This week, the Ledger continues its question-and-answer series with Connecticut’s congressional candidates with the candidates for office in the First Congressional District – the incumbent, Democrat John Larson, and his Republican challenger Ann Brickley.

<hr>
<b>JOHN LARSON [Dem.]</b>
Now in his sixth term of office, John Larson began serving in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1999. As chair of the House Democratic Caucus for the 111th Congress, he is the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House. Larson sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, the Subcommittee on Trade and the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures. He formerly served on the Armed Services Committee, Science Committee, and as Ranking Minority Member of the House Administration Committee.
Born in Hartford, Larson grew up in a public housing project in East Hartford. He graduated from East Hartford High School in 1967 and from Central Connecticut State University (CCSU) in 1971. He was later selected by Dr. Edward Zigler, the creator of Head Start, to be a Senior Fellow at the Yale Bush Center for Child Development. Before entering Congress, Larson was a high school history teacher and athletic coach until he became an owner of Larson & Lysik insurance company. He served on the East Hartford Board of Education and the East Hartford Town Council. In 1982, he was elected to the Connecticut State Senate, beginning a 12-year tenure representing the 3rd Senate District until 1995. Larson served as Senate President Pro Tempore for eight years from 1987 to 1995.
Congressman Larson and his wife Leslie have three children and are lifelong residents of East Hartford.

<b>ANN BRICKLEY [Rep.]</b>
A former GE executive, Ann Brickley worked for United Technologies Research Center, and led business process improvement for a GE Division.  After holding a variety of leadership roles at GE, she started her own firm to help businesses in various industries improve performance to become more competitive.
A lifelong resident of Connecticut, Brickley lives in Wethersfield where she grew up.  She received her BS and MS degrees in engineering from the University of Connecticut, where she earned the University Scholar award – the top award for academic excellence — and was a member of the women’s tennis and gymnastics teams.  She is a licensed Professional Engineer and a Certified Master Gardener.
She is a former board member of the University of Connecticut School of Computer Engineering, hospital volunteer, and Connecticut Invention Convention volunteer.
A working mom, Brickley recently became an empty-nester.  Her son Dave is a Boston University graduate working in Boston, and her son Rob is a senior at the University of Connecticut.
<hr>

<b>ON ISRAEL

Q: The Obama administration is pressuring Israel to extend the recently expired moratorium on settlement construction, which was instituted as a precondition to the peace talks.  The Israelis say, however, that the moratorium has placed an undue burden on families living in those areas and, in any case, believes the talks should carry no preconditions.  Where do you stand?
If you support extension of the moratorium as a precondition to the talks, would you also support, as a precondition to the talks, asking the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state?</b>

LARSON: I applaud Israel’s commitment to the peace process.  Over the past year, Israel has offered up a number of acts of goodwill, including the moratorium on settlement construction.  Unfortunately, despite these acts, the Palestinians failed to negotiate in good faith for too long.
Israel and the Palestinian Authority must find a way forward in the peace process.  The people of Israel have a right to the peace and stability that would result from a mutually negotiated agreement.  I would encourage both parties to come to the table, negotiate in good faith, and take every action reasonable in order to ensure that the talks are successful.

BRICKLEY: The moratorium on settlement construction cannot be a precondition to peace talks. Israeli government policy is ready to recognize and assist in the creation of a Palestinian state, so there is no need for the moratorium.  By pressuring Israel to extend the moratorium, the current administration is placing more unnecessary roadblocks in front of this desire for peace. This stubborn adherence to an unrealistic policy will distract both Israelis and Palestinians from coming to the table.
The most significant barrier to the peace process is the currently irreconcilable differences between Hamas and Fatah, yet there is little being done to solve this impasse.  While the Obama administration has emphasized the moratorium on Israeli settlements, it seems to ignore the fact that the Palestinian camp is as divided as ever.  With the Palestinian leadership now divided between a terrorist entity (Hamas) and the Palestinian Authority, the ability to negotiate a truly meaningful peace accord remains in doubt.  Even if the settlement issue were resolved, the challenge of two separate Palestinian national movements poses an enormous barrier to negotiations.

<b>Q: What role, if any, should the U.S. continue to play in the talks?</b>

LARSON: The United States should continue to play a significant role as long as there is a reasonable chance the talks will remain productive. By the same token it is vital that we ensure our presence at the talks adds real value to the peace process.

BRICKLEY: The U.S. must continue to play an active role in facilitating the peace talks. The U.S. has two things no other country in the world can offer: trust from both sides and the ability to take action.  I support the current efforts to not only bring Israel and the Palestinian Authority to the negotiating table, but also other key parties such as Egypt, Jordan and representatives from the European Union and the United Nations.
<hr>

<b>ON IRAN

Q: Do you believe the sanctions on Iran are proving effective in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons?  If not, what do you think the administration’s next move should be?</b>

LARSON: The tough sanctions recently approved by Congress and implemented by the President are doing exactly what was expected – adversely impacting the Iranian economy.  Upon enactment, a number of major petroleum providers, including BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and Total, halted the sale of fuels to Iran.  While some Chinese firms have begun providing Iran with refined petroleum imports, they are not able to provide a steady, reliable product and as a result instability has spread across the Iranian business community.  This economic instability is critical if we are to gain leverage over the Iranian regime.

BRICKLEY: According to the U.S. State Department, Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism in the world today. Led by an unstable president, Iran continues to represent a very real threat to Israel and is the primary source of long-term instability in the Middle East. Iran’s continued pursuit of nuclear capabilities and development of medium-range missiles, along with President Ahmadinejad’s long-stated goal of destroying Israel, require the United States to make every possible effort to protect our closest ally in the region.
Iran has proven it is able to continue its nuclear program apace despite the current sanctions, which are, in effect, punishing the Iranian people and not the extremist theocracy in power. The U.S. must strongly pressure Iran to change its behavior, and do whatever is necessary to prevent a nuclear Iran.  I support efforts to impose severe economic and political sanctions, and also support enhanced trade restrictions and freezing of assets.  Should diplomatic and economic sanctions continue to be ineffective, I believe we need to be prepared to consider all options.

<b>Q: There is ongoing speculation that Israel may ultimately take military action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.  Would you support such action?</b>

LARSON: I am a firm believer that military action should always remain the last recourse.  For years I have been concerned with Iran’s hostile rhetoric towards the nation of Israel and its commitment to developing a nuclear weapon.  Israel has the right to defend itself, however, it is my hope that they, along with the entire international community, will explore all available options before conducting a military strike.

BRICKLEY: I will work to strengthen our U.S. support for Israel in order to ensure Israel’s long-term security and to support our countries’ shared mission for peace and stability in the Middle East.  A weak Israel would embolden terrorists worldwide and threaten the security of democratic people everywhere.  I stand behind Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from hostile states and terrorist organizations.
We must also support Israel’s right to defend itself against the existential threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. In the past Israel has prevented dangerous regimes in Iraq and Syria from advancing such programs.  If Israel took military actions to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons after all other measures failed, I would support such actions.

<b>Q: Recently, Hillary Clinton seemed to suggest that we may have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran, and the way to do that is to help Middle Eastern countries, like Israel, develop the capacity to defend themselves against this nuclear threat.  Do you agree?</b>

LARSON:  We must continue all efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Strong sanctions and International cooperation are an important element for deterring Iran. But we must continue to look for ways to increase Mid-East country’s ability to defend themselves in a stable region.

BRICKLEY: Living with a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. Hillary Clinton’s suggestions are cause for concern and raise doubts as to whether the current administration will take actions in the coming years to prevent such a danger from becoming real. If elected, I will support more forceful and effective action to prevent a nuclear Iran. It is difficult to envision what helping countries in the Middle East “develop the capacity to defend themselves against this nuclear threat” would entail.  For instance, would the U.S. give anti-ballistic missile technology to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates?  Other questions arise such as whether we would help Turkey and Egypt develop nuclear programs, as well as what we would do to assist Iraq. While it is not clear what the current administration envisions to be ‘support’ for other countries in the region against a nuclear Iran, it will most certainly include more U.S. taxpayer dollars, and it most likely will fail.
<hr>

<b>ON DEFENSE

Q: Cutting spending will be a priority for the next Congress. There are those promoting cuts to the defense budget in order to sustain domestic programs and/or cut the deficit.  Where do you stand on this issue?  What actions will you take to retain Connecticut’s stake in this budgetary item if defense programs need to be cut?</b>

LARSON: Over the past year, I have had a number of conversations with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and we have come to agree on a path forward that will trim defense spending and refocus our precious dollars on the programs that have the biggest impact on our nation’s troops.  This includes attacking wasteful programs within the Pentagon.  A perfect example being the Joint Strike Fighter’s extra engine program, which has cost the government &#036;1.8 billion to date and is expected to cost another &#036;2.5 billion over the next few years.  With opposition from multiple Presidents and Secretaries of Defense and study after study highlighting that the upfront costs of the program will forever outweigh any potential savings, it would seem that this program could easily be eliminated.  Unfortunately, it has survived for years due to a multi-million, multi-national lobbying effort in Washington.  This ends this year either by congressional action or a presidential veto.
Within Connecticut, the defense industry continues to provide thousands of jobs to highly skilled, highly trained individuals.  These jobs have for years represented a major part of the state’s economy, and I will continue to fight for them each and every day in Washington.  This issue is about more than just a job, it is about retaining a knowledge base that is readily available should we ever need it.  I realize though that the budget for military weapons will need to be reduced in upcoming years.  That is why I have begun to meet with Ambassadors from a number of nations, including India, Pakistan, and Japan.  Each of these nations has military requirements that could be and should be filled by American-made products and I will continue my work to ensure that this occurs.

BRICKLEY: We must stop wasteful government spending in both domestic and military areas.  Congress needs to stop spending money on programs that the military does not want or need, such as the multi-billion dollar development of an alternate to the PW&A JSF engine.  In addition, irresponsible domestic spending also needs to be eliminated.   Our government needs to prioritize resources and spend only what we can afford so that we do not pass an enormous debt onto our children and future generations.  Many stimulus programs and earmarks are wasteful and must also be eliminated.  By eliminating wasteful government spending, we can avoid making cuts to the items in the defense budget that are essential to national security.