- Share on WeChat
-
Member, Armenian Issues Caucus, present
Member, Autism Caucus, present
Member, Baltic Caucus, present
Member, Basic Education Caucus, present
Member, Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Caucus, present
Member, Bipartisan Congressional Cancer Prevention Caucus, present
Member, Congresional Childhood Cancer Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Air Force Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Animal Protection Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Arts Caucuses, present
Member, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Bipartisan Privacy Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Boating Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Caucus on Foster Youth, present
Member, Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, present
Member, Congressional Caucus on the Internet of Things, present
Member, Congressional Coastal Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Creative Rights Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Dietary Supplement Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Friends of Wales Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Internet Caucus, present
Member, Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Native American Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Nepal Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Organic Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Ports Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Progressive Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Toy Caucus, present
Member, Energy Savings Performance Caucus, present
Member, Finland Caucus, present
Member, Fourth Amendment Caucus, present
Member, Friends of Jesuit Colleges and Universities Caucus, present
Member, Friends of Thailand Caucus, present
Member, Hidden Heroes Congressional Caucus, present
Member, House National Guard and Reserve Components Caucus, present
Member, House Philanthropy Caucus, present
Member, Japan Caucus, present
Member, Korea Caucus, present
Member, Labor and Working Families Caucus, present
Member, Lupus Caucus, present
Member, Macedonia Caucus, present
Member, Medical Technology Caucus, present
Member, National Parks Caucus, present
Member, Parkinson's Caucus, present
Member, Quiet Skies Caucus, present
Member, Safe Climate Caucus, present
Member, Sharing Economy Caucus, present
Member, Skin Cancer Caucus, present
Member, Tourette Syndrome Caucus, present
Member, United Service Organization Congressional Caucus, present
Member, United States-Phillippines Friendship Caucus, present
Former Member, Appropriations Committee, California State Senate
Former Member, Budget Committee, United States House of Representatives
Member, Congressional Arts Caucus
Former Member, Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Elections and Constitutional Committee, California State Senate
Former Member, Oversight and Government Reform Committee, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Subcommittee on Information Technology, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Subcommittee on National Security, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (Foreign Affairs), United States House of Representatives
Former Member, The Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, United States House of Representatives
Member, Armenian Issues Caucus, present
Member, Autism Caucus, present
Member, Baltic Caucus, present
Member, Basic Education Caucus, present
Member, Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Caucus, present
Member, Bipartisan Congressional Cancer Prevention Caucus, present
Member, Congresional Childhood Cancer Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Air Force Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Animal Protection Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Arts Caucuses, present
Member, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Bipartisan Privacy Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Boating Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Caucus on Foster Youth, present
Member, Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, present
Member, Congressional Caucus on the Internet of Things, present
Member, Congressional Coastal Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Creative Rights Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Dietary Supplement Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Friends of Wales Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Internet Caucus, present
Member, Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Native American Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Nepal Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Organic Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Ports Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Progressive Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Toy Caucus, present
Member, Energy Savings Performance Caucus, present
Member, Finland Caucus, present
Member, Fourth Amendment Caucus, present
Member, Friends of Jesuit Colleges and Universities Caucus, present
Member, Friends of Thailand Caucus, present
Member, Hidden Heroes Congressional Caucus, present
Member, House National Guard and Reserve Components Caucus, present
Member, House Philanthropy Caucus, present
Member, Japan Caucus, present
Member, Korea Caucus, present
Member, Labor and Working Families Caucus, present
Member, Lupus Caucus, present
Member, Macedonia Caucus, present
Member, Medical Technology Caucus, present
Member, National Parks Caucus, present
Member, Parkinson's Caucus, present
Member, Quiet Skies Caucus, present
Member, Safe Climate Caucus, present
Member, Sharing Economy Caucus, present
Member, Skin Cancer Caucus, present
Member, Tourette Syndrome Caucus, present
Member, United Service Organization Congressional Caucus, present
Member, United States-Phillippines Friendship Caucus, present
Former Member, Appropriations Committee, California State Senate
Former Member, Budget Committee, United States House of Representatives
Member, Congressional Arts Caucus
Former Member, Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Elections and Constitutional Committee, California State Senate
Former Member, Oversight and Government Reform Committee, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Subcommittee on Information Technology, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Subcommittee on National Security, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, The Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, United States House of Representatives
Member, Committee on Foreign Affairs
Member, Committee on the Judiciary
Member, Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and Nonproliferation
Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet
Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Member, Subcommittee on Middle East, North Africa, and International Terrorism
— Awards:
Spouse's Occupation:
Water Commissioner and a former California Deputy Attorney General
1. Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
- Pro-choice
1. In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket?
- Yes
2. Do you support expanding federal funding to support entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare?
- Unknown Position
1. Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
- Yes
Do you support the protection of government officials, including law enforcement officers, from personal liability in civil lawsuits concerning alleged misconduct?
- No
Do you support increasing defense spending?
- No
1. Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
- Yes
2. Do you support lowering corporate taxes as a means of promoting economic growth?
- No
3. Do you support providing financial relief to businesses AND/OR corporations negatively impacted by the state of national emergency for COVID-19?
- Yes
1. Do you support requiring states to adopt federal education standards?
- Yes
1. Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, geo-thermal)?
- Yes
2. Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
- Yes
1. Do you generally support gun-control legislation?
- Yes
1. Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")?
- No
2. Do you support requiring businesses to provide paid medical leave during public health crises, such as COVID-19?
- Yes
1. Do you support the construction of a wall along the Mexican border?
- No
2. Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
- No
1. Should the United States use military force to prevent governments hostile to the U.S. from possessing a weapon of mass destruction (for example: nuclear, biological, chemical)?
- No
2. Do you support reducing military intervention in Middle East conflicts?
- Unknown Position
Do you generally support removing barriers to international trade (for example: tariffs, quotas, etc.)?
- Unknown Position
1. Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
- Pro-choice
1. It is not reasonable to answer the above two questions with just yes or no answers because these are vastly complicated areas in an immense budget. Would I support reducing defense spending by reducing some troop levels? YES. Would I support reducing spending that is critical to maintaining our technological edge? NO. Would I support simply increasing taxes? NO. Would I support increasing taxes in certain areas but lowering them in others? Maybe. It would depend on the specifics.
- "The bottom line of the Republican Budget? It shortchanges Californians. It does nothing to help families in Torrance who have seen their paychecks stagnate. Instead, it gifts yet another massive tax break to the top 1 percent." http://votesmart.org/public-statement/960959/rap-lieu-statement-on-gop-2016-budget#.VbEpYHUVhHw (votesmart.org)
"In California--the eighth largest economy in the world--we put our fiscal house in order by investing in core priorities instead of giving tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to set national budget policy that raises the wages of the middle class; protects Medicare and Social Security, and invests in infrastructure, education, and innovation." https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1066951/issue-position-budget-and-finance/?search=issue%20position#.WvCgNrQ-eRs (votesmart.org)
Rated 21% by National Taxpayers Union https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/1516/ted-lieu#.WvCY8LQ-eRs (votesmart.org)
"Would I support simply increasing taxes? NO. Would I support increasing taxes in certain areas but lowering them in others? Maybe. It would depend on the specifics." https://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/1516/ted-lieu/#.WvCFCLQ-eRs (votesmart.org)
"In California--the eighth largest economy in the world--we put our fiscal house in order by investing in core priorities instead of giving tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to set national budget policy that raises the wages of the middle class; protects Medicare and Social Security, and invests in infrastructure, education, and innovation." https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1066951/issue-position-budget-and-finance/?search=issue%20position#.WvCgNrQ-eRs (votesmart.org)
"Would I support simply increasing taxes? NO. Would I support increasing taxes in certain areas but lowering them in others? Maybe. It would depend on the specifics." https://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/1516/ted-lieu/#.WvCFCLQ-eRs (votesmart.org)
Rated 21% by National Taxpayers Union https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/1516/ted-lieu#.WvCY8LQ-eRs (votesmart.org)
Rated 21% by National Taxpayers Union. https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/1516/ted-lieu#.WvCY8LQ-eRs (votesmart.org)
"It is not reasonable to answer the above two questions with just yes or no answers because these are vastly complicated areas in an immense budget. Would I support reducing defense spending by reducing some troop levels? YES. Would I support reducing spending that is critical to maintaining our technological edge? NO. Would I support simply increasing taxes? NO. Would I support increasing taxes in certain areas but lowering them in others? Maybe. It would depend on the specifics." 2014 PCT
“In California – the eighth largest economy in the world – we put our fiscal house in order by investing in core priorities instead of giving tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy.” http://votesmart.org/public-statement/952119/daily-breeze-south-bay-rep-ted-lieu-appointed-to-house-committee-overseeing-federal-budget#.VbEqvXUVhHw (votesmart.org)
“The bottom line of the Republican Budget? It shortchanges Californians. It does nothing to help families in Torrance who have seen their paychecks stagnate. Instead, it gifts yet another massive tax break to the top 1 percent.” http://votesmart.org/public-statement/960959/rap-lieu-statement-on-gop-2016-budget#.VbEpYHUVhHw (votesmart.org)
"In California â?? the eighth largest economy in the world â?? we put our fiscal house in order by investing in core priorities instead of giving tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy." http://votesmart.org/public-statement/952119/daily-breeze-south-bay-rep-ted-lieu-appointed-to-house-committee-overseeing-federal-budget#.VbEqvXUVhHw (votesmart.org)
"Would I support simply increasing taxes? NO. Would I support increasing taxes in certain areas but lowering them in others? Maybe. It would depend on the specifics." https://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/1516/ted-lieu/#.WvCFCLQ-eRs (votesmart.org)
"In California--the eighth largest economy in the world--we put our fiscal house in order by investing in core priorities instead of giving tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to set national budget policy that raises the wages of the middle class; protects Medicare and Social Security, and invests in infrastructure, education, and innovation." https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1066951/issue-position-budget-and-finance (votesmart.org)
"Today, the House and Senate GOP cast their votes in favor of hurting middle class American families so that folks with estates worth $22 million can get a massive tax exemption." https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1214785/rep-lieu-statement-on-passage-of-gop-tax-bill#.XaX6--dKhYg (votesmart.org)
1. Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
- Yes
Do you support capital punishment for certain crimes?
- No Answer
1. Do you support lowering taxes as a way of promoting growth in the economy?
- No Answer
2. Do you support providing tax incentives to businesses for the purpose of job creation?
- No Answer
3. It makes little sense to answer the above tax and spending questions with yes or no answers. Would I support federal stimulus for a bridge to nowhere? NO. Would I support federal stimulus to help reduce congestion on the 405? YES. Would I support a tax credit for making socks? NO. Would I support a tax credit for Film & TV production? YES. My answers will depend on specific issues. That's why limited forms like this make it difficult to have intelligent responses.
- “In California – the eighth largest economy in the world – we put our fiscal house in order by investing in core priorities instead of giving tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy.” http://votesmart.org/public-statement/952119/daily-breeze-south-bay-rep-ted-lieu-appointed-to-house-committee-overseeing-federal-budget#.VbEqvXUVhHw (votesmart.org)
"Would I support federal stimulus for a bridge to nowhere? NO. Would I support federal stimulus to help reduce congestion on the 405? YES. Would I support a tax credit for making socks? NO. Would I support a tax credit for Film & TV production? YES." https://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/1516/ted-lieu/#.WvCFCLQ-eRs (votesmart.org)
"I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to set national budget policy that raises the wages of the middle class; protects Medicare and Social Security, and invests in infrastructure, education, and innovation." https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1066951/issue-position-budget-and-finance (votesmart.org)
"I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to set national budget policy that raises the wages of the middle class; protects Medicare and Social Security, and invests in infrastructure, education, and innovation." https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1066951/issue-position-budget-and-finance/?search=infrastructure#.W2MOVGdyIfI (votesmart.org)
"Would I support federal stimulus for a bridge to nowhere? NO. Would I support federal stimulus to help reduce congestion on the 405? YES. Would I support a tax credit for making socks? NO. Would I support a tax credit for Film & TV production? YES." https://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/1516/ted-lieu/#.WvCFCLQ-eRs (votesmart.org)
"Would I support federal stimulus for a bridge to nowhere? NO. Would I support federal stimulus to help reduce congestion on the 405? YES. Would I support a tax credit for making socks? NO. Would I support a tax credit for Film & TV production? YES." https://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/1516/ted-lieu/#.WvCFCLQ-eRs (votesmart.org)
"Mr. Speaker, unleashing the full potential of America means fully investing in the American people.Unfortunately, the Republican plan for our country is to slash investments in education, transportation and manufacturing." http://votesmart.org/public-statement/982473/the-first-100-days-of-114th-congress#.VbErJXUVhHw (votesmart.org)
"In California â?? the eighth largest economy in the world â?? we put our fiscal house in order by investing in core priorities instead of giving tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy." http://votesmart.org/public-statement/952119/daily-breeze-south-bay-rep-ted-lieu-appointed-to-house-committee-overseeing-federal-budget#.VbEqvXUVhHw (votesmart.org)
“Mr. Speaker, unleashing the full potential of America means fully investing in the American people.
Unfortunately, the Republican plan for our country is to slash investments in education, transportation and manufacturing.” http://votesmart.org/public-statement/982473/the-first-100-days-of-114th-congress#.VbErJXUVhHw (votesmart.org)
"It makes little sense to answer the above tax and spending questions with yes or no answers. Would I support federal stimulus for a bridge to nowhere? NO. Would I support federal stimulus to help reduce congestion on the 405? YES. Would I support a tax credit for making socks? NO. Would I support a tax credit for Film & TV production? YES. My answers will depend on specific issues. That's why limited forms like this make it difficult to have intelligent responses." 2014 PCT
1. This answer would depend on the reforms. Do I support reforms that put an even more incessant and suffocating obsession on testing? NO. Do I support reforms that will reduce class sizes? YES.
I believe respect for the education profession starts with student success; and student success depends on adequate education funding and quality educators.
As a Member of Congress, I will fight for more resources and funding, including co-sponsoring legislation and amendments and lobbying my colleagues to ensure that we can attract and retain the highest quality education professionals and provide the necessary classroom tools, resources and facilities.
- "This answer would depend on the reforms. Do I support reforms that put an even more incessant and suffocating obsession on testing? NO. Do I support reforms that will reduce class sizes? YES.I believe respect for the education profession starts with student success; and student success depends on adequate education funding and quality educators. " 2014 PCT
1. Do you support building the Keystone XL pipeline?
- No
2. Do you support reducing restrictions on offshore energy production?
- No
1. Do you believe that human activity is contributing to climate change?
- Yes
2. Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
- Yes
1. Do you support restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns?
- Yes
1. Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act?
- No
1. Do you support requiring illegal immigrants to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
- No
Do you support same-sex marriage?
- Yes
1. Do you support targeting suspected terrorists outside of official theaters of conflict?
- Yes
2. Should the U.S use military force in order to prevent governments hostile to the United States from possessing a nuclear weapon?
- No Answer
Do you support allowing individuals to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts?
- No
1. Agriculture
- No Answer
2. Arts
- No Answer
3. Defense
- No Answer
4. Education
- No Answer
5. Environment
- No Answer
6. Homeland Security
- No Answer
7. International aid
- No Answer
8. Medical Research
- No Answer
9. Scientific Research
- No Answer
10. Space exploration
- No Answer
11. United Nations
- No Answer
12. Welfare
- No Answer
13. Capital gains taxes
- No Answer
14. Corporate taxes
- No Answer
15. Excise taxes (alcohol)
- No Answer
16. Excise taxes (cigarettes)
- No Answer
17. Excise taxes (transportation fuel)
- No Answer
18. Income taxes (low-income families)
- No Answer
19. Income taxes (middle-income families)
- No Answer
20. Income taxes (high-income families)
- No Answer
21. Inheritance taxes
- No Answer
22. Payroll taxes
- No Answer
23. It is impossible to answer the above questions in this limited format. Would I support increasing corporate taxes across the board? NO. Would I support closing corporate loopholes that allow inversions? YES. How much revenues we need also depends on the state of the economy and the state of the budget. Are there cuts being proposed? If so, where? How much are the cuts? What are the tradeoffs? Do we need more revenues? To answer the above questions in the abstract is impossible.
- It is impossible to answer the above questions in this limited format. Would I support increasing education funding so schools can do more rigid testing? NO. Would I support increasing education funding to reduce class sizes? YES. Would I support increasing funding for space exploration to the moon? NO. Would I support increasing funding for space exploration to Mars and other planets? YES. Without specifics, it is impossible to answer the above questions in any meaningful manner.
1. Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
- Pro-choice
1. In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket?
- Yes
2. In order to balance the budget, do you support reducing defense spending?
- Yes
1. Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
- Yes
1. Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
- Yes
2. Do you support lowering corporate taxes as a means of promoting economic growth?
- No
1. Do you support requiring states to adopt federal education standards?
- Unknown Position
1. Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, thermal)?
- Yes
2. Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
- Yes
1. Do you generally support gun-control legislation?
- Yes
1. Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")?
- No
1. Do you support the construction of a wall along the Mexican border?
- No
2. Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
- No
Do you support the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes?
- Yes
1. Should the United States use military force in order to prevent governments hostile to the U.S. from possessing a nuclear weapon?
- Unknown Position
2. Do you support increased American intervention in Middle Eastern conflicts beyond air support?
- Unknown Position
Latest Action: House - 06/21/2019 Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Tracker:Latest Action: House - 06/20/2019 Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Tracker:Latest Action: House - 06/20/2019 Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Tracker:By Ted Lieu I was in my office on the fourth floor of the Cannon House Office Building on Wednesday when the Capitol Police entered around 1:15 to tell me and my chief of staff to evacuate immediately. The officers were running through each floor banging on office doors. They recommended that I remove the pin on my suit jacket that designates me as a member of Congress. We knew nothing as we raced down the stairs. We took the underground tunnel and eventually made it to the Rayburn House Office Building, where the staff of Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) let us into his office and then locked the door. We sheltered in place watching the horror unfold on TV. Throngs of rioters, some carrying Confederate flags, pillaged the hallowed halls of Congress, smashed doors and windows, and made their way to the chambers where many of my colleagues were. In that moment, we didn't know how far the mob was willing to go, and who might be harmed. I texted my wife and my parents to let them know I was safe and in lockdown. As the hours passed, it became clear we were in the middle of an attempted coup incited by Donald Trump. On social media he had told his supporters to descend upon Washington on Jan. 6 and said it would be "wild." He then gave an inflammatory speech and riled them up with false claims of mass election fraud. He told them, "We will not take it anymore and that's what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal." He directed them to march to the Capitol. He said, "You'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong." They followed his orders. These insurrectionists marched to the Capitol to stop Congress from accepting the certified electoral college results. They scaled walls, beat police with lead pipes and stampeded their way inside. By the time Trump tweeted a video telling the rioters attacking the Capitol, "we love you," it was painfully clear that he shouldn't be president for a minute longer. It was there, sheltering in place, fearing what a mob incited by Trump would do next, that congressman Cicilline and I decided that we were going to try to impeach the president. Again. We worked remotely late into the evening with House Judiciary Committee staff and Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-Md.) on drafting an article of impeachment: "incitement of insurrection." It was not difficult to write. The president incited an attempted violent overthrow of Congress in broad daylight. Several people died. This was a frontal assault not only on Congress, but on our Constitution and our democracy. If the impeachment provision of the Constitution is not invoked for this situation, then what the hell is it for? Some argue it's too late to impeach Trump. Not true. Even though President-elect Joe Biden will be inaugurated on Jan. 20, there are multiple reasons to impeach Trump. First, impeachment and conviction would remove a delusional and dangerous president. There are numerous reports that Trump is in a fragile mental state and his advisors don't know what he will do next. Sending an article of impeachment to the Senate would help deter Trump from taking even crazier actions. Second, impeachment and conviction would prevent Trump from ever menacing our country again through an elected position. Our article of impeachment specifically provides for "disqualification to hold and enjoy any office." And removal through impeachment would strip Trump of taxpayer-funded benefits like a pension, health insurance, office space and staff. Third, future generations need to know that Congress acted swiftly and forcefully after insurrectionists attacked our Capitol. Trump's domestic terrorists were trying to keep him in office through violent means. We cannot pretend Jan. 6 didn't happen. If our response were merely sternly worded press statements, we would embolden more violent actors to try to overthrow our democracy in the future. Some Republican lawmakers are now calling for healing, without acknowledging their own complicity in causing this insurrection. When the rioters stormed the Capitol, they exposed how fragile our democracy can be. The worst thing Congress can do now is to pretend that everything is normal and that we can put this crisis behind us. For justice and to heal our nation, we need to hold those involved in the insurrection accountable. That includes the president. I hope Trump does the right thing and resigns or his Cabinet members use the 25th Amendment process to remove him. Since those two actions are unlikely to occur, we in the House will do our constitutional duty to defend our democratic government in making Trump the first president in history to be impeached twice.
By Rep. Ted Lieu When Barack Obama became the first US president to visit Hiroshima in 2016, he stated: "Technological progress without an equivalent progress in human institutions can doom us." Those words ring true today. At the 75th anniversaries of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we stand in another moment of global chaos and profound loss. Over 700,000 people worldwide have died from COVID-19, including over 160,000 in the United States. SARS-CoV-2 spread like wildfire in part due to global and domestic travel made far easier by technological progress. At the same time, failures in human institutions allowed the virus to escalate out of control in numerous places. The lessons learned from this pandemic make the case for re-thinking the United States' national security framework to decide which investments truly improve US national security and which seek to win yesterday's wars. Who would have thought that the equipment needed to fight an enemy that has already killed far more Americans than died in World War I was not the Trident missile or B-1 Bomber, but face masks and ventilators? Or that the heroes risking their lives this year are health care workers and grocery store employees? The United States has already learned three important lessons from its failed pandemic response that should inform its nuclear strategy, so it doesn't repeat similar mistakes in the future: investing in prevention is key; experts matter; and America needs to adjust to a new communications environment. Investing in catastrophe prevention. Until 2017, both Democratic and Republican administrations understood the importance of preventing a pandemic. Before leaving office, the Obama administration set up the White House National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense. In 2005, President George Bush spoke at the National Institutes of Health and said, "If we wait for a pandemic to appear, it will be too late to prepare." Indeed, one of the principal reasons for the existence of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was created in 1946, is "detecting and confronting new germs and diseases around the globe to increase our national security." Unfortunately, the Trump administration eliminated the NSC Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense in 2018. The administration declined to renew funding for a federal pandemic detection program in 2019. The administration also proposed budget cuts to the CDC. And the Trump Administration ignored a step-by-step guide the Obama administration created on how to prevent a pandemic. China's early actions--suppressing information about SARS-CoV-2 and providing misleading information about the virus--are indefensible. At the same time, the Trump administration's lack of preparation for the pandemic left the United States flat-footed when the virus--as a result of global air travel--started pouring into America from Europe. Even today, there is no national testing strategy, no national contact and tracing program, and no national pipeline for personal protective equipment, forcing hospitals and states to compete with one another to secure PPE, sometimes at exorbitant prices. Prevention is and always has been the best strategy when it comes to disasters, whether they come in the form of disease or war. Unfortunately, the current administration has taken actions that increase, rather than decrease, the risks of nuclear war. From cuts and disarray at the State Department to withdrawing from arms control treaties to making it easier to use nuclear weapons, the last few years have been a disaster for nuclear conflict prevention. The case for a unified national security budget--one that strikes the right balance among our diplomatic, informational, military, and economic instruments of power to prevent conflicts--has never been stronger. Instead, the budgets under the Trump administration have prioritized military spending over all other instruments of national power. We can already destroy the world several times over with our nuclear and conventional weapons. It is time to invest in our other instruments of national power. Unfortunately, in the last few years, our diplomatic capacity has withered. As a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I have seen how, under the Trump Administration, the US State Department has been gutted, as employees depart and positions go unfilled; morale has fallen; and several ambassadors and the Secretary of State have come under investigation for inappropriate or illegal behavior. We need to reverse course and re-invest in a large, professional, and ethical diplomatic corps. We have also seen an unfortunate shift towards go-it-alone US nuclear policy that expands the risk of miscalculation and escalation. Withdrawing from nuclear arms control treaties and expanding the capabilities of our nuclear arsenal are destabilizing. The Trump administration's decisions to withdraw from Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty last year, to announce its formal intent to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty this year, and to lay the groundwork for allowing the New START Treaty to expire early next year all amount to a regressive policy that increases the chances of a nuclear conflict. Similarly, the Trump administration's decision to produce new low-yield warheads increases the risk that nuclear weapons will be used. And the use of a low-yield nuclear weapon can easily escalate a conflict to an all-out nuclear war that cannot be won. That's one reason I and other members of Congress introduced the bicameral "Hold the LYNE Act" to prohibit low-yield nuclear weapons for submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Instead of moving away from a prevention strategy, the United States needs to move toward one. Among the more obvious ways a catastrophic nuclear war could start is if a president launched a nuclear first strike. In October 2016, Sen. Ed Markey and I introduced the "Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act" to mitigate that possibility and to reassert the war making authority that the framers of the Constitution gave to Congress alone. The current nuclear launch approval process gives the president the sole authority to decide whether and when to launch a nuclear first strike. No member of the cabinet, the judiciary, or Congress is required to be involved in that decision. And once the President orders the launch, the execution of the order would occur frighteningly fast. The framers of the Constitution, however, went to great lengths to put checks and balances on the president. They created an entire judicial branch to check the president. They created a legislative branch to check the president. And then then gave the gravest power they knew at the time--the power to declare war--to Congress alone. There is no way the framers would have authorized one person to launch weapons that could kill hundreds of millions of people in less than an hour and not have called that war. Our legislation enacts the vision of the framers and requires the president to get congressional authorization before launching a nuclear first-strike (except in cases when another country has already launched a nuclear weapon at the United States). Not only would our bill correct a constitutional defect, it would also reduce the incentive for other nuclear-armed countries to strike the United States. Having served on active duty in the US Air Force, I have long understood that countries such as Russia and China have the capability to annihilate America with their nuclear weapons. One reason they don't use those weapons is their understanding that no matter how many missiles they launch, the United States has a robust second-strike capability that would annihilate them in return. Mutually assured destruction relies on strengthening second-strike capabilities; a first-strike option is not only unnecessary, it is destabilizing. If these countries believe an unhinged president could rapidly launch a nuclear first strike, their calculation changes, and they are forced into a "use it or lose it" scenario with their weapons. Our legislation injects the crucial elements of time and approval by Congress to slow down any potential nuclear escalation. The United States knew the risks and failed to prevent the outbreak of a novel coronavirus from becoming a deadly pandemic. It cannot fail to prevent a diplomatic or conventional military conflict from becoming a cataclysmic nuclear war. The United States needs to invest in diplomacy, to stop withdrawing from arms control treaties, and to curb the production of nuclear weapons. Buying new nukes doesn't make us safer; strengthened alliances and prioritized diplomacy do. There is strength in tackling problems before they arise, and America is living through what happens when prevention is underfunded or ignored. The value of expertise. Another reason America leads the world in COVID-19 cases and deaths involves the failure of far too many people, including government officials, to listen to experts. Earlier this year, the Trump administration worked with medical experts and created a set of coronavirus guidelines for states to follow before they reopened businesses and other aspects of public life that had been restricted to slow the spread of COVID-19. What happened? Many states--and the president himself--ignored those guidelines. The president tweeted multiple times that various states should "liberate" themselves and reopen, even though none of those states met the reopening guidelines set forth by his own administration. As a result, COVID-19 cases and deaths started to spike again, and the virus continues to surge in many areas. Medical experts have repeatedly told the American public to practice social distancing, wear masks in public, and avoid crowded indoor areas to help stop the spread of the virus. What happened? A number of Americans refused to wear masks in public, and the president spent those critical first months of the pandemic disparaging those who wore masks. It wasn't until recently that the president reversed himself and finally said that people should wear them. A number of Americans engaged in dangerous behavior, like going to bars, indoor parties, and a presidential indoor rally where social distancing was not observed and masks were not required. In many ways, this pandemic has taught us exactly what not to do in a nuclear-armed world where the Doomsday Clock says it is 100 seconds to midnight. We need to stop rejecting science. We need to prepare for worst-case scenarios. We need to listen to the experts screaming from the mountaintops that we're not doing enough. Earlier this year, some argued that a robust pandemic response would cause the public to think that the government was over-reacting. In the case of a potential nuclear conflict, there is no such thing as being over-prepared. Experts in academia, in the private sector, in government, and at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists have provided numerous common-sense recommendations for how to prevent a nuclear conflict, from strengthening command and control systems to reducing nuclear proliferation. We should listen to them. If the American people choose a new president in November, one of the first orders of business should be to re-invest in the State Department, put the United States back into arms control treaties, and to stop the production of low-yield nuclear weapons. And of course, ensure the "Hold the LYNE Act" and the "Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act" become law. Adjusting to a new communications environment. Technological progress is a double-edged sword. Obviously, it was technological progress that resulted in nuclear weapons. The ease of global and domestic travel made possible by technology--from comfortable, fast aircraft to online booking sites--is what swiftly turned the novel coronavirus into a worldwide pandemic. At the same time, it is science and technology that will one day give us a vaccine or drug therapy to stop the pandemic. In the area of communications, technology has advanced so rapidly that our institutions and citizenry have been caught off guard. For example, it can be difficult to know if a Facebook post was written by an American in your state--or a Russian agent in the Kremlin. US officials have alleged that Russia is actively participating in disinformation campaigns about COVID-19 in America, as well as hacking COVID-19 research centers. And with the existence of deep-fake technology, it is nearly impossible for ordinary Americans to know if a video they are seeing is reality or fantasy. False information about the virus--whether created intentionally or unintentionally--routinely shows up on multiple social media platforms. The president--with over 84 million Twitter followers--has repeatedly tweeted or retweeted misleading information about COVID-19. In our current communications environment, a lie disguised as fact or a manipulated video can reach hundreds of millions of people in seconds. Add the fact that high-profile social media accounts were recently hacked, and it is easy to imagine potentially dangerous situations when it comes to nuclear conflict. What happens if a hacker gains control of the president's Twitter account and posts a tweet that leads foreign leaders to believe the president ordered a nuclear first strike? Or what if the hacker uses Twitter's direct messaging function, so no one knows except the people who receive the direct message? What if someone posts a deep-fake video of North Korea launching a nuclear missile at Hawaii? What if Hawaii issues a nuclear missile alert from North Korea that instantaneously went to all cellphones? Oh wait, that last one happened. And it caused a lot of people in Hawaii to panic. Some cars reportedly sped up to 100 miles per hour after the alert was issued. Tourists in Kaneohe were reportedly taken up to a bunker in the mountains. Officials at the Sony Open PGA Tour golf tournament on Oahu evacuated the media center, while staff sought cover in the players' locker room. A man suffered a heart attack after saying what he thought were his last goodbyes to his children after the alert. And the 911 call system was overwhelmed, with many calls not being able to go through. Technological advancements in communications have resulted in at least two consequences: one, information, whether true or false, can be distributed to a massive amount of people nearly instantaneously, and two, it is fairly easy to create false information that looks true. The first consequence will not be fixed, because there is often merit in being able to reach many people very quickly. Fixing the second consequence requires some combination of media literacy and better cyber security. Both consequences suggest that injecting more time and congressional authorization into nuclear situations is what is needed in our brave new advanced communications world. Wake up. America's failed response to the pandemic should serve as a wake-up call to our nation that we have become complacent in critical areas of national security. To the extent there was a nuclear component to the global war on terrorism, it was the fear of a terrorist network acquiring a nuclear weapon, smuggling it into the United States, and detonating it. With the 2017 National Security Strategy's shift to great power competition, we have now turned our attention back to two nuclear powers with advanced delivery systems and track records of brazen behavior. We cannot afford to wait before we invest serious diplomatic capital to ensure none of our conflicts with China or Russia escalate to nuclear war. Withdrawing from arms control treaties and buying easier-to-use nuclear weapons will not make us safer from nuclear conflict. Strengthening our alliances--our biggest competitive advantage over our adversaries--and showing up to lead coordinated diplomatic efforts will. At the same time, we can reduce the risk of nuclear conflict by requiring the president--any president--to seek authorization from Congress before launching a nuclear first strike. We also need to listen to experts. To prevent a catastrophic disaster--whether a pandemic or a nuclear conflict--we need to stop rejecting facts and science. Unfortunately, the new world of instantaneous communications can make it more difficult to ascertain the truth. Government officials and the public need to adjust to this new environment. Lives are at stake.
