Congress: 23rd District

Questionnaires were distributed to candidates last month. Answers have been edited to fit the available space.

Illegal Immigration

Q. Do you support new measures such as increased border patrols and physical barriers to try to stem the flow of illegal immigration from the south?

Becker: I support measures to help stem the flow of illegal immigrants. We must provide whatever help is necessary for our border patrol to do their job.

Gallegly: Yes. As the author of legislation to nearly double the size of the Border Patrol, I believe it is crucial for the U. S. to regain control over our borders. As many as 3 million illegal aliens are expected to enter our country this year, consuming services and taking jobs that otherwise would go to citizens and legal residents of all races and ethnic backgrounds.

Perez Ferguson: No. As long as American employers continue to evade our labor laws and offer jobs to illegal immigrants, the incentive to cross the border will prove too hard to resist. Stricter enforcement of our labor laws, not futile and expensive attempts to build physical barriers, is the most effective way to address this issue.

Shakman: It is not clear from many studies that illegal immigration has a net detrimental effect on the U. S. I favor free trade and support for international family planning.

Sweeney: Yes. But let’s not mislead ourselves. Building a new Berlin Wall will not solve this problem. The immigration tide will only be stemmed when the Mexican economy shows significant improvements.

Wood: No.

U. S. Citizenship

Q. Do you support a proposed constitutional amendment that would deny U. S. citizenship to U. S.-born children of illegal immigrants?

Becker: I do not support amending our Constitution for this purpose.

Gallegly: Yes. As the author of this amendment, which is attracting growing bipartisan support, it is clear our citizenship laws must be brought into line with the vast majority of nations. As documented by ABC’s “20/20” recently, a growing number of women are crossing into the U. S. just so they can give birth here, making their children U. S. citizens and thus eligible for thousands of dollars in welfare benefits. There are some 360,000 illegals in California taking advantage of this loophole, at a cost to the taxpayers of some $240 million a year.

Perez Ferguson: No. Diversity of perspective is one of America’s greatest assets--not a liability. Our Constitution and our historical experience strongly affirm the value of the energy, dedication and new vision that this “nation of immigrants” continues to gain from newcomers willing to work hard in order to fulfill the promise of our land of opportunity.

Shakman: No. I see no need for this drastic deviation from the American tradition.

Sweeney: No. I refuse to change our Constitution in a cheap ploy for votes. This proposal fosters hate and division at a time when we need clear thinking. People don’t come here to have babies; they come in search of jobs.

Wood: No.

Oil Exploration

Q. Barring a national emergency, would you ever support opening up more of the California coastline to oil exploration? If so, under what circumstances?

Becker: Only if we can find an environmentally safe way to do so.

Gallegly: Yes. I favor exploration only, so we know the extent of reserves in case of a national emergency. In order to protect our coasts, I have co-sponsoredlegislation to require oil tankers to be double-hulled and to follow a course outside the Channel Islands instead of inside. I also continue to work to ensure that the Ventura County coastline receives the same protection from excessive drilling as the rest of the California coast.

Perez Ferguson: No. The ecologically sensitive California coastline should be left alone. It’s high time that the United States formulate a comprehensive national energy policy that steers us away from fossil fuel consumption and in the direction of alternative energy sources.

Shakman: I see no current need.

Sweeney: No. I support creating a new national energy strategy that protects our coasts, our air, our water and the lives of the men and women who serve this country.

Wood: Yes.

Public Parkland

Q. Do you support increasing the amount appropriated by Congress to buy public parkland in the Santa Monica Mountains, which is $14 million this year?

Becker: I don’t think we should increase spending in any area until we establish a new national agenda, priorities and balance our budget. Once that is accomplished, we can consider setting aside funds for wilderness areas.

Gallegly: Yes. I have worked with other officials to secure the maximum amount of funding to acquire environmentally sensitive parcels in the Santa Monica Mountains.

Perez Ferguson: Yes. The Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area serves the largest metropolitan area in the country. It is important that the residents of Ventura County have enough protected area to enjoy. Increased funding will assure that projects that are under way will be completed and that the integrity of the Santa Monica Mountains will be maintained.

Shakman: If it can be done consistently with balancing the budget.

Sweeney: Yes. Parklands are not a frivolous issue to address when funds are left over; they are essential.

Wood: No.

Industrial Emissions

Q. Should the United States move more rapidly to limit industrial emissions that may be depleting the ozone layer and contributing to global warming even though such steps may hurt some businesses and eliminate some jobs?

Becker: I don’t think we should move more rapidly to do anything until we have our own national priorities set. How can we give direction when we are not even directed at the national level? We are overtaxing, over burdening business as it is. I would like to see environmentalists work directly with businesses to resolve the environmental problems without the middle man: government.

Gallegly: No. I strongly support policies to clean our air and ensure a healthy environment. However, all legislation passed by Congress should be balanced with the need to achieve a growing economy and create new jobs. I firmly believe there is a middle ground where we can have government policies that promote both clean air and strong business. In Congress, I have worked to establish legislation that does exactly that--and for this work I received the Clean Air Champion Award from the Sierra Club.

Perez Ferguson: Yes. Attempts to cast environmental protection as the enemy of a strong economy are wrong-headed and destructive. A balanced and constructive approach would include tax credits for business research and development to correct problems and improve environmental protections rather than closing down and eliminating jobs.

Shakman: More rapidly than what? Loss of the ozone layer is serious and must be effectively fought.

Sweeney: Yes. Those who see this as a threat to business are wrong. There is a wave of environmental regulation and awareness sweeping through the industrialized world; we can either ride it or be crushed by it.

Wood: (No reply)

Abortion Rights

Q. Do you support a woman’s unrestricted right to an abortion within the first three months of pregnancy?

Becker: Although abortion is a tragedy no matter the circumstance in which it may be necessary, I feel that the question of an abortion is a matter of privacy between a woman and her doctor.

Gallegly: I believe the scope of the Roe vs. Wade decision goes too far, and oppose the use of federal funds to terminate a pregnancy.

Perez Ferguson: Yes. The pro-choice position is fundamentally American. It is basic to our democracy to keep the government from interfering with our personal decisions; it is a right deeply rooted in our U. S. Constitution. Consequently, a women’s decision on whether or not to terminate her pregnancy should remain a private one between herself and her physician.

Shakman: I support the Freedom of Choice Act as a consensus of Congress that enjoys broad support. I will vote for it if in Congress.

Sweeney: Yes. Privacy is a fundamental right, and bringing a child into this world should be a private decision for individual women and couples. Congress needs to codify these rights, and pull the rug out from a right-wing court bent on restricting women’s freedoms.

Wood: Yes.

Abortion Funding

Q. Do you support federal funding of abortions for women who cannot afford them?

Becker: OK, and I would like to see voluntary contributions for abortions as an item on our tax returns similar to the one for campaign contributions.

Gallegly: No. See previous answer.

Perez Ferguson: Yes. I support including abortions among the medical services available to low-income families. The government has made a commitment to provide health care for the needy and should not eliminate any medically necessary care. A woman’s access to a safe and legal abortion should not be regulated by her pocketbook. Abortion is not a luxury item. It is a necessary component of a woman’s health care.

Shakman: See my answer to the previous question.

Sweeney: Yes. Fundamental rights should not vary with income levels.

Wood: No.

Death Penalty

Q. Do you support the death penalty for any crimes? If so, which ones?

Becker: Yes, I support the death penalty.

Gallegly: Yes. I believe some murderers and drug kingpins have committed such heinous crimes that they deserve the ultimate punishment. In fact, I have authored legislation to authorize the death penalty for killers of federal law enforcement officers.

Perez Ferguson: Yes. In a nation of laws, social order and stability depend upon our citizens’ voluntary compliance with legitimate rules and regulations that secure our precious rights and freedoms. Anyone who flagrantly disregards those laws and is convicted of premeditated murder has sacrificed the right to continued life and liberty.

Shakman: (No reply)

Sweeney: No. The death penalty does nothing to deter crime and protect our streets. Robert Alton Harris is now dead, and most of us don’t feel any safer. We need to fix our criminal justice system to make it swift and consistent instead of making new gas chambers.

Wood: (No reply)

Gun Sales

Q. Do you support any limits on the sales of guns to individuals? If so, what?

Becker: Yes. I support law enforcement regarding gun control.

Gallegly: Law-abiding citizens should be able to enjoy their Second Amendment rights to own legitimate sporting and self-defense weapons.

Perez Ferguson: Yes. I support a complete ban on the sale of assault weapons with an ammunition clip of more than 10 rounds. Licensing for purchase and possession of all firearms should be subject to a minimum two-week waiting period.

Shakman: Machine gun-like weapons should not be available.

Sweeney: Yes. Reasonable waiting periods for handguns and control of potentially dangerous weapons (such as semiautomatics) help to protect us all from violent crime.

Wood: (No reply)

Affirmative Action

Q. In general, do you think affirmative action in employment of women and members of minority groups has not gone far enough, or has gone too far, or is about right?

Becker: I say it is about right based on my own personal experience as an employer.

Gallegly: About right.

Perez Ferguson: In general, current affirmative action efforts in employment are about right. However, additional gains still need to be made in equalizing opportunities for continuing education and promotion.

Shakman: (No reply)

Sweeney: Our ability to achieve this goal has not gone far enough. It is time to focus more energy on the causes of inequality, rather than squabbling over “quota” charges. Educational opportunity and child care issues should top a new agenda to rise above the current politicized debate.

Wood: (No reply)

Japanese Imports

Q. Should the United States make it harder for Japan to import goods into this country if Japan does not open more of its markets to American goods?

Becker: We should have a level playing field with all countries, not just Japan.

Gallegly: Yes. I believe in free, but fair, trade. Japan’s hidden trade restrictions and refusal to accept a fair share of U. S. goods harms our economy and costs U. S. jobs.

Perez Ferguson: Yes. The basic principles of free trade and good faith negotiations demand parity of market access as the starting point for a healthy world economy. In the absence of a firm mutual commitment to parity, the United States should not subject our working men and women to the consequences of an unfair market position.

Shakman: We cannot accept such a refusal by Japan and must find the appropriate motivators. Such motivators cannot be actions that hurt ourselves.

Sweeney: Yes. We should demand reciprocity with all trading partners. It is not fair for them to protect their markets while exploiting ours. However, we cannot blame the Japanese for economic problems of our own.

Wood: (No reply)

Capital Gains

Q. Do you favor President Bush’s proposal for a capital gains tax cut as an economic stimulant?

Becker: We need something to jump-start our economy and a capital gains tax cut is a stab at it.

Gallegly: Yes. Investment spurs economic recovery. But the capital gains tax at its current rate only succeeds in diluting the incentive for investment. That’s why I fully support President Bush’s proposal to cut the capital gains tax.

Perez Ferguson: Yes. A qualified yes. There is nothing especially magical about a capital gains tax cut. The more important consideration is how the resulting savings are to be utilized. I would support a capital gains tax cut only on the condition that a portion of the savings would be reinvested in long-term capital and workplace improvements.

Shakman: I favor a capital gains tax reduction that rewards long-term planning.

Sweeney: No. The last thing we need right now is another tax break for the rich. I favor a complete overhaul of our tax system to make it far more simple and fair. People need to again believe in their government.

Wood: (No reply)

Balanced Budget

Q. Do you support a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget?

Becker: Yes. We need whatever it takes to get these jokers to pursue what is basic, right and what we sent our representatives to Congress to do.

Gallegly: Yes. Not only do I support a Balanced Budget Amendment, I’m also an original sponsor of HJRES-248, the legislation that would bring it about. For every dollar in new taxes, Congress spends another $1.50. This problem has created a $400-billion deficit for our nation. (The liberals in Congress will always spend more than what we take in.) That’s why this amendment is absolutely essential if we are to ever put an end to the deficit.

Perez Ferguson: Yes. The American government has no greater right to spend more than it collects than does any working American citizen or family. Continued deficit spending and mindless appropriations measures provide a short-term boost at the expense of our economic health and future opportunities.

Shakman: No. If the president and Congress can decide to balance the budget, they can just do it and make an amendment unnecessary. Without that resolve, an amendment will be circumvented.

Sweeney: No. We don’t need to change the Constitution; we need leaders with the will to make government work again. I’ve been very specific on ways to raise revenues and cut government expenses. Those who refuse to do this on the campaign trail will never do it in Congress.

Wood: (No reply)

Defense Savings

Q. With the end of the Cold War, should any defense savings be used for: lower taxes, reduced deficit, spending on domestic programs?

Becker: Our first priority must be to determine our national agenda, which will also determine our economic goals. We must balance our budget, reduce our deficit and support our own needs by providing the economic stimulation for jobs, education, health and welfare.

Gallegly: Lowering taxes and reducing the deficit.

Perez Ferguson: Immediate priorities are deficit reduction and domestic spending. It may be possible to lower taxes when these pressing needs have been addressed, our fiscal policy is on a sound footing and conversion to a full and productive peacetime economy has been implemented.

Shakman: Reducing the deficit.

Sweeney: The peace dividend was purchased at too great a price to be squandered on short-term tax breaks and a pitch for votes. The United States must again focus on the production of quality goods and the assurance of a high quality of life for our children. We should invest in infrastructure needs, such as our roads and schools--and in new industries, such as mass transit and alternative energy production. This will provide jobs today and can give us something to show for it tomorrow.

Wood: (No reply)

Soviet Aid

Q. Should the United States be contributing significantly more non-military aid to the former Soviet Union to help it achieve economic reform and long-term stability?

Becker: I prefer sending U. S. goods and services purchased here in this country rather than cash.

Gallegly: Yes. The U. S. should aggressively encourage businesses, along with governmental and private-sector experts, to help the former Soviet Union negotiate the difficult transition to a democratic, free-market system. Simply sending billions of dollars in aid, however, would be a mistake because so much would be wasted through corruption and the black market instead of aiding those for whom it was intended.

Perez Ferguson: Yes. An investment now offers the promise of great long-term reward; short-term thinking will likely result in unwelcome consequences of increasing magnitude. Our aid efforts should be primarily in the form of American goods, services and expertise rather than cash or credit, as a corollary means of stimulating our own economy.

Shakman: I support the President’s proposal. Do you mean more than that? No.

Sweeney: Yes. To avoid a threat to world security, we ought to invest in aid programs that provide advisers, products and market development tools--but only as part of an international effort in which the many Western powers pool their resources together.

Wood: (No reply)

Saddam Hussein

Q. If Saddam Hussein ultimately disobeys United Nations’ orders to dismantle Iraq’s arms-making nuclear capability, should the United States urge the United Nations to take military action with U. S. participation?

Becker: I don’t think there is a simple answer on the Middle East. We need to recognize our responsibility, and work together to find peaceful solutions. At the same time, we must not fail in whatever duties and responsibilities we do undertake.

Gallegly: Yes. Thanks to the overwhelming allied victory in the Persian Gulf War--for which I took a lead role in gaining Congressional approval--Iraq does not now pose a major threat to its neighbors. However, Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.

Perez Ferguson: No. Certainly not as the first option. Military intervention is never successful in resolving the underlying causes of conflict. The United States should be the leader in supporting and encouraging the United Nations to utilize all the other considerable resources that a truly unified international political will can bring to bear.

Shakman: We need to retain the option of a graded response.

Sweeney: Yes. If Saddam Hussein will not destroy his nuclear arms-making capability, the U. N. should do so for him. Respect for the U. N. goes both ways, however. We must do more than simply use the U. N. as a cover for pursuing our own agenda.

Wood: (No reply)

Medicare Benefits

Q. Should the government reduce Medicare benefits for the wealthy to help alleviate the federal budget deficit?

Becker: We must solve our national problems by one, establishing goals, two, developing programs that work. I am not in favor of stop-gap Band-Aid solutions aimed at one particular segment of society, whether wealthy or poor. We need to do what is right for all of us.

Gallegly: No. The government has entered into a contract with Medicare recipients, and that contract must be honored.

Perez Ferguson: No. Medicare benefits have already suffered tremendously under the Reagan/Bush budget ax. The federal budget deficit should not be balanced on the backs of our senior citizens. Programs like Medicare enjoy broad-based public support because of their universal nature. Tampering with this system can only bring about lessened support. In the end, this means depriving deserving and needy seniors of desperately needed medical attention.

Shakman: No.

Sweeney: Yes. All our seniors should be protected. But those Americans in the top 5% of wage earners--of all ages, seniors or not--should expect to pay higher deductibles. Unless we stop the hemorrhage of our federal deficit, our support systems for seniors and all others will crumble completely.

Wood: (No reply)

Art Restrictions

Q. Should Congress impose any content restrictions on what it considers obscene or indecent materials in reauthorizing the National Endowment for the Arts?

Becker: I think Congress is obscene in the way it spends our money, period.

Gallegly: Yes. The taxpayers should not be expected to pay for obscene or blasphemous “art.” These “artists” are entitled to their First Amendment rights, but they are not entitled to one cent of taxpayers’ money.

Perez Ferguson: No. Certainly not before Congress can reach some agreement on “what it considers obscene and indecent materials.” Sanctioning active government participation in artistic censorship sets a dangerous and unwarranted precedent.

Shakman: No.

Sweeney: No. Congress can’t figure out what is ethical or merely legal--why would we trust them to judge what is obscene?

Wood: (No reply)

Health Care

Q. Do you support a national health-care system in which the government establishes fees, pays all the bills and collects taxes to cover the cost?

Becker: Health care isn’t working at any level because of government regulation, litigation and administration. We need to reduce government intervention. I would like to see a health-care package at the state level which would combine and provide all forms of health-care coverage including workers’ comp for all people whether employed or not. We could reduce costs to small, high-risk employers and help business. This program must be privately underwritten and administered.

Gallegly: No. While I firmly believe rising health-care costs are one of the biggest problems facing our nation today, a national health-care system is not the solution. More government is never the right answer. I strongly support President Bush’s insurance market. We must preserve the quality of our current health-care system that makes it the finest in the world, while ensuring that all Americans have access to it.

Perez Ferguson: No. It is a disgrace that millions of Americans currently live in fear of illness, and have no provision for insurance coverage for even the most basic forms of health care. But the solution is not a massive and all-inclusive government program. Government efforts should be limited to provision of preventive care as a safety net for the uninsured. Government should also endeavor to reduce malpractice claims and costs by emphasizing mediation, rather than litigation. The government should make a commitment to establishing a partnership between public and private interests, beginning with coverage of children and pregnant women.

Shakman: Our problem lies in health-care financing. I favor a substantial federal role and use of general tax revenues.

Sweeney: Yes. Health insurance should be a basic American right. We must also recognize that our out-of-control health care spending takes a terrible toll on our economy--billions of dollars are spent unproductively. I support a measure offered by California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, which calls for regional, privately run HMOs providing care for all citizens.

Wood: No.

Term Limits

Q. Do you support limiting the number of terms members of Congress can serve? If yes, what should the limits be for members of the House and Senate?

Becker: Yes.

Gallegly: Yes. In fact, I have co-sponsored legislation limiting House and Senate members to 12 years in office. These limits should not go into effect, however, until they apply to all members. Otherwise, California’s interests would be harmed.

Perez Ferguson: Yes. We need to encourage more widespread citizen participation in all levels of public service. Congressional representatives should be limited to 6 two-year terms; U. S. senators should be limited to two 6-year terms.

Shakman: Only if the limits apply in all states. If only California limits terms, then California will be at a disadvantage from lack of seniority.

Sweeney: Yes. I believe we should also consider four-year terms for the House with each member elected at the same time that we choose our President. This would strengthen political resolve by making both presidential and congressional candidates run on the same ticket. We need to ensure that elections actually get results.

Wood: (No reply)

Congressional Perks

Q. If elected, would you decline to accept any of the congressional perks? If yes, please specify which ones.

Becker: I don’t believe in congressional perks. Our congressmen are our public servants. They should not receive benefits that we don’t have. It costs us, the taxpayers, $1.25 million a year to support one congressman, his office and staff. The only perks that we are receiving from Congress are a few odd favors now and then, such as obtaining visas.

Gallegly: Yes. I have consistently voted to reduce spending on Congress, cut the franking allowance, apply all laws to Congress and reform the legislative process. I also voted to close the House Bank, and support closing the House beauty parlor, barber shop and gym.

Perez Ferguson: Yes. Election to public service is a trust, not a license to maximize personal privilege. I would decline the franking perk. This system of mailing at taxpayer expense is often abused as a method of government subsidized campaign literature. I would also propose that members of Congress who abuse their franking privilege for campaign purposes be fined by the Federal Elections Commission.

Shakman: Are there still perks? Please specify your basis for this question. I’ll be happy to respond to specifics.

Sweeney: Yes. I won’t abuse the Congressional franking privilege, as incumbent Elton Gallegly has done. Serving in Congress is an honor and a privilege, not a perk.

Wood: (No reply)

Campaign Contributions

Q. Do you support reducing the amount of contributions that can be made by special-interest groups to congressional campaigns? If so, to what level?

Becker: Special-interest contributions should be controlled.

Gallegly: Yes. In fact, I support a proposal to ban PAC contributions altogether and require candidates to raise the bulk of their funding within their districts, as I already do.

Perez Ferguson: Yes. I support the proposal put forth by Common Cause which would establish a system whereby one-third of contributions come from individuals, one-third come from Political Action Committees and one-third publicly financed. I also support setting a spending cap of $400,000 for Congressional races. I believe this would effectively level the playing field for all competitors and open the process for wider public participation.

Shakman: I favor public financing of elections using the check-off method on income tax returns as for the presidential election.

Sweeney: Yes. I support measures allowing candidates to collect no more than 30% of their contributions from PACs. Many candidates--including one in this race--collect more than half their money from PACs.

Wood: (No reply)

School Vouchers

Q. Do you support giving government vouchers to low- and middle-income parents to allow them to pay their children’s tuition in private or parochial schools?

Becker: No. I would like to eliminate all but the most basic federal and state guidelines, free up our schools so they once again can provide quality education.

Gallegly: Yes. All of my children received solid educations in the Simi Valley public schools, and I support public education. However, by giving parents educational alternatives, I believe we would improve public-school quality, and provide all our children with better educations.

Perez Ferguson: Government subsidy for private and/or parochial elementary or secondary school tuition tends to undercut one of the most important resources at our disposal to build a sense of common purpose and vision. Public education, properly funded and equipped, is one of the central means for developing the dedicated and involved public citizens who will protect and enhance our rights and freedoms in the years to come.

Shakman: No. Government money comes with strings. The strength of private schools is that they are not government schools. Most children are going to be educated in public schools and we need to keep them as good as we can.

Sweeney: No. Using funds to pay for private schools will cause the financial base of our public school system to crumble. But I do support choice within the public school system.

Wood: (No reply)

Striking Workers

Q. Do you support a law to forbid businesses to hire permanent replacement for striking workers?

Becker: No.

Gallegly: No. Such matters should be decided as part of negotiations between employers and employees. Government should ensure there is a level playing field.

Perez Ferguson: Yes. As long as no law can effectively compel management to negotiate in good faith, the American worker must retain the right to strike without fear of retaliation or loss of position. Working American families have already been through a long and bitter recession. These families deserve the peace of mind to know that their jobs and incomes are secure.

Shakman: That’s an issue I’d like to study further.

Sweeney: Yes. The right to bargain collectively is protected by our rights to freedom of speech and assembly; hiring permanent replacements makes a mockery of those rights.

Wood: (No reply)

Literary Influence

Q. What, if any, book have you recently read that influenced your view of public policy?

Becker: “Liar’s Poker.” (I hope the author will share any royalties that result from this plug).

Gallegly: “Our Country,” The shaping of America from Roosevelt to Reagan by Michael Barone.

Perez Ferguson: At a time when societal problems are mounting and government appears to be increasingly ineffectual, I find David Osborne and Ted Gaebler’s book, “Reinventing Government,” offers common sense solutions to many of America’s social problems. The “Work of Nations,” by the esteemed Harvard political economist Robert B. Reich, also offers a terrific insight into the changes needed, especially in our public educational system, if the United States is to make the transition into the 21st Century.

Shakman: “The Population Explosion,” by Paul and Anne Ehrlich

Sweeney: “The Sierra Nevada,” by Tim Palmer. He shows the importance of good planning and protection for a region as great as the Sierra. He is most profound in pointing out sustainable means of economic growth.

Wood: (No reply)

Hill or Thomas?

Q. Who do you think was more likely to have told the truth, Anita Hill or Clarence Thomas?

Becker: Frankly, I don’t think it matters who was telling the truth. What was important was the significance of the hearings. The public saw our Congress for what it truly was. We watched their attitudes. We recognized we put them in office. We saw our personal struggles as women reflected in Anita Hills’ testimony. We saw bigoted and judgmental attitudes. We saw ourselves.

Gallegly: Sexual harassment has no place in our society, and I am proud that my office has a longstanding written policy concerning it. I also believe that an accuser bears the burden of proof.

Perez Ferguson: The question of real importance is not whether Anita Hill or Clarence Thomas told the truth. This is not what outraged Americans. Americans across the nation were infuriated by the system, especially the way Anita Hill was treated by the all-male Senate Judiciary Committee. It offered a tremendous insight into the lack of diversity in the halls of the United States Congress. If we are to meet the mandate of our representative democracy, we must push forward to elect a Congress that truly reflects the population of our nation.

Shakman: I believe Anita Hill.

Sweeney: Ms. Hill. The discussion, however, should never have reached the point where she was called to testify. Clarence Thomas had served less than two years on the bench, and his nomination to the highest court should have been rejected immediately.

Wood: (No reply)

CONTENDERS

Daphne Becker, 50, of Ojai directs a real estate management firm and dental network. A Republican, this is her first bid for political office. She vows to spend $100,000 of her own money in the primary campaign if necessary. She is relying heavily on campaign mailers to win the GOP nomination.

Anita Perez Ferguson, 43, of Oxnard is an education consultant making her second congressional race. A Democrat, she is a top official of the National Women’s Political Caucus, which is supporting her with cash and volunteers. She has broad education experience as both a teacher and administrator.

Elton Gallegly, 48, a conservative Republican, is a three-term congressman and former mayor of Simi Valley, where he has resided for 25 years. A former real estate broker, Gallegly was raised in Huntington Park, adjacent to Los Angeles. He has formidable campaign financing and law enforcement backing.

Dr. Robert Shakman, 48, of Ventura is a health care administrator and clinical associate professor of preventive medicine at USC. A Republican, this is his first try for public office. He is calling for a health care system that provides for everyone while preserving private choice of physicians.

Kevin Sweeney, 33, of Ventura is an environmentalist who was press secretary for former Sen. Gary Hart (D-Colo.) when he ran for president in 1988. A Democrat who is active in local politics, he has helped elect environmental candidates to public office. This is his first time as a candidate for public office.

Jay C. Wood, 59, of Fillmore is a retired educator. He is a Libertarian who is running unopposed for his party’s nomination in the June primary. Wood said he views the primary not as an election, but as “a popularity contest for two older political parties.”

Congressional District 23

Overview: Until redistricting, Ventura County was split between two congressional districts, with Rep. Robert J. Lagomarsino (R-Ventura) representing western portions of the county and Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley) representing the eastern sections. Now, most of the county is in on district. Lagomarsino moved north to run in a separate district, avoiding a primary battle with Gallegly.

Where: The district includes Carpinteria and all of Ventura County except Thousand Oaks. To find out if you live in the district, call the Ventura County elections office, (805) 654-2781.

Demographics Anglo: 62% Latino: 30% Black: 3% Asian: 5%

Party Registration Demo: 42% GOP: 45% Others: 13%

Candidates Democrat Anita Perez Ferguson, education consultant Kevin Sweeney, environmental activist Libertarian Jay C. Wood, retired educator Republican Daphne Becker, businesswoman Elton Gallegly, congressman Robert A. Shakman, physician