Congresswoman Tauscher's responses to questions submitted by participants at the Mt. Diablo Peace and Justice Forum

June 10, 2006 Forum w/ Rep. Tauscher

Answers to Questions Submitted by the Audience

Weapons/Non-Proliferation

Why did you vote against the Tierney/Holt amendment to cut funds for missile defense?

I believe that the United States must ensure its safety from a ballistic missile attack with an effective missile defense system. Therefore, I did not support the Tierney/Holt Amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 which would have cut nearly half of the Missile Defense Agency’s budget.  While I believe that our national missile defense program should be limited unlike the vast system proposed by the President, I do not think that a drastic cut in funding would allow this program to guard us against our newest military threats. These threats include nations of concern, and international terrorists with little to lose. Despite setbacks in the early stages of development, I believe we have a duty to fund a program that has the potential to protect the United States against a very real threat.  

What is the basis behind your position on the Reliable Replacement Warhead Program?

The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program (RRW) is intended to ensure the long-term reliability of the nation’s nuclear arsenal. The focus of the RRW program is to extend the life of those military capabilities provided by existing warheads, not develop warheads for new or different military missions. It is my hope that by ensuring the long-term reliability of our nuclear arsenal we will be able to decrease our national stockpile and stop the production of new nuclear weapons.   

What measures are being taken by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to ensure proper inspection of port cargo?

Following 9/11, funding for port security has been increased by over 700% from $259 million in 2001 to over $1.6 billion in 2005. This increase in funding allowed for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collaborate with the Coast Guard, Terminal Operators, and the Port Authority in creating and implementing a multi-layered defense strategy to increase the safety and security of our nation’s ports.  This strategy includes intelligence based screening of 100% of cargo before it enters U.S. ports. The CBP requires that manifest information be provided 24 hours prior to the sea container being loaded onto the vessel in the foreign port in order to assess cargo risk. Based on this intelligence, all high risk cargo is inspected and tested at foreign ports through the Container Security Initiative (CSI).  Currently 43 foreign ports participate in CSI and by the end of 2006 50 ports will be involved, covering 90% of transpacific maritime containerized cargo shipped to the U.S. Additionally, CBP created a public-private and international partnership with nearly 5,800 businesses (over 10,000 have applied) including most of the largest U.S. importers -- the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). C-TPAT, CBP and partner companies are working together to improve baseline security standards for supply chain and container security.  Finally, the CBP is currently utilizes large-scale X-ray and gamma ray machines and radiation detection devices to screen high risk cargo. Presently, CBP operates over 680 radiation portal monitors at our nation’s ports (including 181 radiation portal monitors at seaports), utilizes over 170 large scale non-intrusive inspection devices to examine cargo, and has issued 12,400 hand-held radiation detection devices.

Although the CBP has taken massive steps toward increasing the security of our nation’s ports, I believe that there is still much more work which needs to be done in this area.  The Fiscal Year 2007 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act appropriated $4 billion for port, cargo and container security which requires 100% screening of all cargo, and establishes stricter security standards for all containers.  I supported this legislation when it passed the House of Representatives on June 6, 2006, and it is currently awaiting consideration by the Senate.  Be assured that I will support increased security for our nation’s ports as the Fiscal Year 2007 appropriations process continues.

I understand they are testing underground bombs at the weapons station near Las Vegas, and even some above-ground testing.  Are we assured those are not nuclear?  What is the status of the waste disposal of nuclear material near Las Vegas? 

According to the Department of Defense, Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Agency, there has not been a bomb test at the Las Vegas Weapons testing site since 1992.  Additionally, the United States has not tested nuclear weapons since 1992, when President Clinton signed a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing.

Despite presidential and congressional approval for the licensing process to go forward, the Department of Energy has not announced a timetable for submitting a license application for its nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.  The Bush Administration’s proposed nuclear waste legislation (S. 2589, H.R. 5360) is intended to remove some of the obstacles to opening Yucca Mountain and to remove the lack of permanent waste disposal as an obstacle to licensing new nuclear power plants.  However, it is uncertain whether the Republican leadership will bring this legislation to the House Floor during the remaining months of the 109^th Congress.

Why are we still using radioactive ammunition, called misleadingly, “depleted uranium”? Can it be made illegal to use?

According to the Department of Defense (DoD), all depleted uranium munitions have undergone extensive developmental testing and evaluation.  In these studies the DoD evaluated alternative metal alloys while considering operational requirements and the medical and or environmental impacts of these substitutes.  The DoD has found that depleted uranium offers superior performance to all other alloys in combat operations. 

I believe that if the DoD continues to use depleted uranium munitions it is essential that the environmental and medical consequences of exposure to this alloy be fully investigated.  Therefore, I am a cosponsor of the Depleted Uranium Munitions Study Act which requires the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention to study and report to Congress on the effects of depleted uranium exposure on veterans and their children.  Additionally, this legislation would require the Environmental Protection Agency to study all the environmental effects of depleted uranium production and use.  This legislation was included as an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007, which passed the House of Representatives on June 20^th and is currently awaiting consideration in the Senate.  If this study finds that depleted uranium is toxic to our soldiers, their children, or the environment, I will urge to DoD to stop its use immediately. 

Do you think the U.S. should support a stronger, legally-binding agreement with explicit arms transfer guidelines and what will you do to help accomplish this?  Will you cosponsor Congressman Royce’s bill to fund programs to aid poor nations in destroying stockpiles of these weapons left over from wars before they reach the black market?

This month, the United Nations will meet to discuss limiting the flow of small arms and light weapons (SALW) to conflict zones. I recently joined a group of my colleagues in sending a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asking her to push for the UN’s adoption of strict arms transfer guidelines that mirror those followed by the United States.  Lax regulation of arms transfers allows for the influx of SALW to some of the world’s most unstable regions, including Iraq and the Darfur region of Sudan.  Reaching an international consensus on the regulation of arms transfers will bring into line the existing, and sometimes conflicting, guidelines followed by individual countries and regional organizations, and I believe that developing guidelines which will keep small arms and light weapons out of the hands of terrorists and those responsible for human rights violations should be a priority at the UN summit this summer.

I support Congressman Ed Royce’s bill, H.R. 5333, the Shoulder-Fired Missile Threat Reduction Act of 2006.  This bill authorizes the Secretary of State to implement a program to secure, remove, or eliminate stockpiles of surface-to-air missiles as well as other conventional weapons that pose a proliferation, security, or humanitarian threat.  H.R. 5333 also directs the President to impose specified foreign and military assistance sanctions on governments that knowingly transfer these arms to terrorist organizations or governments which have repeatedly supported acts of international terrorism.  The House Committee on International Relations is currently reviewing this legislation, and it is my hope that the Republican leadership will bring it to the House Floor for a vote. 

Iraq

As the post-war insurgency continues to intensify, how do you define the appropriate role for the U.S. given the current situation?

Currently, the United States is embroiled in three different missions: containing a civil war, fighting foreign terrorists, and nation-building. Now that a legitimate government is in place it is imperative that the Iraqi government take increased responsibility for its own domestic security concerns, and U.S. troops concentrate on attacking Al Qaeda and foreign jihadists. It is of the utmost importance that the Administration uses this opportunity to establish clear benchmarks for success and identify clear roles and responsibilities for U.S. troops in Iraq with the new Iraqi government and develop a plan that will bring American troops home as soon as possible. The U.S. must accelerate the creation of Provincial Reconstruction Teams throughout Iraq to transition a number of core economic and security functions to the Iraqi people. Because the U.S. will have a reduced role in Iraq, we should be able to significantly draw down the number of U.S. troops there by as much as two thirds within the next year.

Why do you believe a secular unity government is what is needed in Iraq?

I believe that the new Iraqi government has a responsibility to serve all Iraqis, include minority parties and treat all with fairness and respect.  Extending full participation and civil liberties to the Sunnis, Kurds, and all minorities in Iraq will require bridging the religious boundaries which currently divide Iraqi citizens.  A serious effort by the new Iraqi government to address minority concerns of religious domination by the Sunni majority will take an active commitment to secular unity by the Iraqi government.  Only by maintaining a commitment to religious tolerance, will the government be able to calm the sectarian violence raging in Iraq.

Do you believe Bush’s motives behind invading Iraq had nothing to do with American oil interests; more specifically, Vice President Cheney’s affiliation with Halliburton?

While I don’t know what the President’s personal motivations were for wanting to invade Iraq, I am deeply concerned about the faulty intelligence used to justify the invasion. I am a co-sponsor of two bills which would have the House of Representatives investigate the Bush Administration’s role in exaggerating intelligence. H.Res 505 requires the President and the Secretary of State to transfer all documents, e-mails, and communications relating to the so-called White House Iraq Group to the House of Representatives. H.Res. 363 would have the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Attorney General provide the House with all the documents in their respective agencies possession which relate to the disclosure of the identity and employment of Valerie Plame. I have long supported an investigation into the circumstances leading to the war in Iraq, and I believe that a full investigation is necessary to restore credibility to our foreign policy. Be assured, that I will continue to push for a full examination of the facts to determine any wrong doing; ensure that U.S. intelligence agencies are capable of identifying future threats; and give the American people the answers they deserve. 

I also believe that it was inappropriate for the Bush administration to award no bid contracts for large reconstruction projects to the Halliburton Corporation when there were many highly capable American companies that deserved an opportunity to compete. Vice President Cheney’s close relationship with this company and reports of massive fraud, waste, and abuse involving Halliburton’s contracts in Iraq deeply concern me. I strongly supported a full Congressional investigation by the Government Reform Committee.  The Committee has been holding hearings into the awarding of contracts to Halliburton since 2004 and I look foreword to reviewing the Committee’s findings once this investigation is completed.  I will continue to urge my colleagues in Congress to demand greater accountability and better management of U.S. funds appropriated for the reconstruction of Iraq. 

Is there really any hope for Iraq to avoid deteriorating into civil war? Do you feel as though a liberal democracy is feasible in such an instable region? Doesn’t the U.S. have a moral obligation to see that a workable system is installed?

I believe that Iraq is already engaged in a significant civil conflict and I do not believe that the United States can continue to take responsibility for containing the sectarian violence in Iraq.  Having recently returned from my third trip to Iraq since the war began, it is clear to me that America is simultaneously a stabilizing and a destabilizing force in Iraq.  In order to have any chance of containing the civil war, it is essential that the Iraq government prove its legitimacy by providing for the political, security, and economic needs of Iraq’s citizenry.  I believe it is time for the United States to focus our efforts on defeating the Jihadist threat in Iraq.  

Additional support to the Iraqi government must be provided by the Iraqis themselves and the international community. Iraq’s neighbors in the Middle East, the international community, and experts from relevant non-governmental organizations must assist Iraq with building functioning government institutions; reinstate when possible the bureaucratic class in Iraq; and help Iraq’s new permanent government fight corruption.   Sustaining a liberal democracy in Iraq will be a long and arduous task, and an important step the United States must take to make this happen is to convene regional conference that would establish what each of Iraq’s neighbors is willing to contribute to its success. 

Why don’t you support the Woolsey Amendment Withdrawal Plan for Iraq? What have you done to support withdrawal from Iraq, and to what measure would you support it?

As you know, the Woolsey Amendment directs the President to create and implement a plan for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.  While I would like to bring our troops home as soon as possible, I cannot in good conscience support withdrawing U.S. troops before the Iraqi security forces are prepared to take on greater responsibility.  Additionally, now that there is a legitimate government in place in Iraq I believe that it is essential that the President enter into an agreement with the Iraqi government which defines each countries roles and responsibilities. 

Recently I led a diverse group of my colleagues in the House of Representatives in sending a letter to the President outlining the critical guidelines that are essential for stabilizing Iraq and returning American troops to their original mission in the War on Terror.  First, it is necessary to develop a strategy for success in Iraq which includes plans for quicker and more effective training of Iraqi army and police forces, and a plan for a U.S. military withdrawal once Iraqi security forces are able to provide security on a self-sustaining basis. I believe that the United States military presence in Iraq should decrease significantly in the next twelve months as we turn over the responsibility for defending Iraq to the Iraqi people.  This will allow American troops to focus their efforts on isolating and defeating foreign terrorists and foreign jihadists currently operating in Iraq. 

Are you willing to cut off funds to force Bush to exit Iraq and not attack Iran?

I do not support cutting off funding for Iraq.  Over 160,000 of our brave American troops are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, to cut off the funding that helps provide them with lifesaving equipment they need would be nothing short of irresponsible.  Furthermore, cutting funding for Iraq would only free up funds for a possible military action against Iran.

 Why did you vote for the Iraq war?  In hindsight, do you think it was the right thing to do?

I voted for the Iraq resolution, House Joint Resolution 114, in October of 2002 because the Bush administration presented evidence of weapons of mass destruction and intelligence that they said proved Iraq was an imminent threat to the security United States. However, the authorization was not without conditions.  Specifically, Congress voted to authorize the use of force only if all diplomatic means had been exhausted and the use of force had been sanctioned by the international community.  However, the President decided to rush to war without pursuing either of these aims.  This decision that cost countless American lives weakened our reputation in the international community, and cost taxpayers billions of dollars.  Knowing what I know now about the faultiness of the information provided to Congress and the misleading case presented by the administration, I would not have voted to use force in Iraq.

Do you support the construction of permanent bases in Iraq?

I do not support the construction of permanent bases in Iraq, and I led my colleagues in sending a letter to the President saying so.  Additionally, both the President and the Pentagon have said that the U.S. will only be in Iraq as long as the Iraqi government wishes us to be there.  In fact, the Pentagon has already released a plan to eventually close most of the U.S. military bases in Iraq.  While the consolidation plan includes creating more durable facilities at four contingency operation bases, this is in no means a plan to establish a permanent U.S. presence.  Instead, it is part of a withdrawal process that will occur in phases, with Iraqi forces gradually taking over many of the bases which were occupied by U.S. and foreign troops.  Eventually, U.S. units will be concentrated at four strategically located hubs, enabling them to provide continued logistical support and emergency combat assistance to the Iraqi security forces.  These four bases would only remain open as long as the Iraqi security forces need U.S. support to fight the insurgency. 

Iran

Regarding Iran’s purported attempt to build a nuclear weapon: A) Do you believe that they are indeed trying to build one? B) Does the fact that Iran’s neighbor, Pakistan, has exploded a nuclear device anyway justify Iran’s wanting to possess nuclear military capability? C) How do the policies of the Bush Administration on Iran figure into the looming struggle for control of Caspian Sea and Central Asian oil and gas reserves?

Despite international opposition, Iran continues to pursue a policy of attempting to enrich uranium.  I oppose Iran’s efforts as they would destabilize the region and Iran has consistently been designated a state sponsor of terrorism.  I support the diplomatic efforts of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and European Union (EU) to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program is closely monitored and never used to develop weapons.  However, in September 2005 the IAEA determined that Iran was “in non-compliance” with nuclear safeguards and Iran maintains its plans to enrich uranium.  I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.Con.Res. 133, the Non-Proliferation Treaty Enhancement Resolution, which contains provisions directing the U.S. government to use diplomacy and economic leverage to halt uranium enrichment and other nuclear fuel cycle activities in Iran. 

Pakistan’s possession and testing of a nuclear weapon in1998 does not justify Iran’s determination to enrich uranium that could be used to make a similar weapon.  The possession of nuclear weapons by Pakistan has led to regional tension and I urge all nations to join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. 

I believe the Administration’s policies on Iran and access to Central Asian energy resources are not directly related.  While Iran is a destabilizing force for the entire region and this does affect energy prices, Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear capability is a significant problem in and of itself.  I support policies that would both halt Iran’s attempts to enrich uranium and ensure the U.S. has fair access to global energy resources.

What is the U.S. doing to obtain intelligence on Iran? Is there an identified group in Iran who desire a democratic government and who would work to achieve that goal? Is it true that our government is already engaged in aggressive covert action there?

I am pleased to inform you that there are several groups which oppose the government of Iran.  Iran is a theocratic republic which has often suppressed the rights of different opposition groups, most notably when Iran’s fundamentalist religious leaders declined to allow some reformist candidates to run for the Iranian Assembly.  I supported H.R. 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act, a wide ranging bill to promote democracy that gives the President the authority to impose sanctions if Iran continues down the path towards enriching uranium.  I am pleased to inform you that H.R. 282 passed the House. Additionally the House voted to approve Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s request for $75 million to promote democracy in Iran.  I have concerns about how this money will be spent and will continue to call for the Administration to develop a more robust foreign policy towards Iran.

Recent news reports have suggested that the Bush Administration is actively creating a strategy for the invasion of Iran.  As a member of the House Armed Services Committee I have requested congressional hearings on any military planning the administration may be doing to counter the Iranian threat.  Congress has the responsibility for oversight of the Administration and must use that power to ensure that an effective foreign policy that is effective in convincing Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions.

Israel

What is your stance on Israel as a nuclear power? Shouldn’t their nuclear arsenal be controlled and monitored, just like Iraq and North Korea? Would a modification of our policy towards Israel perhaps diminish Iranian hostility and nuclear ambitions?

As the only liberal democracy in the Middle East and a traditional ally, Israel deserves our aid and support.  I also believe Israel should sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) to show members of the international community that Israel will act responsibly with it nuclear capabilities.  I do not believe that moderating our policy of support for Israel will diminish Iranian hostility and nuclear ambitions.  The President of Iran, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, has made numerous threats towards Israel, including proclaiming that Israel should be “wiped of the map.”  This dangerous rhetoric only creates more instability in the region.

World Opinion

International polls regularly indicate most people in the world view the U.S. as the greatest threat to world peace.  What do you think of this discrepancy?

The United States occupies a unique position in the international community – a position that gives our country great potential for leadership in areas such as nuclear non-proliferation, global warming, and human rights.  Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has squandered that potential by alienating our allies; allowing the United States’ image as a leader in human rights to be tarnished by Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and Haditha; and largely bypassing the United Nations in the run-up to the Iraq war.  If the United States is to lead the diplomatic effort in halting international disputes such as the Iranian and North Korean nuclear build-up, the Bush Administration must exercise U.S. leadership while working with our allies, the United Nations, and regional organizations such as the European Union.

Will you cosponsor H.R. 3760, the Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act?

I am a cosponsor of the Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act, which is currently being reviewed by the Committee on Government Reform, as well as the Committees on International Relations, the Judiciary, and Education and the Workforce.  The Department of Peace would hold peace as an organizing principle and would endorse justice and democratic principles through policies that promote conflict prevention; nonviolent intervention; structured conflict mediation; and peaceful conflict resolution.

Democratic Leadership and Impeachment

Why hasn’t the democratic leadership offered a similar alternative to the Republican’s “Contract with America”?

Recently the Democratic Leadership introduced “A New Direction for America” a six point platform for the future of the Democratic Party.  First, Democrats will work to make health care more affordable for American’s by putting people ahead of drug companies and HMOs, eliminating wasteful subsidies, negotiating lower drug prices and ensuring the program works for all seniors; investing in stem cell and other medical research.  Second, Democrats will work to lower gas prices and achieve energy independence; crack down on price gouging; eliminate billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop American alternatives, including biofuels; and promote energy efficient technology. Third, Democrats will help working families by raising the minimum wage and repealing tax giveaways that encourage companies to move overseas.  Fourth, Democrats will work to decrease the costs of college by making college tuition deductible from taxes, expanding Pell grants and cutting student loan costs.  Fifth, the party will work to ensure retirement security by preventing the privatization of Social Security, expanding savings incentives, and ensuring pension fairness.  Finally, Democrats will restore the budget discipline of the 1990s that helped eliminate deficits and spur record economic growth.

 Will you support the House demanding hearings be held discussing whether or not the President has acted outside the law as to the basis for starting the war in Iraq and promoting eavesdropping on private communication? Why don’t the Democrats come out for impeachment of the Bush Administration?

As you may know, H.Res.635 was introduced in the House of Representatives which would create a select committee to investigate if the President should be impeached. H.Res. 635 would create a bipartisan committee to investigate whether the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated intelligence to mislead Congress into authorizing the war in Iraq. Additionally, this committee would investigate any possible acts of retaliation against individuals who attempted to disprove or disagree with the intelligence presented by the Administration. Two additional bills, H.Res. 636 and H.Res.637 would censure President Bush and President Cheney respectively for their roles in the events to be investigated by the select committee created by H.Res.635. H.Res.635, H.Res. 636, and H.Res. 637 are currently pending review by the Committee on the Judiciary and I look foreword to examining their findings.

Like you, I am deeply concerned that the Bush Administration may have intentionally misled the American public and Congress about the threat of weapons in mass destruction in Iraq and I was outraged to learn of the President’s possibly illegal clandestine spying efforts. The President and his administration have treated Constitutional protections and judicial oversight as outdated inconveniences to their work in the war on terrorism. It is the responsibility of Congress to investigate these excesses, and I have pressed for investigations of these important issues.

I am a co-sponsor of two bills which would have the House of Representatives investigate the Bush Administration’s role in exaggerating intelligence. H.Res 505 requires the President and the Secretary of State to transfer all documents, e-mails, and communications relating to the White House Iraq Information Group to the House of Representatives. H.Res. 363 would have the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Attorney General provide the House of Representatives with all the documents in their respective agencies’ possession which relate to the disclosure of the identity and employment of Valerie Plame. I have long supported an investigation into the circumstances leading to the war in Iraq , and I believe that a full investigation is necessary to restore credibility to our foreign policy.

I have introduced legislation, H.Con.Res.330, calling on the President to stop the NSA wiretapping program immediately. If the President feels it is necessary to implement warrantless wiretapping in the United States, it is essential that Congress passes a law allowing him to do so. The President’s decision to circumvent Congress on this issue was an unconscionable abuse of power which must be investigated. I am also a cosponsor of legislation calling on the Attorney General and the President to provide Congress with all Administration documents relating to warrantless electronic surveillance of telephone conversations and electronic communications of persons in the United States conducted by the NSA. Additionally, I joined my colleagues in sending a letter to the President requesting that he provide Congress with information about the authorization and reauthorizations of the warrantless wiretapping program, the scope of the program, and the information that was gathered through it. This letter calls also on the President to present Congress with explicit statuary language authorizing NSA wiretapping for review. It is of grave concern that authorizing NSA wiretapping without obtaining a warrant allows the Executive Branch to act as attorney, judge, and jury in deciding whether or not surveillance is justified or appropriate.

 Contact Information

Considering the overwhelming volume of mail, email and phone calls that you receive who should our letters go to and what should we be saying? Should I even bother to write, email, or call?

I believe that contacting your elected representatives is one of the most effective ways to participate in the political process.  I receive tens of thousands of letters, emails and phone calls from my constituents every year on a variety of issues that are important to the residents of the 10^th district of California.  I use the information gathered through these communications to determine the issues that are most important to my constituents and how to serve you best as your member of Congress.  Please know that when I make decisions as your legislator I always try to balance the three C’s; my conscience, the Constitution, and the needs and views of my constituents.  Additionally, I believe that one of the most important ways to inform my constituents of what I am doing as their representative is by directly responding to their letters, phone calls, and emails.  I sent out over 30,000 letters in the past year responding to my constituent’s concerns and keeping them abreast of my actions in the House of Representatives.  

United Nations/Foreign Policy

Why has Bush abandoned a multilateral approach to foreign policy in favor of preemptive unilateralism?

 A: I am deeply concerned that the Bush Administration has undermined decades of United States leadership in global issues such as nuclear nonproliferation, pulled the U.S. out of or weakened important international treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol, and generally compromised relationships with key allies.  Throughout my time in Congress, I have supported a multilateral approach to exercising U.S. leadership on the world stage, and it is my sincere hope that the Bush Administration will work within the framework of the United Nations and alongside our allies to address escalating international concerns such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

What is the importance of the United Nations?  Is it an obsolete entity?  What is your position on a request to the Security Council to send UN peacekeeping forces to replace U.S. troops in Iraq?

A: I believe that the United Nations has a vital role to play in the security and stability of world affairs.  As an arbiter of international disputes, the UN performs the important function of intervening in confrontations and preventing both internal conflicts and international disputes.  Full U.S. participation in the UN sends a strong message regarding U.S. global priorities while also providing an effective forum for U.S. leadership in the international community.  The UN has stated that it will not send peacekeeping forces into Iraq until the security situation has improved on the ground.  As the new Iraqi government works toward political unity and more Iraqi troops are trained, it is my hope that United Nations will increase its involvement and bring its expertise to Iraq.

Immigration

What is your opinion on the Senate Immigration Bill, and do you believe a fence should be built to ensure the security of our southern border?

I support the Senate passed immigration bill.  I believe that we must focus on comprehensive immigration reform instead of implementing piecemeal legislation that is fiscally irresponsible and does not fully address the immigration problem or creates new problems.  I joined 66 of my colleagues on a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert calling for a comprehensive solution to our immigration problems which would include: a smarter border security strategy, strict enforcement, legal immigration visas, streamlined family immigration, and a workable solution for the 12 million undocumented immigrants already in the country illegally.

Strengthening border security with measures like a boarder fence is only one part of immigration reform.  We must also update our visa system to ease the immigration process for workers who fill a vital role in our country’s economy and provide services to help integrate these immigrants into American society.  I do not support giving amnesty to the illegal immigrants already inside the U.S., but any immigration reform must include provisions to deal with the 12 million already here.  I believe we need to create a path towards legal integration into the workforce with appropriate fines for breaking the law.

Other issues

Please describe your take on ATT, Verizon, etc. providing records of communication of private citizens. What are the dangers, in your view? What is the best way for us as private citizens to voice our concerns?

I am deeply concerned that the NSA has been provided with the private phone records of over 200 million American’s by AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp.  The NSA has said that this database is not used to eavesdrop on the phone calls of American citizens, however it keeps track of which numbers are called and utilizes this data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity.  I believe that there are serious ethical, and constitutional concerns regarding collecting information on tens of millions of law abiding Americans.

I joined 54 of my colleagues in sending a letter to the President asking for the appointment of a Special Counsel fully empowered to investigate the NSA's domestic surveillance programs and report its findings to Congress. I am disappointed that so far attempts to find information on the scope of the NSA database have been stymied by the administration. When Members of Congress wrote to the Inspector Generals of the Justice and Defense Departments, they refused to investigate. The Justice Department handed the matter to its Office of Professional Responsibility for an investigation of professional legal misconduct, and then denied security clearances to its own investigators. The Defense Department handed the matter to NSA's Inspector General, who never responded and which approved the eavesdropping at issue. While the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have held hearings, they have not issued a single subpoena for witnesses or documentary evidence.  Be assured that I will continue to press for a full investigation of the NSA database and NSA wiretapping.

In regards to private citizens voicing their concerns, a number of lawsuits have been filed against Verizon, ATT and Bell South for providing their customers phone records to the NSA.  I believe that it is up to the courts to decide if these companies violated U.S. privacy laws.

In this era of fear and corruption, what inspires you?

It is important to remember that despite the corrupt actions of a few politicians, most legislators have honest motivations and take the opportunity to serve their constituency and their country with the utmost seriousness.  As a member of Congress, I have the unique opportunity to work with my colleagues to craft policies which benefit all Americans.  I enjoy working with like minded colleagues on both sides of the aisle on a variety of local, regional and national issues.  As the chair of the New Democratic Network, I appreciate the opportunity to lead 45 centrist, pro-growth members of the intent on modernizing both the Democratic Party and the country.  New Democrats support policies to expand economic growth and ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to benefit from that growth; a fiscally responsible and efficient government; a secure homefront; and a robust foreign policy that includes trade, constructive U.S. leadership throughout the world, and a modern and strong military.

Most of all I am inspired by my constituents and am humbled that you have granted me the opportunity to represent the 10^th district of California in the House of Representatives.  I enjoy meeting with constituents, having them inform me of their concerns, and working with them on issues that are important to them. 

Bankruptcy

Please explain your vote in favor of the bankruptcy bill.

 Two-thirds of households that file for bankruptcy do it under Chapter 7, which gives individuals a clean start by eliminating their obligation to repay their debts.  Over ninety percent of those who file for Chapter 7 truly are in need of these protections and will remain eligible for them under the new law.  However, those who can repay their debts should do so, and this law requires these individuals to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 13, which uses the bankruptcy court to arrange a repayment plan over the course of 3 to5 years.

The new law also closes loop-holes in our bankruptcy policy.  This law gives bankruptcy judges increased power to reduce severance packages and bonus pay to executives of companies that have filed for bankruptcy.  It also imposes strict residency requirements on homestead exemptions, which allow wealthy individuals to hide assets in out of state realty.  Further, this legislation aims to protect consumers through increased participation in consumer credit counseling, and requires credit card companies to inform cardholders as to how long it will take them to pay off debt when making only the minimum payment.

The President and the Congress have voted for less money for hospital care and rehabilitation for veterans.  Isn’t this a fundamental betrayal of the military?  What is the Congress doing about this?

More than 260,000 veterans applied to receive health care at the Department of Veterans Affairs in Fiscal Year 2005 but were turned away because of the Bush Administration’s cost-cutting decision to limit veterans’ access to VA hospitals, clinics and medication.  Since January 17, 2003, the Administration has barred access to VA care to new Priority 8 veterans -- those who do not receive monetary compensation from VA for service-connected disabilities and whose incomes are above a national and geographic income threshold.  In 2005, the national income means threshold for a single veteran was $25,842.  The VA has estimated that from January 2003 through September 2005 it would bar more than half a million veterans.

The number of veterans in California who applied for VA-provided health care and who were refused enrollment in FY 2005 because of the Administration's decision to bar access for new Priority 8 veterans was 17,378!

 There is no reason for the VA to give the cold shoulder to veterans who have served our country honorably.  Over the next five years, the Republican budget cuts funding for veterans’ healthcare by $6.0 billion below current service levels. In 2008, funding will be $59 million below current services, and cuts of increasing amounts in subsequent years culminate in a cut of $4.0 billion for 2011.

The Democratic budget includes $8.6 billion more than the Republican budget over five years for veterans’ health care and rejects increased health care fees for military retirees who are enrolled in Tricare.  The Republican budget asks for additional sacrifices from those who have already served and sacrificed for our country. I support the Democratic budget which rejects the misguided Republican policies and keeps our commitment to our veterans.

Why does Congress let Bush get away with breaking so many treaties?  When will Congress stop surrendering its power to the White House?

I am deeply troubled that the Bush Administration has undermined decades of United States leadership in areas such as nuclear nonproliferation and has reneged on global commitments made by past administrations.  President Bush withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol and did not support the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty – two international agreements that provided an opportunity for the United States to exercise its potential for leadership on the world stage.   The Republican Majority in Congress should be supportive of treaties such as these, and I am profoundly disappointed that they have followed the Administration’s lead on these issues.

Are you going to vote to close the School of the Americas?

The School of the Americas has graduated many of Latin America's most notorious dictators and human rights violators, and as recently as 1992 the school distributed materials instructing trainees in execution, extortion, and torture.  Although there have been some improvements in the curriculum and stated purpose of the School of the Americas, now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC), continued funding of the program further tarnishes America’s image as a country that values human rights.  While considering the Fiscal Year 2007 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act (H.R. 5522) I voted in favor of an amendment (H.Amd. 995) to end funding for the WHISC. Unfortunately the amendment failed by a 188-218 vote.