Tom Houghton Declares His Candidacy In PA-16-- A Seat Held By Right-Winger Joe Pitts

This afternoon, Democrat Tom Houghton announced his candidacy for the 16th Congressional District in Pennsylvania, challenging incumbent right-wing Republican Joe Pitts, who we're very familiar with from the Aryanna Strader campaign in 2012. Once again, Steve Israel is forcing the DCCC to ignore this very winnable (R+4) southeast Pennsylvania seat that President Obama won in 2008. And Tom has also been an electoral winner in this area. A former Township Supervisor in his community of London Grove and a former State representative in Pennsylvania’s 13th legislative District., he was the first Democrat elected to the London Grove Board of Supervisors and the first Democrat to represent the 13th District.

Currently, Tom is a self-employed attorney. He lives in London Grove Township with Danelle, his wife of twenty years and their two children, Ben, age 10, and Marley, age 14. He believes that it is the job of elected officials to work together to find reasonable, common sense solutions to the problems we face and create opportunities for the people they represent. Tom says that he “wants to go to bed every night knowing that he did all he could to make life better for the American people.”

Building a better life is something Tom knows about. He was raised by a single mother who was a waitress. He told us that the family finances were tight and that there were times when they had to get by with no electricity. Like many of us, Tom was able to work his way through school because society invested in him through strong public schools, federal student loans and a multitude of other programs and opportunities that conservatives are taking out of the equation for current working class kids. Tom told us that the opportunities afforded to him allowed him to build a life where he is able to provide for his family, and he wants to make sure that all American families have that same opportunity to work hard and build a better life. He believes that politics in Washington have become too radical and polarized and that the government shutdown was the last straw. It was then that he decided to run for the 16th Congressional seat.

In his career as an elected official, Tom has always worked in a bipartisan fashion to represent the needs of all of his constituents. Tom sees compromise as being fundamental to effective government. Tom is running as a candidate who can get results for the voters on the 16th District. I asked Tom to write a guest post for today focusing on two hot button issues in Pennsylvania, fracking and gun ownership because I believe that how he proposes dealing with these two very difficult issues, shows what kind of a congressman he will be when he beats Pitts. You can read more about him here on his campaign website. This is what he had to say in response to our questions about 2 issues many Pennsylvania Democrats in red-leaning areas prefer to avoid.

Fracking And Guns
-by Tom Houghton

Just like our nation, Pennsylvania faces a lot of important issues. As a former Township Supervisor and State Representative, and now as a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives, I am in a unique position to see how these issues affect people, communities and government at many levels.

As an elected official, I have always worked diligently to represent the priorities of all of those whom I represent. In my experience, people want elected officials who support common sense good government. They want their elected representatives to work together to write and pass laws that make sense and that make their lives better. At the heart of most successful legislation is compromise.

Unfortunately, compromise has become synonymous with treason in some circles. Those elected officials who feel this way are doing a grave disservice to their constituents, even the constituents who agree with them. The concept of compromising, where appropriate, is what makes our representative democracy work. As we have seen, if we give up on this fundamental principle of compromise the result is gridlock, government shutdowns and the threat of economic collapse. I firmly believe that this is not what the American people want.

Two issues that are of concern to voters everywhere, and perhaps particularly to voters in the 16th District, are responsible gun ownership and the growth of the natural gas industry via the relatively new technology known as hydraulic fracturing or fracking.

I would like to address those issues today. Although they may seem unrelated, they both boil down to the same core principles-- responsibility and compromise.

In Pennsylvania, you can barely pick up a newspaper or watch a newscast without hearing about natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale formation. Much of this geological feature lies deep under Pennsylvania. The Marcellus Shale contains some of the largest natural gas reserves in the world.

Until fairly recently, these gas reserves lay too deep beneath the surface of the earth to extract in a way that was economical. The advent of the technology known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has changed that. Fracking has caused a boom in natural gas in Pennsylvania, just as it has in many places throughout the country with similar geologic formations. If handled responsibly, fracking could represent tremendous economic opportunity for our people, greater energy independence for our nation and the bridge to the clean energy future we all want.

In Pennsylvania, the natural gas boom has brought economic growth and lower energy prices, as well as a great deal of controversy over an environmentally responsible approach to this new industry. As a State Representative, I supported legislation that addressed these issues by putting in place environmental safeguards and enacting an appropriate severance tax on the value of the natural gas extracted in Pennsylvania. The severance tax I supported would have allowed Pennsylvania to maximize the economic opportunity the growth of the natural gas industry represented.

This legislation was the result of compromise on these important issues. I was proud to support legislation that was responsible and protected our land, air and water while at the same time embracing the economic opportunities represented by the proliferation of natural gas drilling in Pennsylvania. I knew that this legislation represented the priorities of my community and the people I represented, and that it was what was best for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Unfortunately, that legislation failed. In the time since, Pennsylvania adopted the controversial Act 13. This law failed to properly address any of the issues associated with fracking. Act 13 does not contain appropriate environmental safeguards at the state level, and even went so far as to remove local control over drilling activity through zoning. Thankfully, this provision of the law was recently struck down by Pennsylvania courts. In addition, Act 13 did not impose a severance tax, opting instead for an “impact fee,” which is only a fraction of the severance tax imposed by every other natural gas producing state in the country.

I have always been an environmentalist. I first became involved in politics to protect and preserve my township’s agricultural zone. When I ran for State Representative, I was the number one state-wide endorsement of the PA League of Conservation Voters. As an elected official, I have consistently and unfailingly voted to protect and conserve our environment.

I recognize the enormous financial opportunity that the gas boom represents, not just in Pennsylvania, but throughout the nation. I recognize that we must seize this opportunity, while also ensuring that we have water that is safe to drink, air that is safe to breathe and an overall clean and healthy environment. This must be our number one priority.

I support allowing natural gas drilling to continue, but doing so in a way that protects our environment and maximizes the economic impact for Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania taxpayers. Pennsylvania’s current approach to the gas industry is a lopsided approach that favors drillers at the expense of taxpayers, the economy and the environment.

First, we must establish environmental regulations, and a regulatory apparatus that ensures best practices for natural gas drilling and minimizes the risk to the environment as much as possible. In addition, I support enacting a real severance tax, like the severance taxes in other gas producing states. The lack of a severance tax on the industry has cost Pennsylvania taxpayers tens of millions of dollars to date, according to estimates by the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center.

In a state where we have seen massive cuts to public education, human services, economic development programs and, remarkably, environmental regulation and protection, it is unacceptable to simply walk away from this huge stream of revenue due to the pressure of gas industry lobbyists.

A real severance tax would not substantially limit the growth of the natural gas industry. It would provide resources that Pennsylvania desperately needs to invest in creating greater opportunities for our families, lessening the burden on taxpayers and strengthening environmental regulation needed to deal with the explosion in the gas industry itself.

I believe that all of those affected by fracking, whether in Pennsylvania or elsewhere, can agree that a common sense approach to gas drilling, an approach that protects the environment, creates jobs, embraces economic opportunities and still allows the gas industry to flourish and contribute to U.S. energy independence, is the best approach to serve everyone.

This is the approach I supported as a State Representative, and it is the approach that I still support today. Fracking isn’t going away anytime soon, and it is an important issue that we must address because it will have an impact on everyone in one way or another. If we want to deal with this issue responsibly, we must work together and compromise to find an approach that benefits everyone.

Like fracking, gun violence is an issue that has been in the news a lot recently. Unfortunately, it has been in the news far too much. Recent tragedies throughout our country have made gun safety and responsible gun ownership issues of imminent importance. Every week, sometimes every day, it seems like we see another shooting at a school, or a mall or some other public place splashed across the headlines. I share in the frustration that everyone shares, and I know that something must be done to address these senseless tragedies before another innocent life is lost.

As these issues have taken center stage in our public discourse, they have also opened up deep divides in our culture. However, it doesn’t need to be that way. Advocates on both sides of the issue want what is best for our communities. Although they come from drastically different points of view, I think there is a lot of common ground on which we can agree, and that common ground forms the foundation for gun laws which will make us all safer and more secure.

Let me start by saying that I support the Second Amendment. I believe that the Constitution of the United States guarantees Americans the right to own guns. This is not a new position for me. I have long been an advocate for protecting Second Amendment rights. As a State Representative, I received a score of B from the NRA for my positions on legislation pertaining to gun ownership.

For many citizens throughout the country, being a sportsman is a way of life. For others, gun ownership represents safety and security, and for others, gun collecting is a hobby that brings them a lot of pleasure and pride. I support those individuals, and I stand behind their right to own firearms.

Compromise is fundamental to addressing the issue of responsible gun ownership. Our inability to compromise on this issue not only threatens our safety, it imperils our second amendment right to own guns. Each day that we fail to address the problems with our existing laws is another day where dangerous individuals, those whom we have already agreed have no business owning guns, have the opportunity to take innocent lives. These are lives that could be saved, and it is inexcusable that we do not act to do so. On the other side of the argument, gridlock on this issue has lead many gun control advocates to call for an outright ban on guns. They adhere to the argument that if we can’t own guns responsibly, we shouldn’t own guns at all. Neither of these alternatives is acceptable in my view, and it is not acceptable to the majority of Americans who rightfully expect their elected officials to work together and compromise on important issues like responsible gun ownership.

I agree with groups like Americans for Responsible Solutions, who support reasonable and responsible gun laws, while standing behind the right to own guns. ARS has pointed out many of the flaws in our existing background check system. These problems significantly damage the ability of this law which is in place to make us all safer.

Federal law already requires licensed gun retailers to perform background checks on those seeking to purchase a firearm via the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. The purpose of the NICS is to prevent dangerous individuals, from convicted criminals to those with serious mental illness, from purchasing firearms. This program has successfully prevented over 1.7 million persons who are prohibited from owning a firearm, from purchasing a gun. I support our existing background check requirement. However, there are problems with the law, and the NICS itself, that seriously impede its efficacy.

While licensed retailers must perform background checks, private sellers are exempt from the background check requirement. This provision of the law, known as the “gun show loophole” provides relatively easy access to guns for those whom we have already agreed should be prohibited from owning a firearm. In order for our background check system to be an effective means for protecting our safety, it must be universal.

The “gun show loophole” is not the only problem with our background check system. The NICS is missing millions of pertinent records that should be in the system to identify prohibited gun purchasers. The gaps in the NICS are the result of insufficient reporting by state and federal agencies. This situation must be remedied and the records in the NICS must be up to date and complete to make sure that no dangerous individuals are allowed to legally purchase guns because they have simply fallen through the cracks.

In addition to making the NICS more effective, we must address the issue of gun trafficking by empowering law enforcement to deal with those who are facilitating the illegal traffic in guns. Currently, a very small percentage of licensed gun dealers are responsible for the majority of guns recovered in criminal investigations. These offenders must be stopped, and we must give law enforcement the tools they need to stop them. At the same time, we must stiffen penalties for these gun traffickers if we want laws against gun trafficking to have a real impact on the illegal gun trade.

After addressing the issue of effectively keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals, we must address the issue of what kinds of firearms and ammunition clips are responsible and reasonable for people to own.

I support a ban on assault weapons, as well as a ban on high capacity magazines. The majority of American gun owners own guns for the purposes of sport shooting, hunting and personal defense. Assault weapons and high capacity magazines are not necessary, nor particularly well suited to any of these activities.

On the other hand, assault weapons are involved in up to seven percent of homicides, as the Harvard University institute of Politics points out. The shooters in mass shootings, such as James Holmes in Aurora, have used assault weapons to devastating effect. These weapons allow criminals, like Holmes, to do significantly more damage in a limited amount of time than that which would have been possible without assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Even former Vice president Dick Cheney has come out in support of limiting high capacity magazines.

Banning these “weapons of mass destruction” will keep our families and communities safe. In addition, this will allow police officers to do their job-- the job of protecting us, more safely. Again, According to the Harvard University Institute of Politics, since the expiration of the assault Weapons Ban in 2004, there has been a substantial increase in police deaths as a result of gunshot wounds.

I know that many will criticize me on the issue of limiting access to assault weapons and high capacity magazines, or banning them altogether. I do not support these measures because I want to abridge the rights of American citizens. I support these fixes because I believe in keeping our communities, our families and especially our children safe, while respecting our constitutionally protected right to own guns.

As an advocate for common sense responsible gun ownership legislation, I do not seek to limit our second amendment rights but to protect them. I believe that only by taking steps to ensure responsible gun ownership, we can preserve the right to own guns in the long run.

On both of these issues-- responsible gun ownership and a thoughtful approach to the harvesting of our natural resources-- I believe that the majority of Americans fundamentally agree. It is time for those voices, the voices of reason, compassion and compromise, to prevail. If I am elected to serve the residents of the 16th Congressional District, I promise to be a voice for reasonable, responsible solutions to the contentious issues we all face together.