Daniel Lipinski, 3rd Congressional District Democratic candidate profile

Candidate profile

Daniel Lipinski

Running for: U.S. House of Representatives, 3rd District, Illinois

Political/civic background: U.S. Representative (8th term), former university professor, former congressional staff member

Occupation: U.S. Representative, 3 rd District of Illinois

Education: B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Northwestern University; M.S. in Engineering-Economic Systems from Stanford University; Ph.D. in Political Science from Duke University

Campaign website: lipinskiforcongress.com

Facebook: @danlipinskiforcongress

Twitter: @danlipinski

Instagram: @danlipinskiforcongress

The Chicago Sun-Times Editorial Board sent candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives a list of questions to find out their views on a range of important issues facing their districts, the state of Illinois and the country. Daniel Lipinski submitted the following responses:

Please tell us about your civic work in the last two years, whether it’s legislation you have sponsored or other paid or volunteer work to improve your community.

The value of serving others was instilled in me from an early age. At home, in school, and at church, I was inspired toward public service. That is why I became a teacher and then ran for Congress. As a member of Congress my job is very complex, but it is guided by the simple principle of doing what I can to help others.

I’ve always made it a top priority to provide the best possible casework for my constituents and my staff has helped thousands of district residents with issues related to Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits, immigration, low-income heating assistance, and myriad other issues. My staff holds regular hours at 4 different offices throughout the expansive Third Congressional District to ensure every community has the access they need to have their issues addressed.

I’ve long been involved in volunteer work and other outreach efforts throughout the district to help the communities I’m privileged to serve. Just in the last two years I’ve hosted more than 20 constituent service fairs catering to seniors, veterans, college students, and immigrants who wish to go through the naturalization process. Every year I honor 7th and 8th grade students who have demonstrated academic achievement and involvement in their communities, and I also organize an annual event honoring senior citizens from across the district who have given back to their communities. Throughout my time in office I’ve co- hosted food drives and organized parades, soccer tournaments, and other events serving thousands of district residents. I also make sure that I visit diverse communities and places of worship across my district to ensure everyone knows that they are welcome residents.

There are also some specific issues I have taken on recently to help local residents. When the EPA released a study last year showing a significantly increased cancer risk in the western suburbs because of ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions from Sterigenics, I took immediate action. I worked with local officials and community organizations including Stop Sterigenics to get the EPA to conduct air monitoring, and when a high level of EtO was found, I called for the shutdown of the facility. In addition, I introduced the Clean Up EtO Act (H.R. 7168 – 115th) to force the strengthening of EtO emission standards and testified at an EPA hearing to pressure the agency to act to protect public health. Facing increased scrutiny, Sterigenics announced in October it was permanently closing the plant, but I have not let up. I helped form the Bipartisan Congressional Task Force on EtO to address emissions in communities across the country and have continued to push EPA to act. In December I met with EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and told him that the EPA’s recently proposed actions on EtO are not enough, and once again called on the EPA to quickly issue new rules for EtO emissions at commercial sterilization facilities.

I’ve been fighting for years to have Poland, a close U.S. ally, included in the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). The VWP allows citizens of select nations to travel to the United States for tourism or business for up to 90 days without first needing to obtain a U.S. visa. Prior to November of this year, Poland was one of 5 EU nations not included in the VWP, despite the fact that U.S. citizens do not need a visa to visit any EU nation. Through the years, my office has helped hundreds of constituents get a visa for family members coming to visit for weddings, First Communions, funerals, and other family events. In November, Poland finally achieved membership in the program, an outcome I’m pleased to have helped reach as chairman of the Congressional Caucus on Poland.

I believe it is important to work with elected officials at all levels as well as local organizations and community members to best serve my constituents. After serving as a co-chair of Governor Pritzker’s Infrastructure transition team, I was able to work with state and local officials to get funding for two very important transportation infrastructure projects in the district. The state is providing $150 million to build a long-awaited underpass to put an end to blocked rail crossings at Harlem Avenue and 63 rd and/or 65 th Street. The state is also providing $6 million to build an air traffic control tower at Lewis University Airport in Romeoville which will lead to greater economic development in the region and a safer airport.

As Chairman of the Rail Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I held a hearing in Chicago that included mayors from across the district to call out and pressure Metra, freight railroads, and Amtrak to provide better commuter rail service.

I held a town hall meeting with BNSF railway officials and Metra to again call out and pressure those responsible for a series of unacceptable delays and cancelations on Metra’s BNSF line; since that time the on-time performance of the line has improved dramatically. In response to local constituent requests, I helped get new, heated Metra commuter shelters installed in Summit as well as Beverly. When the mayor and trustees of the Village of LaGrange could not reach an agreement with a local quarry on a plan to alleviate a flooding problem plaguing residents, I brought together the Village, the quarry company, and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District to eventually work out an agreement. When the community in Bridgeview along I-294 requested a new soundwall to block noise impacting homes, parks, and schools, and also to protect children from the railroad, I sat down with local leaders and the Tollway Authority and was able to get that wall included in the current I-294 tollway project. At the request of the Archer Heights Civic Association and others in the community around the Archer and Cicero intersection in Chicago, I was able to get the CTA to extend the terminus of the 47 Bus to Midway Airport to provide improved service and alleviate traffic problems at that intersection. When the mayor of Lockport and other local residents raised the issue of malfunctioning rail crossing signals and gates in downtown Lockport, I was able to get CN Railroad to pay millions of dollars to upgrade the tracks and stop the threat to public safety.

I have also authored numerous bills in the areas of healthcare, climate change and other national and global issues that have an impact on local residents. These are discussed in my other responses.

What are your views on the decision by the U.S. House to impeach President Donald Trump? Has the impeachment process been fair or not? How so? If, in your view, the president should not have been impeached, would you have supported censure? Please explain.

Our partisan polarization has undermined this impeachment process. The President refused to participate in any manner in the House inquiry and Republicans supported this decision and blamed the process rather than addressing the evidence. Senate Majority Leader McConnell has said he will work with the White House defense on a Senate trial. But Democrats should have done a better job in the House. More time should have been spent attempting to compel witness testimony from those with direct knowledge of the President’s actions. Even worse, many Democrats undermined public perception of the impeachment process by calling for impeachment and removal of President Trump beginning not long after he was elected; the House was in fact forced to vote on impeachment resolutions multiple times prior to this impeachment inquiry.

My concern with the House voting when it did was that the process will enable President Trump to declare vindication and come out stronger when it is over. But when deciding how I would vote, I believed that if the articles failed it would have been interpreted as a clear exoneration of the President. The Constitution sets up the House as a grand jury and therefore simply needs probable cause to believe that the President committed the acts set forth.

With reasonable inference, there is evidence that President Trump withheld congressionally appropriated aid for Ukraine’s defense as well as a “head of state” meeting at the White House in an attempt to coerce an announcement of an investigation of Vice President Biden and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. This is an abuse of power, so I voted yes on article 1. If there was evidence that the President was interested more generally in Ukrainian corruption instead of specifically in a public pronouncement of an investigation that would help him politically, this would have undercut this charge. But there was no such testimony. It is unfortunate that we did not hear testimony from people with firsthand knowledge of President Trump’s actions or see documents containing direct evidence, but this is the President’s fault. This would have helped inform Congress and the America people. That’s why I believe the House should have allowed more time to press the courts to compel cooperation.

The second article attempts to enforce Congress’ power to conduct oversight and serve as a check on the president. I have been critical of presidential overreach, no matter who the president has been, because it takes power from the American people by taking power from the people’s representatives. It is especially critical that Congress asserts its powers in impeachment. Thus, the second impeachment article states, “without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas.” This blanket refusal demonstrated the President’s obstruction of Congress’ legitimate power, so I voted yes on article 2. Congress cannot cede more power to the executive branch.

How would you reduce the federal budget deficit, which now stands at about $1 trillion for 2020? What changes, if any, to the U.S. tax code do you support and why?

I am a longtime advocate for addressing federal deficits and our debt, but sadly this is not an issue that many in Washington are willing to talk about anymore. Republicans criticize Democratic proposals for adding to our deficits with more spending, but then turn around and pass big tax cuts. The Republican tax law passed in 2017 will add $1.8 trillion to our federal debt over 10 years. Likewise, Democrats put a “pay as you go” rule into our House rules package at the beginning of this Congress but have waived this rule regularly when passing bills. The 2019 bipartisan agreement to lift budget caps will add $1.7 trillion to our federal debt. I do not believe that a $22 trillion debt with ballooning annual deficits is a responsible way to govern. It puts the promises we make to the American people at risk.

Throughout my time in Congress I have been a leading proponent of bipartisan efforts to forge a balanced plan to reduce our long-term debt. In March 2012, I helped bring to the House floor a budget that would have cut deficits by more than $4 trillion over 10 years. This plan was based on recommendations from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and contained a mix of revenue increases and spending cuts. I was one of only 38 House members to vote for this plan.

When addressing our debt, all options should be on the table. Our budget problems must be tackled through a mix of revenue increases and spending cuts. On the tax side specifically, as always, I will evaluate tax proposals by whether they prioritize the middle class, help small businesses, are fiscally responsible, and fix the multiple trust funds we have for financing various programs. Any true reform of the tax code will require consideration of difficult trade-offs, and will need to be analyzed in the context of overall budget discussions and congressional decision-making on national priorities. Closing corporate tax loopholes and revising the corporate tax cuts instituted in the 2017 Republican tax law, where the tax rate was cut from 35% to 21%, will need to be part of any successful proposal. In addition, ideas like subjecting all income to Social Security taxes, ending special rules that allow the wealthy to hide inheritances from taxes, making income tax more progressive, and ensuring that workers are not at a tax disadvantage compared to those wealthy enough to live off their investments could be part of a responsible tax reform proposal, depending on the details.

What changes would you like to see made to our nation’s healthcare system? Would you shore up the Affordable Care Act or work to repeal it in full? What’s your view on Medicare for All? And what should be done, if anything, to bring down the cost of prescription drugs?

The high and rising cost of healthcare is a major burden for most Americans. Having lived as a Type-1 diabetic for more than 30 years has helped me understand the costs and complexities in our healthcare system. That is why I have made it a priority since I was first elected to work on lowering costs and expanding access to quality care. I have advocated for and supported a thoughtful, multi-faceted approach to reform that addresses costs while protecting doctor and coverage choices. Balancing these reform priorities as well as working to lower insurance premiums and bring down hospital and other healthcare costs like prescription drugs is necessary and achievable, but not easy and simple.

In 2010 I supported significant reform to our healthcare system, but I voted against the Affordable Care Act not because I opposed the general principles behind it but because of serious flaws in the bill. At the time I said this to the Sun-Times Editorial Board: The bill passed by Congress and signed by the President, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), does make a number of improvements to our health care system, including expanding access and reforming health insurance by doing such things as immediately banning discrimination based on pre-existing conditions for children, prohibiting lifetime coverage limits, and prohibiting insurance companies from retroactively canceling insurance coverage.

Unfortunately, the bill also contains a number of serious flaws, and many of the good aspects could have been done without passing this massive bill. I could not support the bill, and believe that there are many areas that must be changed. Once the bill was passed, I fought against every Republican attempt to repeal the law and worked extensively to improve the ACA so that it works better for more Americans.

Fortunately, some of the worst parts of the bill have been repealed, such as the long-term care provision that even the Obama Administration later declared to be fiscally unsustainable. On more than 60 occasions I have taken action to write, co-sponsor, or vote for legislation to improve the ACA or to prevent repeal or harm to the good parts. Unfortunately, the Affordable Care Act is not really affordable for Americans especially those who do not receive subsidies to purchase insurance. In 2017, I worked with my colleagues in the House Problem Solvers Caucus to write a bill that would lower premiums in the ACA by 25-30% by creating a reinsurance program and by guaranteeing the cost sharing reduction payments to insurers. The ACA had sunset the reinsurance program and failed to guarantee the CSR payments resulting in premiums being 25-30% higher than they would have been. While we were not able to bring this bill to the floor, I have continued to work to make the ACA more affordable.

This year, I have voted with my Democratic House colleagues numerous times to prevent the Trump Administration from undermining the ACA. One of these efforts was H.R. 987, the Strengthening Health Care and Lowering Prescription Drug Costs Act, which helps states set up their own insurance marketplaces, expands funding for marketing/public awareness efforts for the ACA, and rescinds an Administration rule promoting junk plans. Expanding marketing and easy-to-understand informational efforts to increase consumer awareness of healthcare plan options helps people make informed decisions about coverage options. Stabilizing the insurance marketplace will in turn lead to lower premiums on the healthcare marketplace, which is why I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 1425, the State Health Care Premium Reduction Act, to bring back and expand the previously proven federal state-level reinsurance programs that in essence offer insurance to insurers. Providing federal technical and grant assistance to state insurance regulators strengthens their ability to oversee and screen health insurance options offered on the marketplaces.

One part of the ACA that has been successful in the states that have opted-in is the Medicaid expansion. To fill in the historical Medicaid eligibility gaps for low-income adults at or below 138 percent of poverty, I support permitting the 14 remaining non-Medicaid expansion states to be eligible for enhanced funding for Medicaid expansion without the initial time constraints that were originally imposed. This will especially benefit single adults who struggle with mental illness as well as other vulnerable populations.

There are many other ways that I continue to fight to bring down the cost of healthcare for all Americans. Recently I led an organized effort with other House members to call on House and Senate leadership to bring up legislation to protect patients from surprise billing. We need to put an end to expensive surprise medical billing practices through proposals that maximize healthcare savings for patients, lower insurance premiums, and provide meaningful deficit reduction to the federal government at the same time. Ending balance billing and surprise billing will take the patient out of the middle of payment disputes between insurers and out-of-network providers in situations where there is no real opportunity for the patient to choose in-network care. Surprise medical billing is especially common with emergency room visits and when a patient receives care from an out-of-network doctor at an in-network hospital. According to the nonpartisan, Congressional Budget Office, of the surprise billing-ending proposals that reduce the deficit, savings range from $9 billion to $25 billion. A compromise plan was almost passed at the end of 2019 but doctors strongly opposed it and were able to stop a bill from moving forward. Additionally, there is a need to shine a spotlight on hidden costs and prices in healthcare through increased hospital price transparency, which is why I have introduced the Hospital Price Transparency and Disclosure Act (H.R. 3965). This legislation closely mirrors a bill I introduced my first year in Congress but has been stymied by hospitals.

For working families and seniors in the district and across the country, the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs remains a real crisis. Combating price-gouging on prescription drugs is achievable by using Medicare’s negotiating power to drive down drug prices, and by indexing prescription drug spending to align with more affordable prices available in other developed nations.

In 2019, I introduced legislation (H.R. 5039) to lower the cost of life-sustaining drugs for seniors and others on Medicare by allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to leverage the purchasing power of the federal government along with prescription drug pricing data from other developed nations to ensure patients receive better pricing and are not being excessively charged for vital life-sustaining medications like insulin, EpiPens, and anti-seizure medications.

Recently, I helped pass H.R. 3, the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, to make prescription drugs more affordable for working families and seniors by stopping Americans from having to pay more for their medications than what pharmaceutical companies charge for the same drugs in other countries. Among the many changes, the legislation provides Medicare the power to negotiate directly with drug companies on some drugs and also makes the lower drug prices negotiated by Medicare available to Americans with private insurance.

I have also introduced the No Tax Breaks for Drug Ads Act (H.R. 4711) to stop pharmaceutical companies from getting a tax write-off for TV and other direct-to-consumer marketing and co-sponsored the Safe and Affordable Drugs from Canada Act (H.R. 478) as well as the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act (H.R. 275). I also co-sponsored the CREATES Act (H.R. 965) to create more competition in the prescription drug market; this bill was included in an appropriations bill and signed into law at the end of the year.

I believe reforming our healthcare system must be done right and that so-called Medicare for All is not a workable solution. Some politicians take the simple path of making a grand promise about how Medicare for All might work without being honest about the costs, risks, or details. I do not support eliminating private insurance and enrolling all Americans in a government healthcare program that would require raising everyone’s taxes to offset the increase in government spending. Senator Bernie Sanders’ plan would cost approximately $32 trillion dollars, according to an estimate produced by the Urban Institute in 2016. In FY 2019, all federal spending, including discretionary and mandatory spending as well as debt payments, was $4.4 trillion and revenue was $3.4 trillion. To cover the cost of “Medicare for All” every federal tax, not just the income tax, would need to double. This would be a huge increase of the tax burden on every American and we would still have annual deficits over $1 trillion. “Medicare for All” would also eliminate all private insurers. This would mean that the 177 million Americans not on Medicare or Medicaid but with private insurance would lose their coverage. The more than 20 million Medicare recipients with Medicare Advantage would lose their private insurance coverage also. Private insurers who are managed care organizations in Medicaid would also be eliminated. Most Americans do not want these options to be taken away. The impact on our entire healthcare system is difficult to estimate, with serious questions about the availability of doctors, hospitals, and other healthcare facilities. The highly regulated environment would likely ration care and limit access to innovative new treatments. One of my concerns about Medicare for All is that it would make our inherent doctor shortage only worse. Under Canada’s single payer system, patients who receive a referral from their primary doctor often have to wait weeks before they can see a specialist for treatment. Improving our nation’s complex healthcare system requires well-thought out solutions, not a one-size-fits-all approach that is going to drive taxes up and reduce consumer choice.

The Trump administration is awaiting a ruling from the Supreme Court as to whether it can end the DACA program — Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals — which shields young undocumented immigrants from deportation. Do you support or oppose DACA and why? Should a path to citizenship be created for the so-called DREAMers? Please explain.

I have been fighting for years to reform our immigration system so that it reflects the priorities of the United States and the American people by making sure immigrants and immigration applicants are treated with dignity, while at the same time securing our borders.

While it is much preferable that we address immigration reform in a comprehensive manner, there is an immediate need to address the situation of those immigrants who were brought to the United States as children. This year I helped introduce and pass the Dream and Promise Act to allow these immigrants to contribute fully to the United States by granting them a pathway to citizenship. They must first gain conditional permanent residency and then permanent residency status before they can apply for citizenship. In order to gain conditional permanent resident status for up to 10 years, they must, among other requirements, graduate from high school, obtain a GED or industry recognized credential, or be working their way toward obtaining that status. To gain permanent residency, they must complete at least two years in good standing of post-secondary education; serve for at least two years in the military with an honorable discharge; or be employed for at least three years and at least 75 percent of the time that they have employment authorization. As a former educator, the education provisions in this bill are especially important to me because they encourage prioritization of education and learning. The legislation also takes into consideration security and law enforcement concerns by requiring background checks. Applicants who engaged in serious criminal activity are ineligible for the new citizenship pathway.

The issue of immigration reform, especially the precarious situation for DACA recipients, is one that I have worked with my colleagues in the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus to address. In the last Congress, I was part of a working group in the caucus that spent long hours coming to a bipartisan agreement that would have granted a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients and others brought to the U.S. as children. This agreement received the endorsement of the 40-member Problem Solvers Caucus. It is the only plan in the House that has gotten the support of a significant number of both Democrats and Republicans.

Unfortunately, we were never able to get the plan to the House floor for a vote. This issue, like many others, needs to be seriously addressed and solved rather than continue to be a strictly partisan process.

What are the three most important issues in your district on which the federal government can and should act?

Making Healthcare More Affordable

The high and rising cost of healthcare is a major burden for many Americans. I have made it a priority since I was first elected to work on making healthcare more affordable. We need a thoughtful, multi-faceted approach to healthcare reform that addresses costs while protecting access and coverage choices. Balancing these priorities while working to lower insurance premiums and bring down hospital, doctor, and prescription drug costs is achievable, but there’s no easy solution.

The Affordable Care Act is flawed, but I’ve fought against attempts to repeal it and worked extensively to make improvements so that insurance through the exchanges would be truly affordable. One action the federal government can take to lower premiums in the ACA by 25-30% is creating a reinsurance program and guaranteeing the “cost sharing reduction” payments to insurers. I worked in the bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus to develop legislation to do this. Another action the federal government can take is permitting the 14 remaining non-Medicaid expansion states to be eligible for enhanced funding for Medicaid expansion without the initial time constraints that were originally imposed in the ACA. This will especially benefit single adults who struggle with mental illness as well as other vulnerable populations. This year I helped the House pass H.R. 987, the Strengthening Health Care and Lowering Prescription Drug Costs Act, which helps states set up their own insurance marketplaces, expands funding for marketing/public awareness efforts for the ACA, and rescinds an Administration rule promoting junk plans. I will continue to work on these and other provisions to make the ACA more affordable.

For working families and seniors in my district and across the country, the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs remains a real crisis. In 2019, I introduced legislation (H.R. 5039) to lower the cost of life-sustaining drugs for seniors and others on Medicare by allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to leverage the purchasing power of the federal government along with prescription drug pricing data from other developed nations to ensure patients receive better pricing and are not being excessively charged for vital life-sustaining medications like insulin, EpiPens, and anti-seizure medications. Recently, I helped pass H.R. 3, the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, to make prescription drugs more affordable for working families and seniors by stopping Americans from having to pay more for their medications than what pharmaceutical companies charge for the same drugs in other countries. And there is more that Congress can do to fight high drug prices. There are many other ways to bring down the cost of healthcare. We need to put an end to expensive surprise medical billing practices through proposals that maximize healthcare savings for patients, lower insurance premiums, and provide meaningful deficit reduction to the federal government at the same time. Recently I led an organized effort with other House members to call on House and Senate leadership to allow a vote on legislation to protect patients from surprise billing. Ending this practice will take the patient out of the middle of payment disputes between insurers and out-of-network providers in situations where there is no real opportunity for the patient to choose in-network care. This could save taxpayers anywhere from $9 billion to $25 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.

Improving Local Transportation

Our region is a transportation hub for the nation but we have some of the country’s worst congestion on our roads, rails, and airports, which means lost time with friends and family and a less competitive economy. As the most senior member from Illinois on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and Chair of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, I am in a good position to continue my leadership improving our local transportation system. Over the years I have brought back over $600 million in federal funds for local transportation projects for roads, bridges, public transit, rail, and bikes/pedestrians. After serving as a co-chair of Governor Pritzker’s Infrastructure transition team, I was able to work with state and local officials to get $150 million to build a long-awaited underpass at rail crossings at Harlem Avenue and 63 rd and/or 65 th Street and $6 million to build an air traffic control tower at Lewis University Airport in Romeoville. In January, the House will begin its work on a new long-term federal road, transit, and rail funding bill and my key position on the Transportation Committee will give me the opportunity to provide more federal help to fix and expand our local surface transportation system.

I have been a tireless advocate for public transit in our region, helping to increase federal funding for public transportation infrastructure. As Chair of the Subcommittee on Rail, I will build upon the work I have already done for commuter rail such as provision in a transportation funding bill that directs the Federal Railroad Administration to identify potential issues contributing to the frequency and length of delays on Metra trains, and develop recommendations on addressing these challenges. I will continue to hold hearings to call out and pressure Metra, freight railroads, and Amtrak to provide better commuter rail service.

Sitting on the Aviation Subcommittee, over the years I have been able to help deliver tens of millions of dollars for safety improvements and other projects at Midway Airport which sits in the heart of the Third District. It is critical that Midway continue to be an economic engine in the region and that the safety of passengers and the surrounding neighborhood is protected. I will also continue to work to keep the modernization of O’Hare Airport moving forward. While the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal and the Cal-Sag Channel are often unnoticed, they are vital inland waterways in the Third District. I continue to work to provide funding for infrastructure to stop Asian Carp from proceeding up the Canal so that we can keep commerce that is important for local jobs flowing on the waterway.

Growing Good-Paying Jobs

Throughout my time in Congress I have been focused on growing American manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing built America and the middle class, and if we’re going to rebuild the middle class we need to boost American manufacturing. That’s why I authored the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act, which required the establishment of a comprehensive manufacturing strategy for the first time since Alexander Hamilton. The first plan was published in 2018, and every four years a revised plan will be created.

Manufacturing is no longer only old-style heavy manufacturing but also advanced manufacturing where America can use cutting edge technology and our innovative spirit to make the products of the future. We can also promote the creation of good-paying manufacturing jobs through the promotion of Buy American policies, which assure that when the federal government spends taxpayer money it is investing in American-made goods and American workers. I have been successful in adding Buy American provisions to numerous pieces of legislation and have introduced the Buy American Improvement Act to expand made-in-America requirements to more federal programs and to close loopholes in current policy.

We also must continue to invest in research that will help produce continued technological advancement and prepare and train our workforce so that we have the skilled employees to keep America at the forefront of innovation. To help with this important issue, I helped create the National Science Foundation Innovation Corps (I-Corps) program and have helped expand this highly successful initiative that bridges the divide between the research and start-up sector by educating scientists and engineers about how to turn their laboratory research into new products and services. This helps to drive innovation, spur small business development, and create new jobs to increase America’s competitiveness. Since 2012, I-Corps has trained over 1,300 teams, led to the formation of 644 startup companies, and resulted in over $300 million in follow-on funding raised.

The manufacturing sector needs a new model for trade that protects American workers. Middle-class Americans have suffered from bad trade deals made over the past 25 years and manufacturing has been particularly hard hit. These agreements have contributed significantly to stagnant wages. I helped lead the fight that killed the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would have been the biggest trade deal in history and would have led to more disastrous job losses. Last month I helped the House pass the United States Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) to replace NAFTA. This was a tough vote for me, but

I ultimately decided to support the agreement because, while it has flaws, it is an improvement over the disastrous NAFTA and establishes a floor plan to build from that protects American workers and tries to force Mexico to uphold labor standards that won’t undercut American workers. I joined with my House Democratic colleagues to apply the pressure that helped make this agreement much better from what was originally negotiated.

While I do not have confidence in how President Trump is approaching China on the trade issue, I am happy that he is addressing the issue of China’s unfair trading practices and will support good policy that helps American workers against further outsourcing of jobs. There is significant work that needs to be done to ensure we have effective systems in place to help new graduates, unemployed adults, and returning military veterans choose and succeed in careers. Identifying and promoting available opportunities for real-life job training, especially for in-demand careers, is important. We need to prioritize the creation of new pathways to careers with an emphasis on providing students with job skills before they graduate from high school. The federal government needs to continue working collaboratively with businesses, education leaders, and state and local policymakers to build upon the existing programs and conduct outreach about opportunities. I have been active in promoting apprenticeships in fields that have not traditionally provided such opportunities.

What is the biggest difference between you and your opponent(s)?

I am a problem solver who cooperatively develops commonsense solutions to problems faced by my constituents and our nation, enabling me to deliver results. My opponents offer unworkable, harmful schemes and would only add to the divisive extremism and gridlock in Washington that is hurting our nation.

I’ve been able to accomplish so much for my constituents and America’s middle class because I’m not afraid to roll up my sleeves and work with others regardless of party or ideology and get things done. I’m a workhorse, not a show horse, who listens to all sides, studies issues thoroughly, and develops workable solutions. Through my top-notch staff, I have helped thousands of constituents from all communities in the district solve problems they have faced, from getting a senior her proper Social Security benefit, to getting a veteran his service medals, to getting an immigrant her citizenship. As mentioned in Question 1, just in the past two years I helped deliver $150 million for a long-awaited rail underpass in Chicago and $6 million for an air traffic control tower in Romeoville, helped improve Metra service in the western suburbs and CTA service on Archer Avenue, helped end cancer-causing EtO emissions from Sterigenics, helped solve flooding issues in La Grange, helped protect a Bridgeview community, helped improve safety on a downtown Lockport rail line, and helped get new, heated Metra commuter shelters in Summit and Beverly. Much of the disastrous gridlock in our country can be attributed to a hyperpartisan system in Washington that rewards party loyalty and punishes bipartisan cooperation as well as a national political system that rewards extremism over compromise. The public suffers most when the parties antagonize one another and commonsense policies are immediately dismissed just because they originated in the opposition party. I’m a proud member of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus and the work we’ve done to begin opening up the legislative process and empowering rank-and-file members to make lawmaking less top-down driven and more representative of the American people.

The high and continually rising cost of healthcare is a burden for most Americans, especially working-class families. I have fought to defend the vital provisions of the ACA, jettison the harmful pieces, and make it work better for middle-class families through bipartisan legislation that would bring down premiums. I have fought to bring down the cost of prescription drugs including introducing a bill to lower the cost of life-sustaining medications and helping the House pass H.R. 3 to stop Americans from having to pay more for their medications than what pharmaceutical companies charge for the same drugs in other countries. I have also worked to eliminate surprise billing at hospitals that would save tens of billions of dollars. These are some of the ways (you can read more in Question 4) that we will realistically begin to make healthcare more affordable for Americans and I will continue to work with my Democratic colleagues - and Republican colleagues willing to help - to make it happen.

My opponent who gets the most attention, Marie Newman, favors a plan which would abolish private insurance and have the government take over that role. All of the 177 million Americans who have private insurance would lose their plan and Medicare would be eliminated for seniors. This extreme plan would require a doubling of every federal tax, not just income tax, to pay the cost which is estimated at $32.6 trillion over ten years. The impact on the entire system of providers including doctors, hospitals, and other healthcare facilities would be severe.

I have also long been a leader on sensible climate change issues in Congress and am an active member of the House Climate Solutions Caucus. In 2007, the first two bills I authored that became law both addressed climate change. One required the federal government to install energy efficient lightbulbs and light fixtures in federal office buildings and the other created the H-Prize to promote the development of hydrogen as a clean fuel for transportation. In 2009, I helped introduce the first bipartisan bill to institute a fee on carbon emissions to fight climate change and earlier this year I introduced with bipartisan support H.R. 3966, the Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act, which establishes a fee on greenhouse gas emissions and returns all the revenue generated to the American people. You can read more in Question 9 about my leadership on the issue of climate change.

My opponents instead offer a plan that would cost American taxpayers between $50 and $93 trillion over ten years. Since the federal government currently raises about $3.2 trillion dollars a year in taxes, this would mean every federal tax would have to triple to pay for this plan. It would also require every car that uses gas or diesel to be off the road within 10 years and all planes would be grounded within 10 years unless electric-powered commercial planes were invented. Every building in America - industrial, commercial, and residential- would need to be either “upgraded” or torn down and rebuilt to become wholly carbon neutral - also within 10 years. Climate change is a serious issue that demands serious solutions.

These are two examples of critical issues that we face and the differences between my commonsense, problem-solver approach and the unworkable extremist approaches of my opponents that would simply create more gridlock and division in our nation as the problems grew and Americans suffered.

What action should Congress take, if any, to reduce gun violence?

Ending our nation’s gun violence epidemic is a personal issue for far too many Americans, myself included. This past July, my wife Judy and I were in the crowd at the Gilroy Garlic Festival where a gunman opened fire and tragically killed three people. Mass shootings have become commonplace and we must do everything we can to reverse this disturbing trend. One of my top legislative priorities is advancing legislation that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals who threaten our safety. Earlier this year, I co-sponsored and helped pass H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, to close the ‘gun show loophole’ by requiring universal background checks for all gun sales, not just sales by licensed firearm dealers. Building on these reforms, my colleagues in the House of Representatives and I then took action to pass H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act, to close the loophole that allows a gun dealer to sell a gun after three days even if a background check is incomplete. Implementing a comprehensive background check system is the first step toward reducing gun violence, and in the coming year I remain strongly committed to finding other ways to make our communities safer. That’s why I support efforts to strengthen federal gun trafficking laws (Gun Trafficking Prohibition Act - H.R. 33), keeping guns out of hands of convicted stalkers (Zero Tolerance for Domestic Abusers Act - H.R. 569), preventing people convicted of hate crimes from buying or possessing guns (Disarm Hate Act – H.R. 2708), providing greater resources to law enforcement to lawfully recover guns after weapons relinquishment court orders have been issued (Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act– H.R. 1585), and prohibiting bump stocks and other devices designed to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon (High Speed Gunfire Prevention Act – H.R. 3606). I also support limiting the size of ammunition clips and imposing strict limits on the availability of semi-automatic weapons designed with features that make them easier to use in mass shootings, although I understand the difficulty in enforcing these limits. I am proud that my continued advocacy efforts along with my House colleagues helped to secure $25 million in the FY2020 appropriations bills for gun violence research that will help to identify other ways we can continue to reduce gun violence.

Is climate change real? Is it significantly man-made? Is it a threat to humankind? What if anything should Congress and the federal government do about it?

The scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that climate change is occurring and that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are primarily to blame. Climate change threatens human health and our society in a number of ways. Drought and the spread of disease-carrying insects puts our food supply at risk, and extreme weather events cause homes to be uninhabitable and populations to be displaced. The United States must take a leading role in addressing this challenge.

Since I was first elected to Congress, I have been a leader in the fight to take action against climate change. In 2007, the first two bills I authored that became law both addressed climate change. One required the federal government to install energy efficient lightbulbs and light fixtures in federal office buildings, and the other created the H-Prize to promote the development of hydrogen as a clean fuel for transportation. In 2007, I was also a strong backer of the Department of Energy's ARPA-E program (Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy) modeled after the Department of Defense’s ARPA program that funds cutting edge research. The successful ARPA-E program is currently funding research across the country, including a program at Argonne Lab working to produce a breakthrough in innovative battery technology to enable exponential growth in the use of renewable energy.

In this Congress, I am co-sponsoring H.R. 4091, which would significantly expand ARPA-E. In 2009, I helped to introduce the first bipartisan bill to institute a fee on carbon emissions to fight climate change. As an active member of the House Climate Solutions Caucus, I brought a bipartisan group of members of Congress to the House floor to speak on merits of carbon fee legislation. Earlier this year I introduced with bipartisan support H.R. 3966, the Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act, which establishes a fee on greenhouse gas emissions and returns all the revenue generated by cutting payroll taxes, increasing Social Security benefits, and increasing funding for weatherization programs and low-income home energy assistance.

According to the IMF, a fee on carbon is the most powerful and efficient way to fight climate change. Additionally, in the current Congress, I am leading H.R. 3100 directing the Department of Energy to establish a prize challenge competition to address climate change, as well as co-sponsoring a number of climate-change related bills including H.R. 1166, the USE IT Act, to promote carbon emissions capture and H.R. 978, the Clean and Efficient Cars Act, to reduce transportation emissions. I believe that the U.S. should recommit to international emissions reduction goals as outlined in the Paris Agreement and was proud to vote for H.R. 9 and support its passage in the House of Representatives.

Addressing climate change requires long-term and sustained global action. The United States must take a leading role in addressing climate change and reaffirm its commitment to the Paris Climate Change agreement as well as move ahead with the Clean Power Plan. I support the 100% Clean Economy Act (H.R. 5221), which directs the federal government to develop a plan to reduce emissions by 50% by 2030. Technology developments that help existing industries transition to lower emissions have the added benefit of stimulating our economy and creating new jobs.

What should Congress do to ensure the solvency of Social Security and Medicare?

For decades, Medicare and Social Security have brought quality healthcare to seniors and the disabled, and provided needed income in retirement. To ensure that these programs can continue successfully, we must address the fact that increased healthcare costs and our aging population affect their long-term sustainability.

The Medicare hospital trust fund is expected to become insolvent by 2026, meaning that Medicare will be able to make only 89% of the promised payments for hospital care. More must be done to get healthcare spending under control and ensure we can keep the promises we have made.

For years, I have advocated for allowing Medicare to get directly involved in negotiations on drug prices so we can use Medicare’s purchasing power to leverage better deals for patients. In December, I helped the House of Representatives pass H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which allows Medicare to negotiate the prices of some drugs and bring prices in line with those in other developed nations. I’m proud of the work I was able to do with other colleagues in the House to successfully advocate for an increase in the number of drugs subject to negotiation. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the negotiation provisions in H.R. 3 alone would save Medicare $448 billion over 10 years. I have also introduced H.R. 5309, the Life-Sustaining Prescription Drug Relief

Act of 2019, which would lower the cost of life-sustaining prescription drugs for seniors and others on Medicare. During my time in Congress, I have also been a strong proponent of reforming healthcare delivery systems while ensuring that we keep our promises to beneficiaries of programs like Medicare and avoid benefit cuts. I have advocated that the government do more to promote and incentivize reforms to bend the healthcare cost curve, such as accountable care organizations (ACOs), bundled payments, and medical homes. Both public health programs like Medicare and the private sector have now had more experience with delivering care in these new ways, and we should use the data we’ve gathered to make effective changes more widespread.

Without changes, Social Security's reserves will be drawn down until they are exhausted in 2035. At that point, the program will be able to pay only approximately three-fourths of the promised benefits. Putting Social Security back on track requires a multi-faceted approach.

One commonsense solution is to increase the limit on the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes. Currently, someone earning $132,900 a year pays the same amount in Social Security taxes as someone making millions. Raising this ceiling would bring in revenue without adding to the economic burden faced by middle-income workers. However, this action alone will not fix Social Security’s problems and Congress will need to consider options such as increases in payroll tax rates and better targeting of Social Security’s benefits to the most vulnerable and low-income seniors.

What should Congress do to address the student loan crisis? Would you use the word “crisis”?

As a former university professor, I understand the value of a college education. Unfortunately, the cost has become unsustainable for many. The question of how to pay for college was a common concern back when I was teaching and the problem has only increased. According to the Federal Reserve, Americans cumulatively have accrued $1.4 trillion in outstanding student loan debt. More concerning, a growing number of former students are struggling to pay that debt back. Congress should continue to take action to assist students with the cost of college, including expanding access to Federal Pell Grants and providing low-interest student loans, as well as restructuring student loans to make monthly payments more manageable and expanding the current income-driven repayment plans to help borrowers pay off their debt as an affordable percentage of their income.

Congress should also expand the Public Service Loan forgiveness program and deploy prevention strategies to shield students from taking out excessive loans that can lead to financial harm down the road. We also need to strengthen career pathway guidance to help high school students understand career options and match their skillsets with post-secondary education and training that will prepare them to enter the workforce

The first step in addressing the student loan crisis is increasing transparency by collecting and publishing data about enrollment, completion, and post-college success rates across colleges and programs. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the bipartisan College Transparency Act (H.R. 1766), which creates a Department of Education postsecondary student data system so that students and families better understand graduation and employment outcomes to make informed choices about postsecondary education. It lifts the prohibition on the federal government collecting and reporting accurate data on student outcomes, while maintaining important protections such as a prohibition of sharing sensitive student data.

When looking to invest in higher education, data is essential for people to be able to weigh the costs versus the benefit of taking out student loans and deciding which educational pathway they want to pursue.

To better prepare high school students for the workforce, more career readiness and job training programs are needed. My advocacy efforts helped to secure an increase of $134 million in the FY2020 appropriations (H.R. 1865) for job training and readiness activities.

What should our nation’s relationship be with Russia?

Our policies toward Russia should be crafted keeping in mind its active support for autocratic forms of government, its continued disregard for the sovereignty of its neighbors, its attempts to aggressively increase its influence on the world stage, its continued development of dangerous weapons, and its past and ongoing attempts to interfere with and undermine democratic governments in the United States and elsewhere. Russia has proven that it is willing to pursue its anti-democratic goals through multifaceted and creative approaches; likewise, our response can’t rely on just one tool, but must be flexible as well. Russia continues to show no sign of changing its behavior after years of threatening peace and stability in the Western world. It has used its military forces to violently attack neighbors that sought closer ties to the West, including the nation of Georgia and, in an ongoing war, Ukraine. To achieve its global strategic ends, it promotes governments that repress and kill their own citizens like Syria and Iran. The Russian government has even been responsible for ordering assassinations on foreign soil against individuals it views as harmful to its interests. As the global climate changes, opening up new shipping routes through the Arctic, Russia has expanded military presence in the region for strategic advantage over other nations, including the United States.

For many years, the U.S. was complacent in considering Russia a diminishing state that no longer posed a serious threat to anyone. I have always understood the continued Russian threat, perhaps because of my connections to Poland and serving as co-chair of the House Caucus on Poland. In 2014, the European Reassurance Initiative, later renamed the European Deterrence Initiative, was created to provide funding to central European countries to deter Russian aggression. I strongly supported the creation of this initiative and have worked for increased funding because of the vulnerability of central European countries and their importance to our security.

In 2019, I helped the House pass more than a dozen pieces of legislation designed to put pressure on the Russian government and Russian oligarchs. These include placing sanctions on those supporting Syrian government violence, reinstating sanctions against Russians involved in meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, supporting Ukraine and Georgia, providing transparency on Putin’s corruption, supporting European independence from Russian energy supplies, and banning the recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

The U.S. should continue the use of sanctions against Russian entities involved in human rights violations and build a strategy for flexible responses to disinformation, election system interference, social engineering, and cybersecurity threats sponsored by Russia and other repressive governments. Whenever possible, we should continue to engage through available diplomatic channels to resolve conflicts and strive to encourage Russia’s engagement with the rest of the world through lawful means, but we must do so with the understanding and acknowledgment of the serious, active threat that Russia poses to law and order and democracies worldwide.

What’s your view on the use of tariffs in international commerce? Has President Trump imposed tariffs properly and effectively? Please explain.

Targeted and strategic tariffs can be a useful tool in addressing trade issues. For example, I have called in the past for tariffs to respond to China’s currency manipulation that costs American jobs. I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing that we enact tariffs on countries like China that have had a policy of doing everything they can to cheat trade rules and undermine high-quality jobs in the U.S. That said, I have been consistently concerned that President Trump doesn’t have a clear strategy behind his various trade decisions. It is a positive development to have a President paying attention to how American workers have been taken advantage of through trade channels by other countries, and for my entire time in Congress, I’ve said that trade policy must put American workers first and promote strong health, safety, and environmental protections. But the way the President has gone about his trade decisions has brought uncertainty to markets and necessitated government rescues of industries harmed by retaliatory tariffs, without necessarily bringing about equally substantial benefits or wins in negotiations. Moreover, the President’s bluster and subsequent walking back on his threats make it difficult for other nations to take our stated policies seriously. So while I give credit to President Trump for being willing to act against China for its unfair trading policies, the way he has used tariffs does not appear to have been effective thus far.

Does the United States have a responsibility to promote democracy in other countries? Please explain.

The promotion of democracy is a core American principle. I vividly remember visiting Berlin in 1989 just days after the fall of the Berlin Wall and seeing first-hand the stark differences between the way of life in democratic West Germany versus communist East Germany. Watching East Germans experience true freedom for the first time reinforced my belief that we should always strive to promote democracy abroad. This experience helped inspire me to create and co-chair the Congressional Victims of Communism Caucus to draw attention to past and current victims of communism, and remind Americans of the need to continue the fight for every person's God-given right to freedom. In addition to the humanitarian interests, promoting democracy can also lead to more stable and prosperous trading partners and enhanced diplomacy, improving our economic and national security interests.

But the Iraq War demonstrated that there are limits to how far we take the promotion of democracy. Clearly the overthrow of the Iraqi government and the attempt to create a democracy failed. We must not believe that we can impel democracy anywhere in the world. This sometimes means difficult choices must be made, especially in civil wars that involve an authoritarian government. But this does not mean that the United States should drop the promotion of democracy as a key principle.

Currently the people of Hong Kong are struggling against anti-democratic policies being imposed by mainland China. I have been supportive of the democratic protesters and I believe that it important to continue to do so. Hong Kong has been democratic and has thrived, and there is no legitimate reason for Beijing to interfere. Leaders of the democratic protesters in Hong Kong have told me that it is important to hear support from the U.S. because it helps to push back against China. This is clearly one place today where promoting democracy is critical.

What should Congress do to limit the proliferation of nuclear arms?

The United States has long been a global leader in international efforts to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. Our diplomatic efforts contributed to the development of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which garnered the support of all but four nations. For rogue nations like Iran and North Korea that threaten to expand their nuclear programs, I long been a leading voice calling for the United States to impose strict sanctions on them. For example, in 2011 I led a bipartisan letter to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging sanctions to be imposed on foreign companies that were investing in the Iranian energy sector, thereby funding Iranian nuclear development. In 2014, I helped to introduce H.Con.Res. 109, which expressed concern about Iran's unwillingness to make nuclear concessions and reaffirmed that the U.S. should continue to vigorously enforce sanctions on Iran. In 2017, I was proud to vote for the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act that imposed new sanctions on Iran, North Korea, and Russia in response to their nuclear violations and other acts of aggression. Additionally, I supported the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, which was signed into law on December 20, 2019, because it contained a number of provisions to limit the proliferation and use of nuclear arms. For example, there is a provision requiring the Director of National Intelligence to assess Russia's willingness to engage in nuclear arms control negotiations.

Another reiterates the U.S. commitment to a sustained diplomacy to achieve denuclearization in North Korea. Finally, there is a provision that requires the Secretary of Defense to contract with a federally funded research and development center to study the benefits and risks of the U.S. adopting a policy committing not to use nuclear weapons first, and how such a policy might impact nuclear nonproliferation.

Please list all relatives on public or campaign payrolls and their jobs on those payrolls.

There are no relatives of mine on the payrolls of my congressional staff or my campaign.

What historical figure from Illinois, other than Abraham Lincoln (because everybody’s big on Abe), do you most admire or draw inspiration from? Please explain.

Especially in this time of extreme political polarization, I look to someone from the not-too- distant past who understood that a political leader can stand by principles while also displaying flexibility and a willingness to compromise to achieve important goals. President Ronald Reagan did this, and was re-elected in 1984 with a margin that is unthinkable today.

As with any political leader, Reagan’s legacy is not perfect, but his willingness to compromise to get things done was admirable. In today’s politics, especially in the Republican Party, Reagan would likely not be able to survive because of this. Reagan is often referenced today by Republicans to support lower taxes. However, President Reagan supported raising the gas tax as a user fee to fund improvement of our roads and bridges, and in January 1983 signed a bill that not only more than doubled this fee but for the first time dedicated a portion of it to public transit. President Reagan was known to be an avowed “free trader,” yet he imposed tariffs on Japanese electronics and forced Japan to restrain car exports, bailed out Harley Davidson, and imposed a dozen more restraints on free trade. And when the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund was threatened, Reagan – who had supported the ability to opt-out of Social Security – was willing to sit down with Speaker Tip O’Neill and the two parties reached a compromise agreement to shore up this vital program.

What’s your favorite TV, streaming or web-based show of all time. Why?

Most of the TV I watch these days is sporting events as well as news and political shows. But when I’m relaxing after a long day I often watch Seinfeld reruns because I still find much of it very funny. The comedic acting was superb, not just by the core four but also the ensemble of characters around them. The writing was excellent, especially after the writers began to weave all the separate stories together at the end of each episode. And contrary to what most people seem to think, I thought the final episode of the series was great when they brought back so many of the characters from the nine seasons to view the trial and Jerry, George, Elaine, and Kramer received their just desserts.