Have you checked out The Hot Seat? It's our opinion-page blog that brings in your elected leaders and people in the news and lets you ask the questions during a live online chat.

On The Hot Seat last week was U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawai'i. (Names of questioners are screen names given during our online chat).

Curtis Crabbe-Molokai: Re: Iroquois Point. How do you think that the state/county/Navy can fashion an agreement to mitigate this serious issue?

Neil Abercrombie: In Hawai'i, the beaches have always belonged to all of us. That is not going to change because of a few developers. The Navy has continued to be a good citizen, I'll do everything in my power to keep the beaches open.

Todd Benson: Recently Warren Buffett gave a speech where he said that he paid 17 percent of his income to taxes, whereas he figured his secretary paid roughly 32 percent. His solution was to tax the rich and big business. My solution would be to not increase anyone's taxes, because the government seems to waste money too much. So how about lowering taxes on the middle class, keeping everyone else's taxes the same, and learn to live within your governmental means, just like Americans have to live within their means? My question is, what is your solution to the middle class paying a higher percentage of their income to the federal government? And do you think this is fair?

Abercrombie: The Democratic agenda in Congress is to lower taxes on the middle class and to do away with the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans. I am very aware of the terrible budget deficit and national debt caused by the reckless decisions made in the last five years. We are trying to find a way to balance the tax burden with the government's need to pay for services to its citizens and making the government operate more efficiently is certainly a part of that.

Guy Belegaud: Why have you been so silent regarding the cleanup of our coast from the military dumping after World War II? What are your plans to speed up the process?

Abercrombie: I've been anything but quiet. I've been engaged with the most senior level of the U.S. Army. I was able to get $8 million authorized in the National Defense Bill to begin to mitigate this disaster. The money would pay for water quality studies and analysis and surveying of the ocean floor so we know exactly what we're dealing with, how big the area is and how safe the material would be to handle.

Rootsrundeep: Do you support the impeachment of Dick Cheney and George Bush? If so, why and how likely is this to happen? If not, why not? How do the other members of the Hawai'i delegation feel about impeachment?

If Congress decides not to move ahead with impeachment proceedings, how will you stop or curtail Bush's imperial presidency, which has severely damaged so many of the legal principles upon which the U.S. was founded?

Abercrombie: One does not lightly remove the chief executive of the United States, who occupies that position by virtue of election. Whether one agrees or not with the outcome of any given election, respect has to be shown for the office. The Constitution makes clear that the president should be considered for removal only for the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors.

The legislative branch of the U.S. cannot and should not attempt to remove a president by way of impeachment for what can rightly be characterized as ideological differences, no matter how profound. Additionally, from a practical legislative perspective, an impeachment procedure under the present circumstances would be viewed as an act of political revenge and the entire substance of any charges that may be proferred with regards to the prosecution of the war in Iraq would be lost in the smokescreen of partisan rhetoric. Such a procedure would be, in my judgment, self-indulgent and possibly satisfying because of the visceral opposition to President Bush. But it would do absolutely nothing in any substantive way to ending the war, and more immediately, the killing of U.S. troops and Iraqi citizens.

The way to stop or curtail the imperial presidency is for the Congress to assert its legislative responsibilities in terms of oversight and implementation of policies and programs directly related to the prosperity and progress of the nation. We are engaged, presently, in that. For example, we passed the College Cost Reduction Act, which speaks for itself. We are going to reduce the cost of a college education for the young working men and women of this nation. The promise of a future should not be dependent on the size of one's wallet or one's parents' wallet. This is a practical, real- time demonstration of what we should be doing to overcome the reactionary policies of President Bush.

JC: The military has decided to cut the services they provide enlisted military personnel (making them choose certain services over others, for example medical coverage over childcare service or commissary privileges). I think this is a huge injustice to those people serving our country — especially the families and spouses that keep the home fires burning when their loved ones are deployed. I'd like to know your thoughts on this, and whether you'd consider reversing (or correcting) this.

Abercrombie: I've served on the Armed Services Committee for nine terms. In the course of that time, I've served on most of the subcommittees of the (committee), including the one on personnel. The question references a discussion now taking place about military compensation and noncash benefits associated with it. Most people think about compensation in terms of basic pay and housing allowances. But particularly with a volunteer armed service, questions about the value of benefits like family healthcare, childcare, shopping privileges, etc., arise. Presently, a study is under way to evaluate possibly combining benefits into a single payment. In addition, questions concerning the housing allowances for single armed services personnel and those with families are also under consideration. The possibility of moving to a "cafeteria-style plan" regarding benefits is at issue. The 2008 Defense Authorization bill will be completed before consideration of these ideas is finished.

Steve Doyle: With the Bush administration's apparent refusal to recognize its failed (and still failing) policy in Iraq, what is your sense of the mood in Congress to bring our troops home sooner, rather than later?

Abercrombie: I believe the Congress is lagging behind the public in regard to Iraq policy. The president insists that a military solution in Iraq is still central. To whatever degree military action was ever in order, and I, of course, do not think it was, that consideration has long since passed. The first part of the question is its own answer, i.e., Mr. Bush refuses to recognize his failed and still failed policy in Iraq. He equates stubbornness with decisiveness and refuses to reflect upon the consequences of his actions. It is less the mood of the Congress at this point, it's whether the country will put up with either of us any longer.

Michael: How come when the Dems had the president in a bind with war spending, they only managed to get a couple things out of him, such as the minimum wage (increase), which is good, but hardly a sufficient compromise for funding the war?

Why do the Dems refuse to play hardball and at least get more money for other issues if they are going to cave to the war needs, like doubling the McKinney-Vento homeless services budget?

Abercrombie: It was not only war spending at issue — the Republicans had failed to pass a budget for 2007, military expenditures included. The president has never budgeted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, when I offered an amendment to the proposed 2007 Defense budget to actually pay for the wars, it was defeated by the GOP majority. The president has always raised war spending in the context of a so-called emergency supplemental budget. Pretending that war spending was an emergency, that we had no way of anticipating it and it was merely to supplement existing expenditures in the Defense Department, instead of being a natural extension of the war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our task then, when the Democrats became the majority, was to pass a budget for the entire nation, war spending not withstanding. We are trying to get away from these phony emergency supplemental bills and face directly the true costs of the Bush policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kory Payne: As you know, people are feeling disconnected from the wealthy elite, and also feeling disconnected from legislators. Almost every issue comes back to the influence of money on the lawmaking process: Iraq, healthcare, public's right to the airwaves, and the list goes on. Publicly funded elections are becoming a more popular solution to reconnect people to government and build trust.

The Fair Elections Now Act is currently being heard in the Senate. It is supported by the AFL-CIO and many others. Will you support this bill too?

Abercrombie: The Fair Elections Now Act is fine as far as it goes, but believe me, having participated in elections since 1970, I know full well the role money plays in limiting the capacity of citizens to participate. In the end, regardless of attempts to fix up, reform or alter present election rules regarding funding, there is only one way that elections can again be made fair: There must be limits on contributions, limits on spending and a restricted time on and in the media before elections.