For those Americans who are currently on these programs, and those who will be eligible within the next decade, these programs were a promise to them - and I mean to keep that promise.

To keep that promise, we need to immediately cut costs by:

> Finding and eliminating as much fraud as possible

> Making sure that health care providers are not ordering unnecessary diagnostics

> Continued development of a cloud-based records system to cut costs on an administrative level

> Tort reform to cut frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits

For long-term debt reduction, I favor a balanced approach where we evaluate the total amount of reduction to completely eliminate the deficit, plus pay back a modest half a trillion a year in debt.

That is done by cutting budgets across the board in a manner to keep their proportion (% size) at the same level in the new budget.

This is my starting point; I then propose shifting funds from foreign aid programs and agencies like the GSA to spending on education and infrastructural revitalization and defense.

First, we must target job-spurring investments to create a stable, more predictable environment that is ripe for investment.

We can do this by establishing a National Infrastructure Bank to attract private investment toward critical infrastructure projects and by increasing stability and furthering an environment that attracts long-term investments in clean and renewable energy, technology, and sector-specific training.

Second, we must create responsible ways in which to pay for those investments by closing corporate loopholes and eliminating wasteful defense spending.

Third, we must reform the budget process to identify and eliminate waste and duplication. I am proud to have co-sponsored legislation and supported several initiatives thus far in Congress to do just that.

Furthermore, as more and more members of the Baby Boomer generation reach the age of retirement, it is essential that we maintain strong Medicare and Social Security systems that will be able to meet this expanding need.

Plans that aim to drastically restructure or decrease funding for Medicare and Social Security are not appropriate for us to adopt when we are on the threshold of a large increase in dependence on those services.

Like most tough issues, there is no single "magic bullet" when it comes to reducing the deficit. Instead, we must employ a series of solutions that put us on the path to balancing our budget and reducing the burden placed on future generations.

While I would never suggest we cut benefits for our existing seniors, I believe that both existing seniors and future seniors should have options when it comes to Medicare and Social Security. Some of these options may very well offer better, more targeted services to our seniors, while at the same time lowering the overall costs to the federal government.

In terms of spending, in general I believe that every department and every program needs to be audited and reviewed to ensure that the goals and missions are in line with what was originally intended. Many of these programs were started with good intentions; however, over time they morphed and bloated into something beyond what was originally thought possible.

Finally, in terms of revenue enhancements, I believe the best way to increase revenues for the federal government is to get our economy back on track. A growing economy means more jobs, less people taking benefits from the system, and more people paying into the system. It’s the win – win – win scenario. Oftentimes, when it comes to deficit reduction, we’re faced with the false choices of fiscal austerity or higher tax rates. The reality is a streamlined tax-code, reduced regulations, and targeted spending cuts would bring confidence to our economy, spur growth, and improve the financial stability of the entire nation.

At the heart of the case that sparked this controversy is the freedom of a religious organization to choose what its plan covers. As an individual attending or being employed by such an organization, I have the choice of agreeing to work for them, given their views on birth control coverage, or not.

Employees or students of religiously affiliated institution are expected to abide by and to conform to certain moral standards. It is a known tenet of the Catholic faith that contraceptives are subverting the possibility of conception during intimacy, which they view should only be between married couples.

Although I am a Catholic, I do not agree with their thoughts on intimacy and contraception. The fact the government disagrees and intervened violates a founding principle of separation between church and state.

We do have choices where to work or go to school. Stating that insurers will have to supply this coverage does not in any way mean they will not increase the nominal premium rate of religious organizations to offset costs.

It is not the role of the church or federal and state governments to determine what kind of healthcare a woman will receive.

As of Aug. 1, 2012, most health insurance plans are required to ensure that women have access to a full range of preventive health services, including forms of contraception, without additional co-pays or deductibles.

In an adjustment to the new rule, religiously-affiliated non-profit employers such as schools, charities, universities, and hospitals are able to provide their workers with plans that exclude full coverage.

However, insurance companies that provide the plans will have to offer those workers the opportunity to obtain additional contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional charge.

Churches and houses of worship remain exempt from these requirements. This includes institutions whose primary purpose is to inculcate religious values and that primarily employ and serve people sharing the organization's religious tenets.

Furthermore, this rule will not affect existing conscience protection laws for health care providers. No doctor will be required to prescribe contraception, and no individual will be forced to use contraception.

In addition, this rule maintains the strict prohibition on federal funding for abortions.

One of the largest contributors to rising healthcare costs in this country is the separation that exists between employees (patients) and the true cost of their own healthcare. The single largest contributing factor masking these costs is employers providing health insurance for their employees, and the lack of competitive health insurance options generally available to employees through their employer.

If the federal government no longer offered massive tax incentives for employers to offer healthcare, there would be no discussion about employers being forced to pay for particular services. The added benefit to the healthcare system, as a whole, would be that employees would be more aware of the true costs of healthcare, would seek out insurance policies that only provided the services they want, and the overall costs of insurance (and healthcare) would decline.

Getting back to the original question, however, I strongly support the conscience provision of the ACA because I don’t believe any employer (or employee for that matter) should be forced to purchase any product or service – let alone those to which they morally object.

The model would insure a basic, well-defined coverage for all US citizens provided by the state, and a private, third-party insurer that supplements the basic coverage for a fee or a benefits package through an employer.

This decision ensures that we can build on the progress already underway to fix our broken health care system, and that American families and small businesses currently benefiting from the law can continue to do so.

Because of the provisions of the ACA, Americans are already seeing lower costs and better coverage, including men and women with pre-existing conditions who previously couldn't get quality, affordable healthcare coverage; young adults who wouldn't have coverage without being able to stay on their parents’ plans, and seniors who are facing rising prescription drug prices.

I do not believe that quality health care should be a privilege enjoyed only by those who can afford it, and the provisions of this groundbreaking law ensure that that will no longer be the case.

I agree that legislators in Congress have an obligation to keep job creation and economic growth as their priority, and I feel strongly that a repeal of the ACA will only stunt our progress, not further it.

In particular, I was proud to co-sponsor a bill to repeal the onerous portion of the law requiring 1099 reporting by companies for all goods and services exceeding $600 from a single payee, which was signed into law by the president.

There is still work to be done to address small business concerns and help senior citizens understand how this law can work for them, and I look forward to working with my colleagues - Democrat and Republican - to fix any outstanding issues.

Instead of focusing on the one healthcare issue that most needed attention – rising healthcare costs - Obamacare instead institutionalized existing healthcare models and created new barriers to innovation.

There are, however, provisions of the ACA that are popular and/or necessary, and I believe we should work to make sure that they are included in any future reforms. Among these provisions is coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions, allowing employees to keep their existing plans when switching employers, and allowing young adults to stay on their parent’s plans.

For those who entered the US illegally and with no documentation, I favor sending them back home to start the legal process.

I do feel for children brought here by their parents and who have no ties to their native countries. I would like to have a serious discussion on how to make the process as easy as possible so that they can come back as full legal immigrants. But to grant amnesty to the millions who came here illegally is a slap in the face to those who came here legally.

Additionally, I do believe in discretion given to those who entered legally with one of the many different types of visas. Many times, due to cost, people allow the visa to lapse, which is why I favor streamlining the naturalization process to ensure all individuals here legally and adding value to our society have the opportunity to become US citizens.

An estimated 40 million residents of the United States were born outside our borders – nearly 13 percent of the U.S. population – and approximately 16 million are naturalized citizens.

According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), approximately 10 million individuals are residing in the US without legal authorization. Many of these undocumented immigrants work, pay taxes, and contribute to the communities in which they have made their homes, while others were brought into the country unknowingly by parents wanting a better life for their children.

I believe it is important for all individuals and families entering the US to follow the legal procedures for doing so; however, I also believe it is important to reform our immigration process so that families have an opportunity to start a new life and enter our country in a legal and efficient manner that is thoroughly documented and regulated by immigration authorities.

Thus, I believe that much stands to be gained by providing undocumented individuals with a path to legal citizenship or permanent resident status – particularly for those who have spent most of their childhood in the United States and are pursuing higher education or military service – and am supportive of the change in DHS’s deportation policy.

For those illegals whose only crime committed was illegally entering or staying in our country, I believe we need to develop a permanent resident status that does not lead to citizenship or benefits, but can lead to legal work, residency, and the joys of paying taxes.

We must remember that it is already illegal to own any firearm that is fully automatic. The firearms used in Colorado were already illegal because they were converted from semi- to fully automatics in reports I have seen.

I do support background checks that search for mental illnesses to own firearms; additionally, I am open to discuss clip ammunition quantity to be sold to the general public.

But to discuss specific assault rifle style bans I think to be a slippery slope. After all, when someone is hell bent on causing destruction, they will find a way. Let us not forget the homemade bomb back at his apartment which, if it had gone off, would have killed and injured many more.

The takeaway I have is to learn to look for signs and patterns of behavior that indicate a person to be unstable and to intervene before tragedies occur. In this case, the accused, James Holmes, was being evaluated by a psychiatrist for mental issues and in my opinion, someone dropped the ball.

In my year and a half in Congress, throughout which I witnessed a colleague, Gabrielle Giffords, battle life-threatening wounds, I voted against the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act, which would force states to recognize "concealed carry" licenses from other states.

I also opposed the repeal of a current requirement that a purchaser of 10 or more weapons report the purchase to the Justice Department. This passed overwhelmingly, too.

Further, I have co-sponsored the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, which would prohibit the trade and manufacture of dangerous, high-capacity ammunition like that used in the horrifying attacks in both Tucson, Arizona and Aurora, Colorado, in addition to the Fire Sale Loophole Closing Act, which prevents anyone whose firearms license has been revoked or denied from transferring business inventory firearms into a personal collection or to an employee.

The regulations currently in place in Massachusetts, which include a ban on assault weapons, serve as an example of what could be accomplished on the national level. Along with our strict gun control laws, we have the lowest rate of gun-related deaths per capita in the United States.

I do not believe that that is a mere coincidence, and I will continue my fight to ensure that similar laws are passed in Congress.

If an individual or group wishes to harm or kill others, they will find a way to do so. The easiest path to accomplish this grotesque goal might today be a firearm, while tomorrow it could be an improvised explosive device, poison, or a car.

Over the millions of years our small planet has existed, scientists have explained without a shadow of doubt that we have experienced ice ages and warming trends. A single volcano eruption places more ash, soot, and chemical particles into our atmosphere in a single moment then all the cars on the planet produce in a year.

By no means do I think that we are helping the situation, but the pollution we produce is more relevant at localized and regional levels. For example, increased incidents of cancer rates on Cape Cod because of water contamination, or nitrate issues because of wastewater management issues on the Cape or in towns like Wareham.

Acid rain kills our fishing industry because of acidification. Acidification also limits our enjoyment and recreation of our district's greatest resources: our ocean and fresh water ponds, which are more of my concern.

There are a few things that we can't change; the weather is one of them. But being able to enjoy our beaches, fish in our oceans, and have good air quality are very important to me.

Because of that, I do support increases in fuel efficiency for vehicles, renewable energies, and ensuring our coal plants meet high air quality standards. But we must have a balance; otherwise, we will drag our recession along much further than needed.

Threats to our local environment pose direct risks to our economy.

I strongly believe Congress must pass a robust energy bill that increases the use of clean, renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind, in order to create hundreds of clean energy jobs throughout Massachusetts, reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and protect our coastlines from environmental disasters.

I am supportive of legislative initiatives that will ensure both government and private industry preparedness.

While serving in the Massachusetts Legislature, I wrote and passed safe water legislation that continues to protect our state’s fragile lakes, streams, and wetlands from chemical pollution. I remain committed to protecting the diverse ecosystems of the Ninth Congressional District with the same passion.

While in Congress, I have held strong against repeated attacks on environmental protections that would have a direct impact on water and food quality and severe health implications.

As a member of the Congressional Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition, the House Renewable Energy and Efficiency Caucus, I have been an outspoken proponent of investments in renewable energy infrastructure and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

However, my support for these measures has little, if anything, to do with the aforementioned facts. My support for environmental responsibility is based on my years of Scouting and my belief that we should strive to leave the Earth in a better condition than the way we found it.

Two measures that would help reduce US-based carbon emissions from energy production, lower overall energy costs, and create jobs would be to:

1. Reform the permitting process for both existing and proposed nuclear power plants to allow utilities to develop new power generating facilities safely.

2. Remove the de facto moratorium for on- and off-shore drilling, which would lower the price of natural gas and further encourage its use in electricity production, which produces 45% less carbon emissions than coal.

The loss of civilian life at the hands of Assad’s regime is appalling; however, I cannot justify risking American lives for an internal matter.

Furthermore, we are now seeing a polarization on the United Nations Security Council that clearly demonstrates how we are entering into a new age in global power dynamics.

I have been proud to support alternative means of applying political pressure on the Assad regime to lessen its persecution of the opposition movement, including amending legislation that would impose sanctions on Iranian government officials who commit serious human rights abuses and on individuals who knowingly participate in the transfer of technologies and weapons used to violate the human rights of their people to include the government of Syria.

I do not believe the United States should engage in nation building or get involved in foreign civil wars; however, I do believe we have a moral obligation to intervene when unarmed civilians are being slaughtered.

I believe the world‘s dictators need to know, understand, and fear that the United States will intervene when they murder their citizens – especially those who are peacefully protesting in search of democracy. The realistic threat of US intervention would, in and of itself, become the greatest deterrent to violence for these regimes.

In regards to Syria specifically, the use of diplomatic policies, sanctions, and protests has not reduced the bloodshed. I believe the time has come where the US and its allies need to demonstrate to dictator Bashar Assad and his outside supporters that we are serious about protecting the lives of innocent civilians – with military force, if necessary.

People want to know their interests are being represented by those who govern them. Palestinians should compromise on self-rule, which I believe to be unrealistic, and join other elected officials in the Knesset, the legislative branch of the Israel government.

I believe this will create a common cause between neighbors and legitimize a one-government rule in the West Bank.

However, the settlement freeze led to increased unemployment among Palestinians – further representing the delicate symbiotic relationship between them and the Israelis.

While I believe that the settlements do pose an obstacle to the multifaceted conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis, I recognize that this is also an issue of livelihood and displacement.

Thus, it is vital to both the peace process and Israeli governance that decisions over political and administrative control of Jerusalem and the settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights be ruled through an internal and unbiased judicial process.

It is imperative that all peaceful parties participate in the negotiations, and equally important that the United States and our global partners play only an advisory role in order to achieve a lasting peace.

We have witnessed unprecedented changes in the Middle East since the dawn of the Arab Spring in early 2011. With the wave of democratization and regime change, Israel has remained a constant source of stability in the region.

I have repeatedly affirmed my commitment to the nation of Israel and my support for bilateral discussions leading to a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.