which allow, which we have proposed now for, well for three congresses that I know of, because I've been there for three congresses ,and it's been killed by special interests in the Senate. It's passed the House every time. Well there are some creative things we can do. Expand health savings accounts. Give tax credits. I think it's a good idea to give a tax credit for a person. The idea we maybe ought to do it with tax credits whether than big business, they don't like that idea, but I think that's possibly a good idea. That you should get the same write-off for your going out and buying your healthcare as the company gets for buying the healthcare for you. We need to come up with these kinds of creative things to let the market work, because I don't think the type of service and the type of innovation that comes out of socialized medicine is going to do anything but set us backwards. For instance, when my wife's mother in Holland, where they have a one-pay system, the government pays the healthcare. Supposedly one of the best in Europe. It is one of the best, and if you go to the hospital they got one of the nicest hospitals. But you share your room with six other people. They make life-or-death decisions about who lives and who dies when you get to be elderly. If you're going to be a burden on the system, they don't help you. That's the kinds of decisions that get made that concern me very greatly, and I just don't think it's right for America. So I oppose a single-pay system. Also by the way, by 2050 Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will be off the charts in the amount of expense it will cost the average taxpayer. Some estimates are the top brackets will pay 92%.
Q. Do you think health insurance should be separated from employment?: A. Right now the employer gets to write off what he gives you. It's compensation to you if they give you a health plan, but they get to write it off. Maybe we should let you buy your own healthcare. If you let people shop for their own healthcare in a free market, if we lift all these governmental mandates. For instance, my wife and I are past childbearing age. We don't need a maternity benefit on our healthcare program. We should be able to go shop in any state in the union. Expand it for the whole country and be able to shop and find a healthcare plan that says we're going to be heavy on long-term care and light on things like pap smears, which are mandated. And maternity benefits, because if you’ve had a hysterectomy, you don’t need maternity benefits. That's just common sense. Some people who have a history of cancer in their family might say, “I want a policy that's heavy on cancer and a policy light on something else.” They should be able to make those healthcare choices. We should assume that we are intelligent enough to make those choices.
Q. Are there any issues you want you constituents to know about?: A. I think that one of things that I've talked about since I've been here that hasn't changed. It has just gotten worse. At some time we are going to face our unfunded mandates, which is basically Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. We are going to have to figure this out, because — it takes a simple mathematician to figure out; it's not complex — that these things are not going to being paying for themselves. Probably by 2017, they're going to start going in the opposite direction. That, like propounding interest, propounds, too, and before we know it, we're just not going to be able to afford these programs. We owe the duty and the responsibility of keeping Social Security available for those who gave their lives to it. So we have a duty to meet that responsibility to those people. But we have to come up with other solutions to make that thing work, so that my children, so that, the two of you. There's a pretty good chance you're both young. There's a very good chance that when you're each 65 years of age, that Social Security may not be here. We owe just as much an obligation to you, but we're going to do what we have to do to make this program work. And Medicare's way worse than Social Security. And the whole idea with S-CHIP to put the young people under Medicare and then drop the age of Medicare down to 50, which is being proposed over in the Senate. It's just, that's just two new steps to get to universal health are, which we can't afford.
Q. How about Medicare Part D?: A. Well, that's one of the tough votes I had to take. I will say that Medicare Part D is actually working a lot better than the skeptics think it is, but it's still mighty expensive. And so ultimately everybody knows, and that includes the hospitals and the doctors and everybody else, knows that we've got to sometime get Medicare going in a different direction. It's just going to be a bottomless pit of expenses to us. And we've got to fix it. And right now we're just kicking the can down the road. And the problem is, when you start fixing some of these things, some people are going to get beat the next election. And that's just being honest, and it's going to take courageous people. But it's going to have to be done, or else you're going to have to do it when you get to Congress.

Brian Ruiz, Democrat

Lived in District: Four years • Born and raised in Austin, now lives in Hutto
Education: Bachelor's in communications, St. Edward's University
Career: Campaign staffer, Lloyd Doggett for Congress, 1994; campaign staffer, Abel Ruiz for State Representative, 1996; radio producer, Clear Channel Radio (ESPN The Zone), 2000-2004; real estate agent, 2005-2007

Contact: 686-4257, info@ruizforcongress.com

Q. What are the most important issues for your constituents?: A. The first thing is the economy. The constituents are looking for someone that understands the economy because they live in it. All to often we vote for a congressman that can talk to people in the district, or at one time maybe lived some of the problems of the economy. But I'm actually someone that lives it everyday and struggles to make ends meet, just as so many other people in the district do as well. That's the first thing I hear all the time.
The second thing is energy dependence. We really need to start getting ourselves off foreign oil and just oil in general. And we've got to take a realistic view on how to do that. Right now one of the concerns that our constituents have is we do have a congressman that has millions of dollars of ExxonMobil stock, and has taken thousands of dollars of special interest lobbyists' money regarding that. He does want to “Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.” He goes with that line, but to truly become energy independent, we need to have a comprehensive approach. And with that is we've got to make a true commitment to alternative energies and make sure that is a part of the bill. My concern with the direction he wants to go is he wants to drill immediately, pass that bill and then get to the other things down the road. He talks about being comprehensive and doing everything, but far too often I have found politicians to do one thing. After they get it done, they forget about the other things that they have promised. What I want to do is up front have those things that we can commit to on a bipartisan level that can move us toward alternative energy. And at that time, once we have that, we can drill as well. That's what's going to help us in the immediate future. But I don't want to go into far details of all the things we can do, maybe we can get into that later. But I think that's one of the commitments I think we can make, is truly go into a real alternative energy direction.
The third and fourth things are kind of a combination of two. These constituents are ready to have someone that is accessible and that can listen to them and be the voice for them. We have got someone that has never been around and goes to his own constituency. He was elected in ’02 expected to listen to both sides, but he has become a very partisan person and hasn't been out there for people to listen to. I grew up in Austin where there were great congressmen like Jake Pickle that was just always out there, available and accessible, and that's the type of representation I want to bring to this district. And that's part of where we're running into problems. We have several things that have come up in this area, when it comes to like State Highway 29 in between Georgetown and liberty hill, the landfill in Hutto, power lines in Hutto, the Trans Texas Corridor. In the Temple/Bell County area there was massive flooding that happened in ’07, and the Army Corps of Engineers was constantly wanting John Carter to come out. But it wasn't until they went out to the media and to the newspapers, when he finally came out to look at some of the problems they had. There are a lot of problems that go on in the district where he doesn't seem to be there, and a lot of that has to do with his accessibility to the people and listening to them. I think it's a combination of being out there, being accessible and cutting those ties to special interest groups and lobbyists as well. Because that’s where we've kind of run into iffy areas on what reasons are there for State Highway 29. What reasons are there for these landfills, for power lines? If there weren’t any ties to special interest groups and lobbyists, then it wouldn't have anyone concerned that they're trying to do what's best for the people. And right now those lines are sort of blurred, so that's the other part of it.
Q. What actions would you take on these if elected?: A. For the economy, I think one of the most important parts of the economy is becoming energy independent and that's part of it. The second thing of the energy independence is making sure we make that move. But another thing that encompasses both of those as well that I want to be able to do is to bring out the bill that came out in 1995. When the conservative Congress came in there, one of the first bills that they issued was to have a balanced budget constitutional amendment. It passed the house by a two-thirds majority, and it almost passed the Senate. And it missed it by two votes. And since that time in 1995, our debt has just about doubled if not more, from $4.5 trillion. Now we're at $9.6 trillion of debt, that we have accrued in those 13 years. As a Democrat and as a fiscal conservative, that's one thing I feel passionate about. I think coming on from the Democrat point of view, trying to bring them on board, expecting bipartisan support. If we can get that done, it not only holds this Congress accountable but any other Congress after. I come in with a philosophy of my kitchen table, just trying to make ends meet. What my wife and I can bring into the home, that's what we use to pay bills, and that's what we send out. And there should no excuse for the United States Congress to not do the same exact thing. And once we have a balanced budget, that's going to start helping the economy in so many ways. Like we saw in the late 90s when Bill Clinton had a balanced, surplus, we started seeing how effective our economy becomes. We've got to get out of this borrow-and-spend economic plan that's the same our congressman is going with, the same Bush, the same Reaganomics — Borrow and spend; live for today; don't worry about the future — and that's something I don't agree with.
Q. Would you primarily balance the budget by getting increased tax revenue or by cutting programs?: A. We gotta cut spending. Our spending has gotten way out of control. We've got way too much federal bureaucracy, and that's something we do need to start cutting down on. We've got too many corporate loopholes and a lot of areas of wasteful spending. I think what we can do is have incentives for people that maybe want early retirement, find ways for them to be able to go out. People that leave their jobs maybe not rehire, find ways of working those jobs back in. there's a lot of other broad areas, like, foreign policy. We gave $20 billion to Saudi Arabia in July of ’07, and we didn't want Israel to get offended, so we sent $30 billion over to Israel. It’s those type of policies, where we think spending money here is keeping our relationships stronger. And I think there's different approach that we can bring to that. So I just think that we do need to go line by line through the federal budget to see what we can eliminate, and really control our costs and spending. I just realized one of the things I didn't answer, one of the things I plan on doing when I get elected, goes to my third and fourth issue about listening to the people in the district. I plan on having six town hall meetings twice a year — three in Williamson County, two in Bell County and one that will toggle between Coryell, Hamilton and Erath. And we'll do that twice a year, so anyone can come up to me and ask why I voted for certain things, or what's going on in Washington, D.C. That's something where, I'd listen to some of the concerns going on and find ways of helping the communities out when they feel that their voices aren't being heard. Another thing that I plan to do is get a lot of the city councils to communicate with each other. And that's one thing that I have spoken to other congressmen about that they work on in their districts. And that's being accessible to their city councils. and that's one thing my opponent has not done at all. So if we had an issue that is important, where the Hutto city council and the Pflugerville and Round Rock city councils and Georgetown city council all got together with one voice, it would really make a difference when it comes to changing certain things that they want to get done, like power lines or landfills or whatever it is. And that's one thing; I want to take an initiative to help these councils start to communicate with one another.
Q. What do you think are the greatest international threats to the United States?: A. First and foremost is the radical Islamist extremism. We still have terrorism. We need to get Osama Bin Laden. I am in agreement with let's go ahead and start getting our troops out of Iraq and let's focus on getting Osama Bin Laden. There’s no reason why we should not have him by now. I think that will go a long way to securing our country. Another thing is getting off of foreign oil. We are basically supplying the money for the terrorism groups to come after us. And another thing is the debts we are accumulating to foreign countries like China. We owe a lot of money towards them and really at any time that can hurt us in many ways. Right now our dollar is the weakest it's been in a very very long time. Those are just a few of them that come to mind.
Q. What steps do you think the government should take to meet the country's future energy needs?: A. We need a comprehensive plan that comes up with a lot of different areas. I believe in portions of the Boone Pickens plan. The view to have natural gas for our automobiles. I do believe in certain types of ethanol. I do not agree with corn ethanol. I think that takes too much of our prices away from food and makes prices go up in that area. There is a sugar cane ethanol that we need to look at here in the United States to see if that would work. It works in Brazil. Seventy percent of their country uses flex fuels, because sugar cane ethanol has about seven times more strength than the corn ethanol. There's also things with algae. There's so many other areas they have, but I think we need to research them and make sure we can find avenues that can work. We’ve got to get lithium batteries at a power where we can use it for our vehicles. And we’re almost there, but we haven’t gotten there yet. Also there’s an issue with the gas stations. Right now when you talk to companies like GM, one of the reasons why they haven't gone into the flex fuel area is because it's mostly the chicken-or-the-egg philosophy. If there was a place for the everyday person to go and get ethanol gasoline or natural gas gasoline, then they would be more in favor of them to produce those vehicles. But there’s not. You have to go out of your way to find those places. The other thing is they should produce them, and in time gas stations will come along. What I think we need to do, if we really want to move into the alternative fuels, is we need to go ahead and make sure that all the gas stations have at least one pump that provides ethanol and/or natural gas. Once we take that initiative, that every gas station has that, that will help every car company produce those vehicles that will help us get off oil.
Q. What is your stance on drilling?: A. We should drill now. I just want to make sure those bills are passed. I think in January we can pass a number of these bills or have it all in one bill. Let's not have drilling all by itself, because I'm afraid if that happens, then all of a sudden this bipartisan agreement of becoming energy independent will go by the wayside. Having an all-encompassing bill that we can pass in January, and we can start drilling immediately. The Only thing about drilling immediately, it is somewhat of a façade. The way it works is we are allowing the states to make their decision. If the states want to drill, the state legislatures need to vote for it, so we have to wait for them to be in legislation to do that. Once they pas a law, then the oil companies have to survey the areas where they want to drill. And then they have to apply for a permit with the Department of Interior, and they have to approve it. Once it's approved…Basically it's a lot of red tape. Anyone that says we can drill within a year or two — that would be next to impossible. I meant there are a lot of steps that we would need to go through before we can even get a drill in the ground. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't pass the bill in January once I'm there. We gotta pass it, but I'm getting tired of hearing the same things, that this would happen within a few months or within a year, we would start having oil. That's why I think we need that all-encompassing plan of so many alternatives, because we could be a lot further along with all these other alternatives, you know ethanol and everything else, if we bring it all together at one time.
Q. How do you feel about nuclear power?: A. I'm in favor. I actually took a tour of a power plant just north of my district off of there and got to see the inside of it, what it was like, the safety that they take. And I was amazed. Usually when you think of nuclear waste you're imaging pools, huge Olympic-sized pools of waste. It's amazing that they can use the nuclear area for a number of years before they have to transfer it. And it's just a small amount. I was amazed at just how small amount of nuclear waste that they even produce at a nuclear power plant. We do need to find a place where we can store it, but I am fully in favor of that. I think that they do take good precautions. We need to make sure that we can expedite that process. It is a very slow process to get one on board. It takes almost about 10 years to get an unclear power plant built and all the red tape. I think we can make sure they're taking all the safety steps, but also try to eliminate some of that red tape, and make sure they can come on board, maybe using the French, if they're willing to help us fin other ways, other people that have done it successfully, and making sure that we can use it the same way. if not better and maybe improve on it.
Q. What do you think about the National Animal Identification System?: A. That is something I know that a lot of the farmers in this area would hesitate for that, because they're going to have to pay for a system and make sure that it is taken care of within all of their animals and are keeping track of all of that. Not only if you're a small farmer, just working with your neighbors trying to sell meat here in the local town, or if you're making a huge living off of it with a lot of it. It's going to be a huge expense and a pretty big burden on them. But on the other hand, I understand the safety precautions and the immediacy that we can find with it any problems that are going on with the industry, if something is happening. So, right now I am in favor of keeping it on a volunteer basis. I want to be able to speak to more of my constituents that are dealing with that, understanding their point of view and finding out, I guess, a little more on both sides before I sign my name on one side or the other. But I think the direction that we have right now is what we can, on a volunteer basis, up until we can come up with an idea. But right now I guess I need to talk to more people and get an idea on where they stand, so I can be a good representative for them.
Q. What is your stance on the Trans Texas Corridor, and how do you feel about eminent domain?: A. I think eminent domain should be used in very rare cases when it is absolutely needed. And we've got to do something to take care of things, but I don't see the Trans Texas Corridor doing that. There are way too many people that it would affect. I think that is a direction we really can't be spending money on at this time. We've got to balance the budget. We've got to take care of the infrastructure needs that we have in this country today. We've got to find ways of making sure that we are doing things to become energy independent. The Trans Texas corridor is just something that's not. I'm not in favor of it. I don't think we should have it. That's something the constituents of my district are not going to have to worry about me being in favor of.
Q. Do you feel that the immigration system in the U.S. is in need of reform?: A. We do need to address it. Right now, it's been going too long with the system in place, and it keeps getting worse, the amount of people that are coming in. We need to secure our border and make sure we're not allowing any more illegal immigrants into this country, that they are taking the right process to get in. The ones that are here today, I think we have got to find a way of getting them on a guest worker program, or find some way of getting them all to come out of the dark. Where we know who they are, so they can be insured, and they can buy into an insurance program, whether it's car or health. And employers can, we know where they stand. One of the things that is a problem in the United States is we don't have a very strict guideline for employers that knowingly hire illegal immigrants. It's just a very small slap on the wrist. I think that needs to be raised to where it actually does deter employers from hiring illegal immigrants. And once undocumented workers realize that there are not jobs in the United States to come to, and there's no one to pay them, that will keep them from coming all the way over here in the first place. The other thing is to make sure that the system for the employers is working efficiently. I've spoken to one small business owner that says that, when he puts a social security number into the system, it may take him weeks to get back. So he doesn't realize whether the person is illegal or not, or if they're doing something. We need to make sure that that system is set up so employers can quickly check and know who they're hiring, if they are legal or illegal. The only catch on them coming here and putting them into a program of becoming naturalized, the problem is, I want them to be under like a zero tolerance policy. Anything above maybe running a stop sign or something, something that's like a second degree misdemeanor or above, if they are breaking our laws, then they need to go back home. That's a good zero tolerance policy. There are some in sanctuary cities that have broken law after law, and they should not be here. This is a privilege to be in this country. We'll give you a chance to become naturalized. And we need to make sure that system is more efficient as well, because right now it can take five to 10 years before that can happen. So make sure that system is improved, but if anything happens when they are here, they've got to go back. And one of the things that is specific to this district is our T. Don Hutto facility in Taylor. Right now we are holding illegal immigrants in this facility, and children as well, and waiting for them to go into court to find out if they belong here or not. Sometimes that can take up to six months or longer before they can get there. So they're having to live in a confined area of a building that used to be a prison. For me, that is something I just don't agree with, and as the congressman out in this area, I'm going to do what I can to close this place down, or have it moved somewhere else not in this district. I feel like there are injustices for those people in it. And as my role model is Martin Luther King, "An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." And time and time again in this country we have done things because we though it was for our safety or it was the best economically that we did certain things. But we look back and regret that we did things, whether it be holding Koreans in jail or having slavery. Because of certain areas, at the time we didn't see it as a problem, but later we look back at it…and I truly believe that T. Don Hutto is something we think we're doing a good job now, but later when we look back, I think we can be ashamed of ourselves and what we are doing.
Q. Do you support the border wall or border fencing?: A. I was never in favor of it. I don't think that's what's going to eliminate the traffic that comes across. There's always ways of getting around it or through it or under it or whatever. I think we do need to increase our border security. I think we need to improve our technology to make sure it happens. But the border between Mexico and the United States is more about undocumented migrant workers coming over here, and is not necessarily about safety. Because if it was about safety, we would be building a wall between the United States and Canadian border, because that is where terrorists have come in before, and that is where they can come in tomorrow. So if it was truly about safety, we would need to close our borders everywhere, and that's not the case. One of the things I think would help is developing a relationship with the Mexican government. Finding ways of setting up information areas in the towns along the border, on the Mexican side of the border, to show how to become a United States citizen. I think part of the reason why they come over here is ignorance. They don't realize that there is a process that they could go through to legally come over here. And if they do, they find out it's too long. So if we can put up booths to where they can come up, find out how to become a legal citizen, and we make sure that that process doesn’t take as long as it does today, that would help keep people from coming across as well.
Q. What are your plans for ensuring that Americans have adequate access to health care?: A. I think what our healthcare system, I am in favor of what our presidential nominee Barack Obama is looking at doing. Of trying to make sure that health care is not given to everybody, but the affordability is available for everybody, and that they can get into a system. Right now I have a sister-in-law that is supporting her family and has to buy health insurance on her own and for a family of three. It's going to cost about $1,000, and that's a third of her net income. That is a story that I hear so many times, of whether it be the person cutting my hair or the guy serving me at a restaurant. That works throughout the entire district. It has gone too long without being taken care of. So we need a system that can make sure that it is affordable for people. On of the big issues, which goes back to our first question, the big important issues of this district, are our veterans. Far too long we have done, the party in charge, the Republican Party that has been there and our congressman, has done a really good job of recruiting and retention, but when it comes to our veterans, they are not taken care of. One of the main concerns that the veterans have is the health issue. It takes them a lot of red tape to go to. They have to travel to specific hospitals. They have to delay a long time to get to see the doctor that they need to get to. One thing, I have a bill that I wanted to bring into Congress next year, as well with the balanced budget amendment, is to increase our federal insurance program for the federal employees. Increase that for the veterans that are coming back from combat, and making sure that they can buy into that system. So immediately they can go to the doctor across the street or to get mental health wherever they live, and they don’t have to travel too far to get that. That is one of our roles of taking care of our veterans immediately. And start working our way, because you know our Vietnam veterans, what they have gone through, just shows us that we need to start taking care of our guys immediately, or they could be in for a long lifetime of troubles.
Q. Do you think changes need to be made to Social Security?: A. For Social Security, I think we need to make sure that we ensure Social Security for this generation and the next generation. But for anyone born after 1970, I am in agreement that they need to have an option, of a privatized Social Security. And I think we have got to start working our way to a system where people can have an option of doing that. When it comes to privatized, I think it should just be for the few that have barely put enough amount of money into the system. We're going to have to fund Social Security, and it's going to cost a lot, but it's not going to cost any more than we're already spending on bailing out Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. If we didn't bail them out, we could have done something with Social Security. And that's what's so disappointing, that we've done that when we have our own issues to take care of as well.
Q. Is there anything else you'd like to highlight?: A. I think one of the big problems with Washington, D.C., is our special interest groups and our lobbyists. That is one thing. I have made a pledge not to take money from the special interest groups and lobbyists or political action committees. And it's hard, because right now running this campaign is tough to do, and to get the things that we need to get. And I've had to send some checks back, which is tough to do as well. But I know I will be a good representative, but I don't want to have the constituents of this district to have any doubts of where my allegiances lie. And when that phone rings, it's not someone that can threaten me saying, I can get you elected or not elected if you don’t do what I say. The people are the phones that I am going to be answering. That's why I want to be out there talking to them. That's why if they ask me why I voted against a bill I have nothing to hide from. It's not because I was expecting a check from this guy, or how things work, but because I felt it was in the best interest of the working class or the middle class, because that is where my experience comes from. I think the best experience a United States representative comes from is to know where your constituents are at. And my wife and I have a 2 and a 3 year old, and we can barely make ends meet. We live month to month. When gas prices go up and milk goes up, we feel that. we understand what that’s like. And like I told you earlier, it's not that I spoke to someone in the district that's going through a hard time, or I did it a long time ago in my life. This is something I'm going through today. And when I get to Washington, D.C., I think that's going to make a huge difference. And that was what encouraged me to run is I went to Washington, D.C., and I didn't find many people that understood this point of view, of living everyday life. And that is what encouraged me to do this. And like I told you at the very beginning, this is the greatest thing I've done. I enjoy trying to speak up for the people that don't have a voice right now. And I have to do good out there and represent this district, because I honestly believe I'm the best person for this job.

Barry Cooper, Libertarian

Lived in District: Two months
Education: Law enforcement training
Career: Law enforcement officer for eight years; owned car dealerships, tire shop and a mixed martial arts company; current CEO of nevergetbusted.com
Background: Produced and starred in two videos about how to conceal illegal substances from law enforcement

Contact: 877-642-9333, www.lptexas.org/2008/cooper

Q. What are the three or four most important issues for your constituents?: A. I think the first most important issue is electing a government that works. The approval rating of Congress right now is 9 percent, and that's because the Capitol is not full of citizens running the country, but the Capitol is full of professional politicians and corporate mongrels.
I think the second most important issue is our energy crisis, and I think our third most important issue is education in this country. We lost 50 percent of our kids in high schools last year to drop outs. That's 6,500 kids a day last year dropped out of high school, and our government and the school administrators continue blaming it on the children. And it's not the children; it's the crazy government and our crazy schools. Our kids see the unfairness and the injustice in our schools, and as soon as they get old enough to drop out, they drop out. We rank 42nd in the world right now in literacy. Where the United States used to be tops in academics, we rank 42nd. Being the richest country in this world, that shouldn’t be.
Q. What actions would you take on these if elected?: A. The first action I would take if elected is to encourage the American people to start electing a third party. Quit looking to the Republicans and Democrats to fix our problems. They're the ones who got us into these problems, so I would definitely encourage a third party, for people to vote for a third party.
The second thing I would do if elected, on the energy crisis, would be to start taking money out of oil field profits and use it on alternative energy sources, such as nuclear and even hemp, growing hemp for fuel. There's so many different ways we can supply our country with energy that are much better and less costly than oil. And then the third thing I would do, to help the public school system, is first to get rid of the No Child Left Behind program. Get federal government out of our schools. They're not supposed to be there anyway. And allow out teachers to give our kids an education, not just teach to pass a test. I would do whatever I could to make our public school systems independent again. Right now they're not independent. They're controlled by our federal government.
Q. What do you think are the greatest international threats to the United States?: A. Well this is not what I think; this is what I know. I know the greatest threat to our country regarding national security is the current administrations unwillingness to use diplomacy. Our diplomacy is always supposed to match our military might, and right now it doesn't. The world looks at the United States as the bullies of this world. The rest of the countries hate us. The only ones that are allies with us are because they have to be, because of our military might. So that's the greatest risk to our national security is the way we wield, the way we wield our military might without discussing it first. And then you can put on there: it's not the Russians, it's not Al Qaeda; it's not China; it's not Korea; it's us. We break treaties. We lie to other countries. We don't pay our bills like we're supposed to, and that caused a lot of them to hate us. And if they ever join together, it's going to be a sad day for America.
Q. What steps do you think the government should take to meet the country's future energy needs?: A. Go to alternative fuels such as nuclear, hemp, solar, wind.
Q. Are you in favor of increased domestic drilling?: A. I'm not in favor of any more drilling unless it's absolutely needed to meet the demand until nuclear and wind and solar can take over.
Q. What do you think about the National Animal Identification System?: A. I think its ridiculous for our federal government to be involved in something like that, and our Constitution doesn't give them any powers to be involved in something like that. If there's a privatized sort of program that farmers want to take part in, they should be able to do that by choice, but never be forced to. I don't think we have the problems that the media tries to scare the American people with regarding food. I think it's another ridiculous program, and we need to spend our energy and our resources and our money on more important issues. By the way, that leads me to say this also: farmers need to stop relying on the federal government to be a farmer. It totally needs to be privatized. The federal government should back out of the farming industry completely. Unfortunately, the farmers want the check from the government, so they grow what the government tells them they should. Never do that in this country. That's not a real farmer in my book. If the farmer grows too much corn at the end of the year, he'll know next year not to grow that much corn. If he didn't grow enough, he'll grow more. We do not need the government dictating to us how many bushels of corn a guy can grow, and if they don't comply to the federal government's orders, they don't get paid. That's nuts. That's communism, by the way.
Q. What is your stance on the Trans Texas Corridor, and how do you feel about eminent domain?: A. The government should never have the right to take anybody’s land, period. Our Constitution was founded on the principle that Americans are sovereign, meaning they can own their own property. George Washington and our forefathers came from a type of government that the king owned everything, in England. So we came over and established the United States of America, and the idea was that each individual person could own their own land and become their own king and queen on their own property. So if later, 200 years later, the government has figured out a way to take land from a person, then that's anti-Constitutional and it's wrong.
Q. What do you think about the Trans Texas Corridor?: A. If the government's not taking land to provide a better means of transportation, I don't have a problem with it, as long as we keep the United States the United States, Mexico Mexico and Canada.
Q. Do you feel that the immigration system in the U.S. is in need of reform?: A. I do not support the border wall. I do not support sanctions for people that hire illegal aliens. I do think our immigration system needs reform in the sense that our Mexican brothers and sisters that are already in our country, and have kids, and have a job — they should be allowed to stay. And then we should do a better job at the border regarding allowing Mexicans to come back and forth. I'm totally for our Mexican population, because America is founded on foreigners coming to this land and being able to make a better life for themselves. Our enforcement policies are not working. Look at the war on drugs. We spent $90 billion last year on the war on drugs, enforcement, at the border, all over the world, in the interior of the United States. And we have more drugs than ever before, at a cheaper price, that are more potent. So it's a failed policy. I would like to see our country make a paradigm shift. Instead of making laws to get everyone to mind, let's implement policies other than laws and punishments.
Q. What are your plans for ensuring that Americans have adequate access to health care?: A. I'm 39 years old, and I've never had adequate healthcare. There were times I couldn't go to the doctor because I didn't have the money. I made too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but I made too little to afford insurance. According to our Constitution, the healthcare system should be privatized, and the government needs to stay out of it. Medicaid's not working. Social Security is broke. So all of those programs that our fathers and grandfathers voted for have failed. A doctor needs to graduate college and open up shop. If he's a good doctor, people will continue going to him. If he's a bad doctor, word will get out, and people will stop going to him. Our healthcare system needs to be totally privatized. [Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security] those are all unconstitutional programs. And for a candidate to say that usually means he's slicing his own throat, because of the older population of our land. But the older population of our land has gotten our country into this shape. My demographics are the younger people. The older people have really screwed our country up, and I don't have a lot of respect for the decisions they've made for me and my kids.
Q. And would you be in favor of a plan that would gradually phase out these programs or would you just want to get them out as soon as possible?: A. No, all of our programs need to be gradually faded away, because we have several generations alive right now in the United States that are totally dependent on government, welfare, healthcare. You know, the older people that stick up for healthcare — “Government help us! Government help us!” They're the same ones who gripe about giving welfare checks and food stamps to everybody. Well both of those are the same principle. That's federal government getting involved in areas they should not be involved in. Our welfare system needs to end, but not right away. Our healthcare as we have it now needs to end, but not right way. We need to wean the current generations off of federal government, dependency.
Q. Is there anything else you'd like to talk about further?: A. Let's forget for a moment that the war on drugs is a total failure, and let's pretend that we need to continue the war on drugs. After pretending those two things, our politicians should realize they need to take marijuana off the list of illegal substances. When not one person has ever overdosed on marijuana, but they do alcohol, and we put 830,000 people in jail per year for marijuana. When nearly 50 percent of America has admitted to smoking marijuana, and 18 million Americans admit to smoking pot every day. That's a huge issue for Americans, and the American people are way ahead of the politicians regarding the legalization of marijuana.