Mr. Nadler responds-- Hi, thanks everyone for logging on, I hope we will have an interesting conversation.

David thank you for your question. I agree with you that people should have much greater control over their credit and credit information. In addition, we should be able to re-establish many consumer protections that used to exist on credit granting institutions. State legislatures repealed most of these consumer protections--such as, limitations on interest rates, limits on late fees, limits on overdraft penalties, etc.--In the aftermath of the 1978 Supreme Court decision in the Marquette case, which held that the law that governed the use of a credit card is the law of the state from which issued. In other words, no state can enforce any greater consumer protections than South Dakota feels suitable. If we get a Democratic majority in the next election, Senator Harkin (IA) and I will introduce legislation to overturn the Marquette decsion and each state again regulate banks and credit issuing institutions. Then we will see some real consumer protections in many states.

Congresswoman Maloney Responds:

Thanks for your question- I agree that AMT reform is a very important issues for New York City. For those who haven't dealt with the Alternative Minimum Tax, it was created in the 1960s to ensure that high-income Americans pay taxes at a certain rate. However, as times have changed, the AMT is now applied to many middle- and low-income Americans, and it forces them to pay taxes at a higher rate than they normally would. It particularly hurts so-called "blue states" such as New York, California, and the number of people that move into it each year grows and grows. Its an extremely unfair tax and in my opinion it should be eliminated.

My Democratic collegues and I know that this is a major problem and we are working hard to provide real AMT relief. Our most recent effort came during the cosideration of the tax bill that was just signed into law. We attempted to pass a measure that would have provided more extensive and meaningful relief, but that motion was defeated on the House floor. We will continue to press on this important issue.

This is Congressman Eliot Engel of New York responding. The Republican administration and leadership in Congress has done next to nothing to help the embattled people of the gulf coast region whose lives were turned upside down by Katrina. FEMA's response was incompetent, and the Republicans gave little more than lip service. Congress should appropriate more money, and have much more on the ground help, so people can see action immediately, rather than promises. Instead of giving tax breaks for the rich, as Republicans are doing, we ought to take that money and help people from the gulf area.

Mr. Nadler responds-- Sanjyot, this is a good idea as far as it goes. Many people have suggested opening up the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan to the general public and to small businesses. Senator Kerry, for example, mentioned this during the 2004 presidential campaign. The Republicans have opposed this, they have suggested instead, that small businesses be eligible to pool thier resources and join what are called Associated Health Plans (AHP's). Not a terrible idea, except, that the Republicans insist that, as a condition for permitting this, all state consumer protections in health care and all state requirements for health care plans (for example--you must cover breast cancer) be overturned by the federal legislation.

Of course, by far the best solution is a single-payer program, in which the health care consumer goes to whatever doctor, hospital they want and the bill is sent to the government. The consumer has full choice and doesn't worry about payments. Medicare is a single-payer system. The overhead cost of Medicare is about 2 percent. 98 percent of Medicare funds go to pay for services. In any other system, between 25-35 percent goes to overhead. The savings could easily finance insuring all of the uninsured and giving better insurance to people who don't have great policies.

Thank you for your question about Medicare Part D and the rising costs of perscription drugs. I had serious concerns about the doughnut hole (to which you refer) which is one of the reasons I voted against the irresponsible Republican bill. The Democratic plan would have expanded Medicare to cover perscription drugs. The Republican plan is very confusing, one out of ten of my constituents have not signed up for the plan, in my district there are 47 different plans to choose from. Another problem with the plan is that drug companies can decide after you've entered the plan not to cover certain drugs, yet a senior is locked in for a year after they enter the plan. I supported the Democratic substituted which provided for more meaningful, responsible, and affordable perscription drug coverage. I support the Democratic plan which would permit the reimportation of safe, less expensive drugs from abroad. I also support legislation such as HR 725, the Medicare Perscription Drug Savings and Choice Act of 2005 which will reduce the cost of perscriptions by requiring Medicare to negotiate lower prices with drug companies. Savings from these measures will help close the "donought hole".

This is Congressman Eliot Engel of New York responding. I wholehertedly support HR 550. In this new technology era, it is important to have a paper receipt for every vote. We must insure that votes aren't switched, stolen, or transferred, and that every vote is counted accurately. As we go to more efficient and modern voting machines, we need a paper trail. When Democrats contrfol the House and Senate, I am sure that HR550 or similar legislation will be enthusiastically passed.

Mr. Nadler responds--- Richard, thank you for your question. I am vehemently in favor of net neutrality. In fact, as soon as I finish answering this question, I have to go vote on the net neutrality bill in the Judiciary Committee. The internet affords for the first time in a long time, real freedom of speech and of projection to people who don't have a lot of money. That must be maintained. Also, a free internet has the potential to democratize our political campaigns by greatly reducing the dependence on huge amounts of money to run political campaigns. It could restore democracy in this country. I view the current campaign finance system as an advanced cancer on our democratic system. If we don't cure it, historians will write of the United States as they do of the Roman republic that we had a good two hundred year run with democracy, but then it degenerated into an oligarchy or plutocracy. A free internet has the potential to save American democracy. We must, and I will defend it.

Thanks for everyone's participation. I am sorry to cut this short, but I have to go vote in the Judiciary committee now.

Congresswoman Maloney Responds:

I've seen a number of questions about gas prices and energy policy, so I'll answer them here.

The most immediate problem that concerns many Americans and New Yorkers is the soaring gas prices-which seems even more unbelievable as oil companies roll in record profits. I do believe action is needed to reign in these prices and to break the bond between this Congress, this administration and the oil industry, which is far too tight.

I recently voted in favor of legislation passed by Congress, the Federal Energy Price Protection Act of 2006, which would prohibit prices gouging in the sale of gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, and home heating oil.

Also, I've worked to reform the oil royalty system for a long time. Currently, oil and gas companies pay a pittance in royalties to the American taxpayer for the oil and gas they extract from our publically-owned land- The New York Times has estimated that we are being short changed $ 7 billion over the next five years. That's money owed to you, which could be used to develop alternative energy choices or for any number of other programs hurt by our massive budget deficit.

I think developing alternative energy sources is also very important, and I have cosponsored legislation which would effectively reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, promote energy independence, build a market for renewable energy, promote conservation and protect the environment.

In fact, today we are voting on drilling in ANWR. This is the 14th time it has been brought before this congress and each time I have voted against it-as I will today.

This is Congressman Eliot Engel of New York responding. We have made a mess of the whole immigration issue by our inaction through the years, and now we have a much more difficult job to do as a result. The cost of any immigration bill we enact should be wholly paid for by the Federal Government, since immigration is obviously a federal problem. There should be no hidden costs to the states, as would incur with the National Guard on the border, since the states pay for their national guards. I believe that a Democratic majority would do this, and also enforce our laws as well. Obviously, Congressional oversite would be an important component. However, in my opinion, it is doubtful that Congress would pass a bill this session that the President would sign. The ridiculous House bill, which makes every undocumented person and those who help them felons, and that would supposedly force the 11 million undocumented people out of the country is unworkable and impractical. In my opinion, the Senate bill is much better. We need to find a way to have the 11 million earn their citizenship, while at the same time secure our borders so that in the futrure we won't be confronting this problem again.

Mr. Crowley responds-- Hey Dan, thanks for taking time to participate in this e-town hall meeting. It's great to have Woodside represented here. I'm a Woodside man myself. Born and raised!

The Iraq Conflict is the most pressing issue facing our nation today. I appreciate the fact that you are so up on the issues to recognize that there is a discharge petition by Rep Abercrombie that i am an original co-sponsor of.

I do believe that we need to have an open debate on Iraq. We have not as of yet. There has been little oversite by the HIRC or this Congress.

I continue to lobby my colleagues on HRes 55. We are building more and more support to hold this administration accountable on both sides of the isle. Its important to remember that this is a bi-partisan effort. We could sure use some more Reps on this.

What you can do is continue to talk this reso up and activate more folks to call and write thier reps down here. THey need to hear more about this effort to talk about how and when we can begin to bring our troops home.

thanks again for you question and for being a concerned and informed constituent.

And yes, thios is really me answering your e-mail. So if there are any misspelled words or typos its between us!

all the best,

Congressman Joe Crowley

Congresswoman Maloney Responds:

The VA is currently going through a review of 18 hospitals around the country, with PriceWaterhouseCoopers doing the review of all 18 facilities. One of the proposals that it is being considered is the idea of closing either the Manhattan or Brooklyn VA hospital, or consolidating them both at a different location, possibly in Queens. In my opinion that's clearly a bad idea, and I am working with my colleagues in Congress and veterans groups to make sure it will not happen. Closing the Manhattan VA would make it much harder for veterans to access care, since Manhattan is much more convenient for veterans who rely on mass transit, and it would likely reduce the quality of care since the affiliation with NYU Medical School would end. That means veterans would no longer have access to the world class doctors and medical professionals at NYU Medical Center, Bellevue Center or Rusk Institute. The Manhattan VA has six centers of excellence, which could not be easily replicated elsewhere, and the only prosthetic lab in the Northeast.

PriceWatershouseCoopers recommended 9 options, many of which would call for the closing of either the Manhattan or Brooklyn hospital, one called for the status quo to continue and several called for realignment of services but left both hospitals open. The Local Advisory Panel overseeing the CARES procedure recommended to the Secretary either continuing the status quo or two possible realignments. All of the recommendations keep both hospitals open, and I and many of my colleagues have joined in supporting the LAP's recommendations. I am hopeful that the Secretary will agree and will choose those options for further study. There are two more phases in the process – one to reduce the 9 options to 3 or 4 for more in-depth study, and finally to narrow it down to one option. There will be public hearings at each of these two steps. It is not clear when the next step will take place, but they are well behind the original schedule. I am hopeful that we will prevail and the hospitals will remain open, but the public needs to continue to deliver a strong message to the VA that it makes no sense to close our veterans hospitals – particularly while men and women in uniform are fighting on two fronts and returning with severe injuries. Now, more than ever, these hospitals are needed.

Mr. Crowley responds-- Thank you Kim for your question. I am from right over the river in Queens, but I will be happy to answer your question. I myself am a child of an immigrant. My mother was born in Ireland and all four of my grandparents were immigrants from Ireland. I have an interesting perspective on the issues of immigration and homeland security. Aside from being the son of immigrants, I also the only member of Congress to lose a relative on 9-11. My first cousin, Battalion Chief John Moran, was 42 years of age, married with two children, graduate of Fordham Law School, a poet, a musician, and a athlete and an all around great guy. On 9-11 we lost almost 3,000 people like John. I believe that the overwhelming number of immigrants to our country, whether documented or undocumented, are here to fufill the American dream. I don't believe that xenophobia in any manner is going to help us in the war against terror. But I, like you, agree that we need to know who is in this country and who is not. The only way we can do that is by passing real, comprehensive immigration reform, that I believe is represented in the McCain-Kennedy legislation of which I am a co-sponsor. Thank you for your question and I hope that you are pleased with my response.

Mr. Crowley responds-- Thank you Paranee for your question. Healthcare isn't a privledge, it is a right. I understand how expensive it is to learn to learn and practice medicine. But if providers do participate in Medicare then it is far for the government to cap reasonable costs. I am sorry to cut this answer short, but I have just been called to vote on the floor. Thanks again for everyone's participation!