At the June 1 townhall meeting in Folsom, there was not enough time to answer all of the submitted questions.  Please find below the remaining questions (copied verbatim) and the Congressman's answers.

1.  Why aren’t we drilling domestic oil and natural gas? 

What can you do to make the U.S. energy self-sufficient without increasing energy cost?

There are a variety of measures our nation can take to increase American oil production, which will increase supply and therefore reduce the price of gasoline. According to the Bureau of Land Management and the Manifest Information Management System (MIMS), the total amount of American oil currently closed off to drilling and exploration to American energy users is 116 billion barrels. That's enough oil to supply 65 million cars for 60 years. 

At the same time, increasing production is not an instant fix, because beginning production takes time.  However, because much of the recent price increase is due to futures markets that predict what the price of oil will be, even the prospect of increased production will have some near-term effect.  Also, the time it takes for increasing American energy production to impact gasoline prices should not be an argument against those measures—market forces such as higher foreign demand for oil, especially from India and China, are unlikely to cease.  For example, as Fareed Zakaria points out, by 2025 there will be an additional 100 million cars on Chinese roads.

While Americans face a struggling economy and unstable energy prices, our country should not be sitting on 116 billion barrels of oil.  Increasing American energy exploration, including drilling offshore, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and elsewhere, will increase the supply of oil and therefore lower the price.

Nevertheless, it is clear that these measures must be coupled with significant investment in alternative energy sources.  That is why I have introduced legislation to provide tax incentives for clean energy production with zero greenhouse gas emissions, provide funding for the creation of lithium ion battery for automobiles, make the solar tax credit permanent, and provide incentives for refining alternative fuels.  My proposal is based on the premise that we can reduce green house gases as well as our dependency on foreign oil.

2.  Term limits for Congress and Senate.

Congressman Todd Platts has proposed a constitutional amendment that would limit Senators to serving no more than two full consecutive terms and Representatives no more than six full consecutive terms (which means no one could serve more than 12 consecutive years).  This resolution, H. J. Res. 14, has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am a member.

 I look forward to evaluating this legislation should the Chairman move it forward for a hearing.  Certainly we in public service must remember that our first responsibility is to our constituents and we should never become so wrapped up in Washington politics that we forget the reasons that prompted us to serve in Congress in the first place.  I will evaluate this proposal in light of our obligation to our constituents.

3.  What is your position on the proposed TANC transmission lines? Thank you.

The proposed Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC) project would add or replace wires and cables carrying 230 to 500 kilovolts in Colusa, Glenn, and Tehama counties.  The project is supposed to provide new access to renewable energy and increase the capability and reliability of the transmission system in Northern California.  I support efforts to increase our use of renewable energy and measures to lower energy costs for our families.  However, TANC is a California Joint Powers Agency and the project does not run through California’s Third District.  The public comment period closes on July 30, 2009.  To comment, please visit www.wapa.gov/transmission/ttp.htm. 

4. Why is there no questioning of Obama’s eligibility as President?  He is not a natural born citizen – his father is not a citizen – admitted on Obama’s own website.

Contrary to your suggestion, President Obama has faced unprecedented scrutiny over his citizenship status.  In fact, several cases have been filed in federal court related to the issue of his birth certificate.  However, each time the case has made it to the Supreme Court, the Court has refused to hear the case. 

After consulting with the Congressional Research Service, the Office of the Solicitor General of the previous Administration, and the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court, the facts are clear.  President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.  His birth certificate is a valid short form certificate commonly issued by states.   The Department of Health in Hawaii does not give its citizens the option to obtain a copy of a long form certificate.  His certificate contains his full name, names of his parents, date, place of birth, sex, and date the birth record was filed.  There was also an announcement at the time of his birth in a local Honolulu newspaper. 

Although I do not agree with many of his policies – particularly with respect to a tripling of the size of the national debt over the next decade in implementing his budget – President Obama is nevertheless the duly elected President of the United States.  Out of respect for the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States, all Americans, regardless of their political beliefs, should respect this fact.

5.  What is your position on the Freedom of Conscience Act?

The Taxpayers’ Freedom of Conscience Act of 2009 (H.R. 1233) was introduced by Rep. Ron Paul on February 26, 2009.  The bill would prohibit the use of federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity (including any abortion procedure), irrespective of whether such program or activity is foreign or domestic.

Earlier this year, I voted for the Smith-Stupak Amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill, which would have preserved our present policy of not using taxpayer dollars to fund organizations that provide or actively promote abortions overseas.  Furthermore, I signed a letter indicating my support for continuing restrictions on the use of taxpayer money to support abortions in the 111th Congress. 

Prohibitions on the use of federal funds to promote or pay for abortion have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in both Rust v. Sullivan and Harris v. McRae. In Harris, the Court found that “it simply does not follow that a woman's freedom of choice carries with it a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices.” Moreover, the Court held that such a prohibition is “rationally related to the legitimate governmental objective of protecting potential life.”

In Rust, the Court addressed the issue of using federal funds to promote abortions and determined that “the Government may make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, and implement that judgment by the allocation of public funds.”

I agree with the Supreme Court’s holding in the above cases and elsewhere that the federal government does have an interest in the protection of the life of unborn human beings and that this interest may properly be reflected in the way federal tax dollars are spent. 

6. Do you think physicians should be allowed to be conscientious objectors to performing abortions?

As you may know, on December 18, 2008 HHS issued regulations to take effect January 20, 2009 that would protect the conscience of individuals in the medical profession. While federal laws have been on the books to protect freedom of conscience since the 1970s, the new regulations would require recipients of HHS funds to demonstrate their compliance with current federal law and designate the Office of Civil Rights to examine complaints and work to ensure compliance. The regulations do not limit the services provided to women, but instead serve to protect doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals who have religious or moral objections to certain procedures or treatments.

The right to freedom of thought or conscience was recognized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo, who wrote in Palko v. Connecticut, “Freedom of thought…is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.” Integral to the freedom of thought is the right to act – or refrain from acting – on the basis of one’s deeply held beliefs.

Freedom of conscience is recognized as a fundamental component of human rights law worldwide. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom…to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

With the advent of an increasing number of morally controversial drugs and treatments, it is my belief that pharmacists and other healthcare professionals should be permitted to opt out of dispensing drugs or performing medical procedures that violate their personal beliefs. The very notion of freedom of choice requires no less.

7.  I don’t really care whether my healthcare is managed by agent bureaucrat or a private for profit bureaucrat. What concerns me is what happens if I can’t find a job that provides healthcare insurance or if I get laid off and can’t find a job for an extended period of time.

While employer-provided healthcare coverage remains the largest source of health insurance, covering 61 percent of non-elderly Americans, many Americans share your concern that they will lose their health insurance if they lose their jobs.  Several proposals have been introduced that would provide alternatives to employer-provided coverage, including a statewide health insurance exchange, or risk pool, similar to the one formed in Massachusetts.  The other alternative is the so-called “public option,” which would be a taxpayer-funded expansion of Medicaid and/or Medicare to encompass more Americans.  This would provide healthcare coverage that is independent of employment; however, the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees have issued repeated warnings regarding the pending insolvency of the Medicare Trust Fund.

I support the formation of risk pools, or exchanges, through which individuals and families can purchase health insurance, along with a healthcare tax credit, to make healthcare coverage more affordable.  Such a plan could be supplemented by subsidies for those with incomes below a certain threshold, so that access to coverage would be available for all Americans, regardless of income, prior condition, or employment status.

8.  Why can’t we structure healthcare after the military and/or VA health care system?

The military operates two distinct healthcare systems: the VA system, for active duty personnel, and TRICARE, for retired military personnel, as well as some on active duty.  The VA is a closed system, in that its members are required to visit VA doctors and VA hospitals.  While TRICARE does employ military physicians, it relies heavily on outside contracts to provide many services and has become increasingly privatized over the past few years.  TRICARE resembles private healthcare insurance in that members may visit healthcare providers of their choice, but may incur a copayment for doing so.  TRICARE premiums are paid for by the federal government.  As such, it is a single-payer system.

Expanding the VA system on a national scale to cover uninsured civilians would pose certain challenges, including the creation of federally-run hospitals and a federal healthcare provider network.  Moreover, choice of physician and hospital remains a high priority for most Americans, and a healthcare system modeled after the VA may not offer sufficient options.

If the United States were to adopt a single-payer, universal healthcare system, it would likely bear some resemblance to TRICARE.  As with the expansion of the VA system, however, there are challenges to adopting a nationwide system modeled on TRICARE, including the most basic question of how to pay for such a system.  Many Americans, myself included, have concerns about the sustainability and quality of care available through a single-payer system.  As healthcare costs increase, as they inevitably will, keeping such a system solvent will likely result in exorbitant tax increases or rationing of healthcare services, or both.

My preference would be to enact reforms that increase access and affordability, while allowing Americans to choose a healthcare coverage plan that meets their needs.  Above all, we must be careful not to sacrifice quality as we pursue these goals.

9. Do you feel the illegal immigration topic will pass for illegal immigrants to become legal with Obama in office and what do you plan on doing to prevent it?

The United States Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 places the responsibility for the regulation of immigration with Congress.  It is my belief that as a sovereign nation we must meet this responsibility and regain control over our borders.  I have always supported legislation that improves our borders. In the 110^th Congress, I introduced the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act. The bill would have authorized funding for 6,000 additional border patrol officers and 1,000 workplace inspectors over the next two years.  It would have also provided for the expedited removal of illegal aliens.

To enforce our borders, it is essential that we take the necessary action to de-magnetize the attraction of unlawful employment in the United States. As one of the authors of the employer sanctions provisions in our immigration law, I strongly support their use and the need for increased enforcement. A central element of such an enforcement regime must be a reliable employment verification system.

There are many suggested approaches to dealing with the presence of that group of illegal aliens who have established roots in our communities.  As I look at any proposal, I will oppose any bill brought to the floor of the House that includes what I consider to be an amnesty provision.  My major concern relates to the fact that there are millions of legal immigrants who wait years in order to obtain permanent residence and citizenship.  It violates both fairness and respect for the law to allow those who have entered our country illegally to “cut in the front of the line” through the adoption of an amnesty provision.

10.  Do/will you support reinstatement of the provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act and support the total repeal of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000?

On November 12, 1999 President Clinton signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act which repealed parts of the Glass Steagall Act which was enacted in 1933.  The effect of altering this depression era law was to allow banks to affiliate with investment banks and insurance companies.   After the signing of the bill Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers (who currently heads the National Economic Council) said “the American financial system takes a major step forward toward the 21^st Century—one that will benefit American consumers, business and the national economy.”  The impetus for both Administration and congressional support of the repeal was that the American financial sector was at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis foreign institutions which were not bound by financial product limitations. 

Some commentators have argued that the repeal of the provisions at issue in Glass Steagall played a role in bringing about the current collapse of our financial system.  In response to this point President Clinton has stated “But I have really thought about this a lot.  I don’t see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis.”  In support of the former President’s view the point has been raised that were it not for the repeal the collapse could have even been worse.  For example, if J.P Morgan Chase had not been able to acquire Bear-Stearns we may have had another bankruptcy like Lehman Brothers, which many observers see as one of the precipitating factors in the collapse of the financial sector.

In my view, I think that the Congress has the responsibility to carefully examine this question to determine if there were in fact any connections between the Financial Services Modernization Act and the recent collapse of our financial sector.  It is important for the Congress and the Administration to get it right rather than to merely react to theories which may or may not be valid.  It should not merely be a question of more regulation but also smarter regulation.  Furthermore, the actions of some banks in setting up Special Investment Vehicles where transactions were not reflected in their balance sheets should also be closely scrutinized as a part of this oversight responsibility.

The question concerning the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 is also an important one as Congress considers financial services regulation.  The principal concern here is whether credit default swaps contributed to the collapse of the financial services industry and the consequent recession.

It is somewhat ironic that although Warren Buffet a few years ago referred to these derivatives as “weapons of financial destruction,” the Treasury Department under Secretary Summers opposed regulating them.

It is evident that although they serve a legitimate purpose as originally conceived (e.g. to protect bondholders and to protect farmers against price swings), derivatives turned our financial markets into a casino.  Some estimate the derivatives market at $60 trillion but the reality is no one actually knows.  The difficulty is that contracts are taken out on contracts at multiple levels—many of which are held by third parties removed from ownership of the underlying asset which is being insured.

Chairman Peterson of the Agriculture Committee has held hearings on the question of regulating the derivatives market.  In following the hearings, it has become apparent that a consensus for the regulation of derivatives has developed around the need for transparency.  In this regard, it would be necessary for these contracts to be cleared through an exchange much like that which takes place with commodities futures.  Furthermore, if derivatives are in fact intended to serve the function of insurance, it is my view that like insurance, derivative contracts should be required to be supported by collateral. 

11.  Firstly, we appreciate that you looked into and subsequently co-sponsored HR 1207. Senator Sanders has introduced a companion bill in the Senate, and with 179 co-sponsors in the House, what factors do you think are keeping any senators from co-sponsoring the legislation?

H.R. 1207 is the Federal Reserve Transparency Act.  This legislation would eliminate restrictions on the General Accountability Office (GAO) audits of the Federal Reserve and open Federal Reserve (Fed) operations to enhanced scrutiny. 

I have co-sponsored this important legislative initiative. In the past I have had some concerns about the Congress injecting itself into the operation of the Fed in a fashion which could compromise its independence from political influence.  It is a matter of great importance that monetary policy not be conducted in a manner which serves partisan objectives rather than the objective of a stable price level.  Perhaps the Senators are also weighing this consideration before co-sponsoring the Senate companion bill. 

However, over the last year the Fed has become enmeshed in the public policy process, and along with the Treasury Department has become involved in the restructuring of our financial system.  There is thus no valid argument against H.R. 1207 relating to the need to maintain the independence of the Fed.

In fact, it is my belief that the Fed should be subject to the same transparency requirements that we would expect of any public agency.  An institution which has such a significant impact on our economy should be subject to a commensurate level of scrutiny.  It is also my conviction that the Federal Reserve Transparency Act is an important element of our responsibility in the Congress to take action to ensure that the necessary level of oversight is exercised to ensure that the public interest is being served.  In this regard, recent allegations about potential conflicts of interest within the New York Fed concerning Goldman Sachs are perhaps the most compelling case for this important legislation.

12. Due to the major debt being incurred in Washington, what is the outlook for ruinous inflation (like the Carter years)? We are just entering retirement.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the national debt will double to a level of $17.3 trillion by 2019.  This avalanche of government deficits and debt is one reason long-term interest rates, including mortgage rates, are on the rise.

Although I do not engage in economic forecasting, Kenneth Rogoff, the former Chief Economist for the International Monetary Fund, and currently an economics professor at Harvard University, recently warned that the ultimate outcome of the current growth in the level of debt will be higher levels of inflation in the future. 

As a policymaker, it is my view that we must not let this scenario come to pass.  Although I support short term infrastructure spending on roads, bridges and waterways as a means of assisting job growth, as the economy begins to recover it will be essential for the Congress to reduce spending levels.  I did not support the stimulus package which came before the House of Representatives because it had more to do with growing government over the next decade than it did with growing the economy this year and the next. We must not build structural deficits into the budget baseline which go far beyond the question of economic recovery.  Again, as soon as the economy begins to recover it is essential for Congress to take decisive action to reduce future government spending. 

At a time when the retirement plans of many Americans have been devastated by the collapse of our financial system it would be inexcusable for policymakers to add insult to injury by allowing a further erosion of their future. 

13.  As one of your constituents I support reform of health care as soon as possible. What is your position and do you think that a single payer system to truly standardize cost can be done this year?  What is your position on the single payer health care strategy?  Does acceptance of campaign funds from insurance companies affect the decision of how to vote on specific health care proposals?

I think we all agree as to the need for healthcare reform.  We need to improve access for the uninsured, we need to offer more choice so that individuals and families can have a plan that meets their unique needs, and we need to get costs under control so that healthcare will be affordable.  And we must pursue these goals while improving quality of care and encouraging innovation in both prevention and treatment of disease.  While we agree on the basic goals of reform, the questions of how to get there remain.  In my view, while a single-payer system may offer the appearance of increasing access to care, the reality is that where we have implemented single-payer healthcare in this nation, namely through Medicare, we now have an unfunded, fiscally unsustainable liability that jeopardizes access to quality care, especially as the percentage of the population eligible for Medicare expands.  Many of the problems endemic to the Medicare system lie in the enormous federal bureaucracy that necessarily grows out of a nationwide single-payer system.  As I have stated earlier, I support empowering Americans to purchase the healthcare coverage that best meets their needs.  This will require the creation of a health insurance market, or exchange, that is not dependent on employment, as well as a healthcare tax credit that will allow Americans to purchase coverage through the exchange.

Rather than expanding a bloated system already on the verge of insolvency, it is my view that today’s healthcare reform must offer viable, innovative solutions that will meet our shared objectives. 

I am looking to reforms that will give Americans greater access, not only to healthcare coverage, but to healthcare providers.  I have always held that healthcare decisions should be made within the physician-patient relationship, which means reducing the layers of bureaucracy that interfere with that relationship, whether insurance company bureaucracy or governmental bureaucracy. 

14.  When you consider the enormous cost that the current health care system places on businesses – small and large – why won’t you support the President’s plan to help ease this burden and provide healthcare for 46 million Americans who currently have no access?

As I have stated previously, there is little disagreement that we need healthcare reforms that will increase access to healthcare coverage for uninsured Americans.  I agree that employer-based healthcare is not only tremendously expensive, but also leaves many individuals and families without health insurance coverage, should they lose their employment.  I support the idea of a healthcare tax credit that would allow Americans to purchase coverage that meets their needs through statewide health insurance exchanges.  The tax credit would be supplemented or replaced by a subsidy to assist low-income or jobless individuals and families in purchasing coverage.  This would provide both access and portability, while giving Americans the opportunity to choose the coverage that is right for them.

15.  What can we do to STOP universal healthcare?

In less than 150 days, the President has taken control of: the housing industry, the banking industry, the auto industry. This is too much, too fast. How can we stop nationalized health care? I agree we need health care reform, but not President Obama’s takeover.

First, we must be clear as to how we define universal healthcare.  I would support a plan that offered universal access to healthcare coverage by providing a tax credit with which Americans can purchase a health insurance plan that meets their needs.  If, on the other hand, universal healthcare is defined as a federally-sponsored, one-size-fits-all approach that is mandated for every American, I would be opposed to such an approach – as would many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. 

16. The American College of Physicians representing more than 126,000 internists, residents in training and medical students advocates: (1) universal access to care; (2) increasing the number of primary care practitioners. Please sign on to co-sponsor HR 2350 Preserving Patient Access to Primary Care Act of 2009.

As you may know, my father was both an internist and cardiologist who practiced medicine for more than 40 years.  In a very real sense, he was a primary care physician.  I have spoken with many physicians and other healthcare providers in my District and I share their concern about the dearth of primary care practitioners across the nation, especially as we move closer to expanding healthcare coverage for more Americans.  This is a concern that has been raised in the discussion over healthcare reform and I would expect to see specific provisions addressing the need for more primary care physicians in healthcare reform legislation.  With that in mind, I will review HR 2350.

17. What will happen to my earned insurance? Under President Obama’s Health care plans, what will happen with the healthcare insurance I currently have as a retired state employee?

A common concern regarding a so-called “public plan” is the effect it will inevitably have on private plans, particularly employer-based plans.  Employers may have little incentive to offer healthcare coverage to their employees if, for example, Medicaid is expanded to include all families at or below five times the federal poverty level, or $110,000, as has been proposed. 

Many of my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, want to ensure that Americans who are satisfied with their current healthcare coverage are able to keep it. 

18. What specific idea/regulations are you supporting to help California address the growing number of state residents without healthcare?

I have suggested a number of legislative proposals in this regard.  Let me highlight one of them.  Californians, in particular, have been hit hard by the current economic crisis and have suffered heavy job losses and a corresponding loss of healthcare coverage.  For this reason, I support proposals that create an opportunity for individuals and families to purchase healthcare plans that are not employer-dependent.  Such plans could be paid for through a tax credit, or in cases where there is a loss of income, through subsidy programs. 

19. Will you support the President’s health care principles of (1) access to quality affordable health care for all Americans, (2) reducing costs, and (3) providing choice?

Yes.  These goals are shared by members of Congress, and by most Americans, regardless of political affiliation.  Nevertheless, the question remains as to how to best facilitate these objectives.  In my view, it is essential to increase access to care without increasing government interference in personal healthcare decisions.  For this reason, I support the creation of statewide health insurance exchanges that allow individuals to purchase healthcare coverage that meets their needs, while freeing them from dependence on employer-based coverage.  Exchanges would offer a diverse assortment of insurance plans, with each plan meeting minimum coverage requirements, similar to those available through the Federal Employee Health Plan (see below, for details).  In order to adjust risk and ensure that no one may be denied coverage on the basis of age or preexisting conditions, such a system would necessitate rewarding insurers who provide coverage for high-risk subscribers.  In addition, I support the idea of a healthcare tax credit that will cover the cost of purchasing a basic plan through the exchange, with subsidies available for jobless or low income Americans. 

20. Where do you get your information that technology saves cost? I am a physician and have not seen this. What is the status of a standardized system for medical records?

A RAND Corporation study found that if most doctors and hospitals adopted health IT, potential efficiency savings for inpatient and outpatient care could average over $77 billion per year.  The net potential savings over 15 years, taking into account the initial cost of health IT, could reach $400 billion in efficiency saving alone; health and safety benefits could double the savings.  According to the RAND study, “the largest savings come from reduced hospital stays (a result of increased safety and better scheduling and coordination), reduced nurses’ administrative time, and more efficient drug utilization.”  Moreover, implementation of health IT would result in increased safety and health benefits for patients.  For example, if all hospitals adopted a health IT system, the RAND Corporation found that “around 200,000 adverse drug events could be eliminated each year, at an annual savings of about $1 billion.”

With that said, health IT is expensive for physicians, especially those in private practice, to implement.  Because net savings are initially low, some physicians are reluctant to incur the high cost of adopting health IT systems.  As I review healthcare reform legislation, I will be looking for provisions that facilitate the adoption of health IT, especially for physicians who may not otherwise be able to install such systems.

At this time, there is no single standardized system of electronic medical records.  As recently reported by the American Medical Association, 37 percent of the nation’s hospitals have adopted electronic medical records for clinical documentation; however, only .3 percent are entirely paperless, meaning they have fully integrated healthcare IT.  Because of the tremendous efficiency savings associated with the implementation of health IT, it is likely that we will see proposals to incentivize IT adoption in healthcare reform legislation.

21. What is the difference between “socialized” health care system and a “single payer” system?

Using your specific dictionary, I would define the terms in the following way.  A socialized healthcare system operates through government-run facilities and healthcare providers.  Our VA system, with its federally owned and operated hospitals, is a socialized system, as are the national healthcare systems of Canada and the UK.  A single-payer system, on the other hand, is one in which a single entity pays for healthcare services, which are not necessarily government owned.  Medicare and TRICARE, which rely on contracts with private companies to provide services, are examples of single-payer systems. 

22. How will you address access affordability to healthcare for older adults 50-64?

Access to affordable care is critical for older Americans who are not yet eligible for Medicare, as many of us suffer from pre-existing conditions that may either result in exorbitant premiums or exclusion from eligibility.  For this reason, I support healthcare reform proposals that involve the creation of exchanges, or large risk pools.  Health insurance companies that participate in such exchanges would be prohibited from denying coverage to subscribers based on age or pre-existing conditions.  

23. I have a disabled daughter on COBRA and when it expires, she will not be able to get health care coverage because of injuries sustained in an auto accident. What help can be given? Also, since she has been off on disability and medically released from her job, she does not qualify for the stimulus package for this year’s COBRA. Is there anything that can be done to include disabled working with the involuntary category versus lumping them into involuntary?

As I am not familiar with the specific details of your individual case, please contact my district office in Gold River at (916) 859-9906.  I am sorry to learn of your daughter’s misfortune and if there is any way that we can be of assistance to you, we certainly want to do so.

24. In regards to the CA state budget shortfall of $21 billion, would you consider asking for federal money to bailout the state so that certain public services would not be cut?

As a general principle of our system of federalism, our state officials must be responsible for the budgetary decisions they make.  This is essential for democratic accountability to function.  If the state legislature and governor follow a course of expansive fiscal policy that is an issue on which the voters of California must make a judgment.  For the federal government to make a commitment that it will “cover” the consequences of the decisions of state lawmakers sets the very notion of federalism and accountability on its head.

Furthermore, it must be understood that the federal government itself is not in any better financial condition than the states.  At the present time the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the federal deficit is likely to be $1.2 trillion for a single year!  Although the tools of both monetary and fiscal policy must be used to bring about economic recovery, if we do not respond to the current crisis in a prudent and careful manner, we may create the conditions for higher inflation and crushing interest rates.  This would likely lead to actions by the Federal Reserve to contract the money supply which could result in a “double dip” recession.

25.  Has it been considered to survey who has positive health care working for them?

You may be interested to know that a December 2008 Gallup Poll showed that 83 percent of Americans say the quality of healthcare they receive is either “excellent” or “good,” while 16 percent say it is “only fair” or “poor.”

26. Given that other parts of the world are surging ahead and making efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. Why is it that you do not support legislation to cap carbon emissions? Specifically, address Mr. Henry Waxman’s bill.

A so-called cap and trade system would establish a regulatory regime of hidden energy taxes which would be passed on to every American.  Anyone who drives a car, turns on a light switch, or buys any product produced with energy will see their family budgets squeezed by the cap and trade proposal.

At a time when our economy is in a serious recession and unemployment is currently in the double digits in the Sacramento region, this is not the time to be planning new schemes which will burden future economic recovery.  Cap and trade is a jobs killer.  It will result in the loss of jobs to countries without such regulatory structures and have a devastating effect on the export of American made products.  Our focus should be on growing the economy rather than growing government.

27. As you know, on April 17^th the EPA decided that six greenhouse gases are a danger to the environment and human health. Given this danger to human health, why do you resist legislation to cap carbon emissions beyond motor vehicles, which are responsible for under a quarter of manmade CO2 levels in America?

As mentioned above, cap and trade is a jobs killer.  However, out of concern for our environment, I have introduced legislation that would provide tax incentives for clean energy production with zero greenhouse gas emissions, provide funding for the creation of lithium ion battery for automobiles, make the solar tax credit permanent, and provide incentives for refining alternative fuels.  My proposal is based on the premise that we can reduce green house gases as well as our dependency on foreign oil.

28. You mentioned that you did not want the government to get between you and your doctor. Isn’t it worse to have the insurance companies who have a conflict of interest in your treatment be between you and your doctor?

I have always held that healthcare decisions should be made within the physician-patient relationship, which means reducing the layers of bureaucracy that interfere with that relationship, whether insurance company bureaucracy or governmental bureaucracy. 

29. Request oversight of the Treasury’s Plan so it does not become a government giveaway to Wall Street investment managers.

From the beginning of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) there has been a need for greater congressional oversight.  In implementing the program the disregard for the Congress must be placed in context to be fully appreciated.  In appealing for TARP funding Secretary Paulson testified in favor of using the money to buy troubled assets, and against the idea of using the funds to infuse capital into the banking system.  After receiving the money, Secretary Paulson used the funds to inject money into the banks and declared that the Treasury would not be buying the bad assets which were clogging the arteries of our financial system.  It should not be asking too much for the actions of Administration officials to parallel their testimony before Congress.   This is no small matter.  It involves more than differences over policy.  It goes to the very heart of the concept of representative government.

The attempt to circumvent this process and casual disregard for what is said before congressional committees undermines the ability of the Congress to conduct its oversight responsibility.   Furthermore, the actions of the previous Administration to use TARP funds for a rescue of the auto industry was clearly beyond anything contemplated when it was under consideration by the Congress.

Unfortunately, problems with the oversight of the TARP program are not limited to the previous Administration.  According to the Special Inspector General's report, “many aspects” of Secretary Geithner’s recent proposal for public-private partnerships to purchase toxic assets “make it inherently vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse.”

I voted against releasing the second half of the TARP funding because I was not satisfied that there was sufficient congressional oversight over the use of these taxpayer funds.  The American people are entitled to have a full accounting with respect to the use of their money. 

30. What is the outlook for an element of conservative discipline and unity in the face of an activist Administration and Congress?

As a member of the Loyal Opposition within the House of Representatives, it is my responsibility to support the President where the national interest requires it.  However, as a member of the Minority it is my belief that we must never abandon our principles, and feel that we best serve the nation by providing clear policy alternatives to those of the governing party. 

It has been my practice to engage in debate with the Majority in order to present clear alternatives where I believe they are not serving the public interest.  In numerous contexts from the committee level to the floor of the House, and on both television and radio I have sought to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas.  There are areas of disagreement with the Majority which must be addressed in a clear, vigorous and civil manner.  Foremost among these issues concerns the need to reign in federal spending.  Although I understand the value of rebuilding our bridges, roads, and waterways, during this recession the Majority is taking the nation down a path where we will face trillion dollar deficits “as far as the eye can see.”  This is a massive burden we are placing on our children and it warrants a serious national debate.  This is just one example where conservative principles are consistent with economic reality.  I would mention that I made the same argument with regard to the previous Administration.

While the House Leadership frequently brings up its own legislation, it does not allow the alternative proposals by the Minority to come before the full House.  However, you can find some of these proposals online at www.gop.gov/solutions. 

31.  We have 200+ years of being a capitalist country. What are you doing to promulgate our tradition of capitalism? How are you planning to fight against the advancing socialism/Marxism of Obama?

I understand that the current economic crisis required the government to increase outlays somewhat during this recession.  I supported additional funding for infrastructure spending to rebuild our nation’s highways, bridges, and waterways.   In fact, it is my belief that the focus of the Administration and the Congress should be centered on economic recovery.  The primary aim of fiscal and monetary policy at this time should be to provide an environment for sustainable economic growth.  It is not the time for Congress to be entertaining a “cap and trade” program that would entail higher energy costs for Americans, limiting the home mortgage deduction when housing markets are imploding, and limiting the charitable contribution at a time when charity is most needed.  Moreover, I have concerns with increasing entitlement spending by more than $1 trillion in order to provide a down payment for a new government health care plan and new education spending.

If we are to produce a sustainable economic recovery, the short term explosion in federal spending in combination with the massive increases in the money supply by the Federal Reserve System will have to be ramped down as our economy recovers.  Otherwise we will see significant inflationary pressures and higher interest rates.   This was the unfortunate pattern our nation witnessed in the late 1970’s which led to a very severe recession.

We have a responsibility to avoid passing a massive debt burden on to our children and grandchildren.  A doubling of the debt burden over the next 10 years to 82 percent of GDP will impose a significant tax burden on them coupled with the prospect of a lower standard of living.  In conjunction with the coming explosion in entitlement spending entailed by the aging of the “baby-boomers,” we are simply “kicking the can down the road” for the next generation to address.  As both a father and grandfather, this greatly concerns me.

It is my belief that a sustainable economic recovery will require greater incentives for work, savings, and investment rather than increased levels of spending, taxing, and borrowing.  The American people, not the government, are the source of wealth creation in our economy.  It is for that reason I remain optimistic that despite any differences we may have over policy, it is the hard work of Americans which will ensure that our future will be brighter than it might appear today.    

32.  I am a Democrat. Very moderate union member 20 years. I feel as my party has become the party of welfare and not the party for the worker. What are you doing to include me in your party?

I believe that legislation that empowers people to work, save, and invest is not only the surest road to economic recovery, but also what people expect Congress to do – especially in a time of economic crisis.  For instance, in response to the housing crisis, I have supported legislation which would, among other things, provide a $5,000 refinancing tax credit to help families cover the costs of a mortgage refinancing or to buy down principle, provide a $15,000 home buyer tax credit, and provide incentives for those who invest in homes in areas with a high number of foreclosures.  I have also supported bipartisan legislation to address the problems consumers have faced with credit card companies and foreclosures. 

I also want to mention it is important to work in a bipartisan manner to address the problems facing our nation.  For one example, I have introduced legislation with Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) to reduce our nuclear stockpiles (H. Res. 278).  Possessing close to 95 percent of the world’s nuclear warheads, the United States and Russia must lead the way in securing the world’s nuclear stockpiles.  A crucial step to this end will be reducing the stockpiles of both countries, as it is easier to secure fewer weapons.  Therefore, our legislation would express the sense of the House that the United States and Russia should, in cooperation, individually reduce their nuclear stockpiles to 1,000 deployed weapons and 3,000 total by 2015.  Savings from the stockpile reductions would be made available to humanitarian programs such as Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.  Furthermore, the Resolution calls for the enhancement of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (Nunn-Lugar) by an additional $500 million per year. The Nunn-Lugar program secures and dismantles weapons of mass destruction in former Soviet Union states. 

33. Are you and your fellow Republicans going to give Pelosi a pass on her remarks about the CIA?

It is hard to believe that Speaker Pelosi sat in CIA briefings where she was told about enhanced interrogation techniques and walked out believing that those techniques were not being used or weren’t intended to be used.  In my prior experience as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I cannot recall a single instance of the CIA briefing us on programs or techniques they were not using.  If the Speaker is mistaken in her accusation against the CIA, we ought to know that.  And if she is correct, we ought to know that too.  Therefore, we tried to pass legislation to create a bipartisan investigation into the claims that Speaker Pelosi made regarding the CIA.  However, the Democrats blocked the legislation (H. Res. 470) from being considered (roll call 283). 

34. I heard you were initially for TARP 1 (the initial stimulus package). Do you regret that stance? Or would do it all again?

The initial Treasury proposal for a Troubled Asset Recovery Program was four pages without any accountability or oversight.  At the time I joined with a number of my colleagues in indicating that I would not support such a proposal.  It was totally lacking in congressional oversight.   It was apparent that this proposal would not pass and another bill was drafted which provided for congressional scrutiny, a “clawback” provision which gave Treasury authority to recover money from the recipients of federal money if the asset sales were done at a loss, and limits on the compensation of the top executives within institutions which sold assets to the Treasury.  The revised measure also provided for the appointment of a Special Inspector General to monitor the implementation of the program.   I supported the initial funding for TARP because I was informed by the Secretary of the Treasury as well as the Chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors that the country was facing a collapse of the economy which might be comparable to the Great Depression.

In appealing for TARP funding, former Secretary Paulson testified in favor of using the money to buy troubled assets and against the idea of using the funds to infuse capital into the banking system.  After receiving the money, Secretary Paulson used the funds to inject money into the banks and declared that the Treasury would not be buying the bad assets, which were clogging the arteries of our financial system.  It should not be asking too much for the actions of Administration officials to parallel their testimony before Congress.

The American people have a right to expect oversight and accountability over how their tax dollars will be spent.  The attempt to circumvent this process and casual disregard for what is said before congressional committees undermines the ability of the Congress to conduct its oversight responsibility.  At a time when so many Americans are hurting, particular attention should be paid to the public trust.

Furthermore, the ad hoc response to our current economic crisis has further diminished the confidence of the American people, which is essential to the prospects for economic recovery.  The logic of bailing out Bear Stearns and not Lehman Brothers, opposing capital injections before supporting them, and using taxpayer dollars for a bailout of the auto industry which was never intended,  has likely made a very bad situation much worse.

I would add that the delayed response of the current Treasury Secretary to present a coherent response to the financial crisis further delayed the prospect for economic recovery.  Furthermore, problems with the oversight of the TARP program are not limited to the previous Administration.  According to the Special Inspector General's report, “many aspects” of Secretary Geithner’s recent proposal for public-private partnerships to purchase toxic assets “make it inherently vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse.”

I voted against releasing the second tranche of the $700 billion TARP funds. 

35. Why are bond-holding investors in Citigroup, AIG, Bank of America, etc. unscathed while taxpayers are footing the bill?

As are you, I am upset by the manner in which taxpayer money has been used with respect to these financial entities.  Although there are unique aspects with respect to each of these institutions in general it can be said that while shareholders have seen major losses in the value of their investments bondholders have not.   In economic terms the Treasury has issued debt in order to finance a transfer of wealth to bondholders.  Although this may improve the balance sheet of the affected institution, it does not enhance the lending capacity of the affected institution.  In my view the policy objective of the Treasury should be to increase the lending capacity of our financial institutions. That is essential if we are to have a sustainable economic recovery.

This is but one problematic aspect of the ad hoc manner in which the Treasury Departments of both Administrations have responded to the collapse of our nation’s financial institutions.  One consequence of this is that Treasury now finds itself boxed in with respect to its desire to attract private investors.  Were it to take actions adversely affecting bondholders at this point, it is felt by some that it would be all the more difficult to raise private investment funds.  To the extent that this argument is true, it is nevertheless not an argument against a levy against financial institutions much like that imposed by the FDIC when they once again return to profitability.

Furthermore the failure to position taxpayers as the senior claim among the various parties is an abnegation of the responsibility which should be first and foremost in the minds of those who represent the public.  Too much of the reaction to the financial crisis reflected a concern for individual institutions and an insufficient focus on the systemic impact of the government’s actions.  

36.  Explain the health insurance which the federal government provides for its employees.

The Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) offers a number of health insurance options for federal employees and retirees, including high deductible plans, health savings accounts, fee for service (FFS), and health maintenance organizations (HMOs).  A portion of the premium is paid for by the employer, in this case the federal government, with a portion – approaching 50 percent for some FFS plans – being paid for on a bi-weekly basis by the employee.

37. No VAT tax. For any reason!! Please tell Washington DC that we’re mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

In recent weeks the Congress has enacted historic levels of spending resulting in trillion dollar deficits over the next decade.  As a consequence of this increase in federal outlays, a broad based search for new taxes has taken place in the Congress.  We are seeing proposals for new soda taxes, estate taxes, taxes on investments, a trader tax, tobacco taxes, and a climate tax.

First of all, it is my view that the current fiscal crisis arises from the fact that government spends too much rather than from the misguided idea that Americans are under-taxed.  The facts show otherwise.  The decline in revenues attributable to the recession is hardly an argument for tax increases in that if we have learned anything from history, it should be that the Hoover Administration tax increase while the economy was collapsing contributed to the Great Depression.  By contrast, the $787 billion spending package adopted by the Congress followed by a $410 billion omnibus spending package reflect the real source of the problem.

In this regard, it is simply not possible for the Congress to tax its way out of our current fiscal crisis.  Furthermore, it is the worst possible response when we are in a serious recession.  If there is any doubt about the likely outcome of spend and tax fiscal policy, one need look no further than the current mess facing our own State of California.    What is needed is discipline with respect to spending.  The expanding list of possible tax targets merely “kicks the can down the road.”  We must not go down this road.  It will only prolong the current recession without addressing the ultimate “day of reckoning” if we fail to reign in excess federal spending. 

38.  President Obama has nominated a woman for the Supreme Court who has more judicial experience than anyone on the bench at the time of their nomination. She is currently under attack and being called a racist. Will you denounce those absurd attacks and support this excellent candidate?

How can we stop the confirmation of Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court? In 2005 Sotomayor told students at Duke University that the federal court of appeals is where “policy is made”, Also she makes racial comments: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male”. And she’s anti-2^nd Amendment.

Under Article II Section 2 the President has the power to “nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments  are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law…”

It is on the basis of this authority under the United States Constitution that the Senate will consider President Obama’s nomination of Justice Sotomayor to serve on the United States Supreme Court.   The tenure of office is for the life of the nominee and is thus accorded a concomitant level of scrutiny.

Justice Sotomayor is certainly a person with broad experience as a former prosecutor, business lawyer, trial court judge and appellate court justice.  To my knowledge there is no one in the Senate who has raised questions about her qualification to serve on our nation’s highest court.  That alone however will not determine the scope and nature of the confirmation process.  For example, Justice Alito—who currently sits on the Supreme Court--possessed qualifications which were comparable to those of Justice Sotomayor.  Yet then Senator Barack Obama voted against the confirmation of Justice Alito.

With regard to allegations of “racism,” that is not the manner in which I would choose to characterize Justice Sotomayor.  As one who has worked on civil rights legislation and enforcement throughout my public career it is my view that such language should not be used in an ad hominem fashion.  Our democratic process presupposes the ability to engage in civil discourse.

As to the debate about what some call “racial politics,” there is a reason why the symbol of Lady Justice is blindfolded.  Justice should be blind and all persons should be treated equally – certainly without reference to race.  As the elder Justice Harlan exhorted his colleagues in his dissenting opinion in the Dred Scott opinion, “the Constitution is colorblind.”

In this regard, there are questions which will be pursued in Justice Sotomayor’s confirmation concerning her record as a jurist.  An inquiry by the Senate Judiciary Committee is likely to be pursued concerning her decision in Ricci v. DeStefano (the New Haven firefighters case).  The United States Supreme Court has been clear in cases such as Washington v. Davis that remedial action by the lower courts to strike down promotion tests by public employers is permissible only where intentional discrimination has been demonstrated.  Justice Sotomayor’s judicial reasoning is likely to be measured in terms of its consistency with U.S. Supreme Court precedent.  This has relevance in terms of the Second Amendment question raised in that Justice Sotomayer’s adherence to Supreme Court precedent could signal her disposition to be bound by cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller (concerning an individual right under the Second Amendment to possess a firearm).  These and other questions are a normal part of the “Advice and Consent” function under our Constitution.