Q&A: Bean, Walsh, Scheurer for 8th congressional
The 8th congressional district, which covers the western portion of Northwest suburban Cook County, the west half of Lake County and the eastern portion of McHenry County, is currently represented by Melissa Bean, a Democrat from Barrington.
She is opposed Nov. 2 by Joe Walsh, a Republican from McHenry and the Green Party candidate, Bill Scheurer, from Lindenhurst.
The candidates all responded to the Daily Herald questionnaire.
Q. What is your Number 1 campaign issue?Bean: Recognizing that it is the private sector, not government that creates jobs, a top priority of mine is to support policies that create an environment for innovation, investment, competitiveness and sustainable growth for our community businesses.
While our nation's economic recovery has slowed, we have sustained four consecutive quarters of continued growth. However, access to capital remains a critical challenge for small businesses. In terms of economic impact, the Small Business Lending Fund Act, which I co-authored, is one of the most important measures passed this year in the House and pending in the Senate.
During Small Business Federal Resource Seminars that I have held, community business owners have told me that lack of access to affordable credit remains the biggest obstacle to business recovery, expansion and diversification. This bill would give community banks access to $30 billion in capital #8211; which can leverage $300 billion worth of small business lending.
This deficit-reducing legislation (repaid with interest) would help bridge the critical capital access gap our small business owners still face by providing discounted rates to community banks who measurably increase lending to community businesses, our job creators. The bill pending in the Senate also contains my Small Business Asset Investment and Modernization (AIM) Act (H.R. 5412), which I wrote to expand the existing SBA 504 loan programs for capital purchases and commercial real estate, and my Express Loans Improvements Act (H.R. 4598) which would increase utility of the SBA Express Loans, an important source of working capital for small businesses.
The Small Business Lending Fund Act #8211; and the $12 billion worth of tax cuts to small businesses also contained in the bill #8211; is critical and timely to sustain our economic recovery and job creation; I am working with Senator Landrieu and others in the Senate to urge passage.
I will also continue my work to address the challenges our community businesses face in terms of competitiveness, as they strive to succeed against emerging nations (i.e. China, India) in the global market. I supported reauthorization of the COMPETES Act, which invests in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education, toward graduating students with the necessary skill sets to compete globally.
I continue my advocacy for strategic partnerships between community businesses and our community colleges to develop skills-training curricula that meets employers' needs. My College Savings Flexibility Act, like the college tuition tax credit I advocated that is now law, would help more Americans access higher education. Through my Building Star Energy Retrofit Act and other initiatives, I will continue my efforts to invest in a next-generation green economy that will increase our energy efficiency, protect our planet, and spawn a new generation of American-made products and services to export abroad.
I will work to ensure that our implementation of health insurance reforms continues to improve access to care and reduce costs for small businesses through tax credits and better efficiency in our system, with greater use of health IT. I will also continue my advocacy for tax policy that supports innovation and growth, such as extension of the RD tax credit and eliminating capital gains taxes on small business investment.
Walsh: My campaign is about creating jobs. More than 18 months after Congress passed the President's stimulus plan, over 14 million Americans remain out of work and millions more are underemployed. Not only did the stimulus fail to create jobs, we have actually lost jobs since it passed. According to the federal government, we have spent over $226 million in stimulus in the 8th District but created only 170 jobs. That means the government is spending more than $1.3 million for each job created.
My campaign is focused on three things that will help the private sector create jobs: permanent tax relief for all American taxpayers, repealing the government takeover of health care, and reducing the deficit. These three policies will not only create jobs in the short-term but they will also put the nation back on the right fiscal path to ensure long-term growth and prosperity.
We can aid in job creation by enacting tax relief. Small-business owners all over America are waiting to see whether Congress will let their taxes automatically increase on Jan. 1, 2011. They are also concerned about the tax increases contained in the President's health care law. I have talked to hundreds of small-business owners and one of the things they tell me is that job creation is hampered by the uncertainty about the tax burden on small businesses. The simple fact of the matter is that businesses will remain uneasy about hiring as long as the potential for tax increases hangs over their heads. If Congress wants to see more jobs, they have to start by sending the right message to small businesses. That means enacting tax cuts and promising not to raise taxes.
Scheurer: End our failed experiment with "trickle-down economics" that has left us with massive trade and budget deficits, destroyed our economic base, and killed our jobs, and revive the proven "rising tide economics" that built our middle-class, lifted millions out of poverty, and grew the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.
Q. What is your Number 2 campaign issue?Bean: Equally important is the concerns that I, as a longtime fiscal conservative, share with families and businesses of the 8th District about our nation's increasing national debt.
As one of Congress' strongest supporters of fiscal discipline, I have voted against more than $900 billion in spending over the last two years alone and was one of the lead advocates for the restoration of strong pay-as-you go budget rules since I came to Congress. Signed into law this year as part of H.J. Res. 45, this legislation requires Congress to constrain mandatory spending to budgetary limits, so additional spending is not borrowed from future generations.
I also support the President's freeze on discretionary spending, although more is needed. While we must look at every facet of government spending to find inefficiencies within the system and work to rid programs of unnecessary waste, cutting discretionary spending alone is not enough. If Congress voted against all discretionary spending #8211; literally shutting down the military, the FAA, the FDA, and all other federal services #8211; we would still have a deficit. We cannot solve our nation's fiscal problems without reforms to mandatory spending programs.
I co-introduced the bipartisan SAFE Commission Act (H.R. 1557), which establishes an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate and propose reforms to our nation's entitlement programs and federal budgeting process. Congress would be required to introduce and vote on legislation to implement the commission's recommendations, or an alternate plan, within 90 days or lose budgeting authority. Such bipartisan commissions have proven an effective method in the past for achieving bipartisan buy-in to make the tough choices necessary. As Congress has failed to move my bill, I support the President's similar bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. I am encouraged by the commitments of leaders in both the House and Senate to allow a vote on the Commission's recommendations upon completion and I will hold them accountable to that pledge.
My efforts on deficit reduction have been broad based. I co-sponsored and helped House colleagues pass the statutory pay-as-you-go law. It requires Congress to constrain mandatory spending to within budget, so it is not borrowed from future generations.
To prevent representatives from protecting their individual spending requests, I co-sponsored and introduced the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act, which would authorize the President to rescind wasteful congressional spending with specific cuts, which Congress would be forced to vote on without amendment.
To identify ineffective and wasteful spending in government, I co-sponsored and passed an amendment to House rules that now strengthens audits on every federal agency, requiring regular oversight hearings.
And to hold Congress accountable, I wrote and introduced H. Res. 965, to require an up-or-down vote on raising the federal government's maximum level of debt, or "debt ceiling," and introduced my Voting Record Transparency Resolution (H.Res. 287), which changes House rules to require all representatives to post their full voting records on their publicly-funded official websites.
Walsh: We must also repeal the new health care law in order to aid in job creation. Some of the nation's largest employers have announced they will be forced to make cutbacks as a result of Obamacare's job-killing mandates, despite President Obama's boast that his health care plan was also a jobs plan. There are two other reasons why I strongly oppose the Democrats' takeover of our nation's health care system.
The first reason is that this bill includes a series of burdensome taxes, which will primarily fall on small businesses and cripple our economy. In order to raise $10 billion in tax revenue, Obamacare requires small businesses to track and report to the IRS all instances in which that business pays another business at least $600 in a single year. This will impose an enormous paperwork and bookkeeping burden on more than 30 million small businesses. Anyone who had read the bill, and understood this provision, would surely have voted against this bill rather than vote against small business.
Under Obamacare, every small business that employs at least 50 people, but does not provide health insurance, will be hit with a $2,000 penalty for each uninsured employee. In other words, a small business in this position with 49 employees would be hit with a $100,000 penalty if they hired one more worker. A business owner is not likely to hire anyone under this scenario. This disincentive to hire is one more reason that Obamacare is a bad bill for hardworking Americans.
In addition to the tax burdens and job-killing aspects of Obamacare, I am also opposed to the new law because of the impact of socialized medicine in other countries. The government-run health care systems in Western European countries and Canada have led to hospital bed shortages and doctor shortages. Every mom with small children should be concerned that the Democrats' health plan will curb costs by reducing services.
Scheurer: Free the voters from a corrupt two-party duopoly where moneyed interests are able to buy politicians and our government and to manipulate or override the will of the people.
Q. What is your Number 3 campaign issue?
Bean: Since coming to Congress I have made it a priority to stay connected to the families and businesses of the Eighth District and provide responsive constituent service.
Over the past two years, over 178,000 people have joined to listen and ask questions during my 8th District tele-townhalls. I've sent over 1 million e-newsletters, updating people on legislation in Washington and my activity across the district, and soliciting their feedback.
My office has responded to 133,357 constituent inquiries about legislation in Washington this Congress, via e-mails and written letters, bringing the office's total number of legislative responses to 292,596 since I took office.
Although my office routinely helps families and businesses work with federal agencies, I created new outreach seminars to address the increased demand for information on federal programs during these difficult economic times. My Small Business Federal Resource seminars, attended by hundreds of business owners, have helped small business owners learn about federal loan programs and tax breaks in the new health insurance reform law, as well as connect with officials from the Small Business Administration, the Commerce Department, the Internal Revenue Service, and others.
Through a series of Federal Government Open House events, families were also able to get details about health insurance reform, federal foreclosure programs, Social Security, unemployment benefits, and student loan programs directly from the state and federal agencies participating.
My constituent services staff helps 8th District residents one-on-one, completing 3,496 cases just this term, bringing the total cased completed to 10,456 since I took office. Casework ranges from help solving problems with the Social Security Administration to stalled passports to general requests for assistance during economic hardship.
Following passage of the Recovery Act, which included $288 billion in tax cuts and credits, my office helped local governments and businesses apply for federal stimulus funds by quickly distributing and posting customized guides to local officials. My office hosted a number of briefings, including state and federal officials for school finance officers, SBA officials for small businesses, and Department of Energy programs for small businesses working in the green economy.
I've met with thousands of 8th District seniors, veterans, students, police, firefighters, small businesses, health care professionals, and family members with hundreds of meetings this session alone. Regular "Congress at Your Corner" stops at local grocery stores help me stay connected across the three counties and over 80 municipalities I serve.
In each county, I also host bipartisan leadership summits with state, county and municipal leaders, police, and firefighters. I also regularly visit employers to understand their businesses and thank them for the jobs they create across the district. I meet regularly with are Chambers of Commerce and business associations to share legislative updates and solicit their ideas and concerns. During the House's health insurance reform efforts, I hosted roundtables with 8th District hospitals, patient advocates, small business owners, and doctors and nurses.
As an advocate for my community and as their representative voice, I'll continue to passionately carry the concerns and ideas of 8th District families and businesses to Washington.
Walsh: Washington's fiscal policies and reckless spending are leading this country down a dangerous path. Our practice of running up huge deficits is unsustainable, and will create an unfair burden for our children and grandchildren.
The Democrats in Congress this year did not even pass a budget. Ignoring our financial problems is not going to make our problems go away. In the same way that families during this recession have had to tighten their belts and cut costs, our government should be reining in spending and slashing redundant programs and wasteful spending. It is the height of irresponsibility that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats chose to go on August recess without writing a budget.
Scheurer: Help our nation rediscover the path of peaceful security
Q. What are the suburbs' most pressing transportation needs? What will you advocate for to help with the state's infrastructure challenges? How do you, if at all, propose funding the STAR Line rail project? Do you support or oppose O'Hare expansion? Bean: Traffic congestion, interstate access, and access to transit are the suburbs' most pressing transportation needs. That is why I successfully secured funding for key projects like the Route 120 corridor, the East McHenry Bypass, Meacham Road access ramps from I-90, new and improved vehicles for Pace Suburban Bus, and expansion of Metra's suburban network.
In particular for communities along the EJE line, mitigating the impacts of increased freight rail traffic remains a top priority. Ever since Canadian National proposed its acquisition of the EJE, I have worked tirelessly to advocate for my community's safety needs, mobility needs, and quality of life. I have led numerous efforts with other members of Congress in Illinois and Indiana to hold CN accountable for their safety record and for false statements in oversight reports, for the traffic delays their trains cause in our communities, and for their unwillingness to lend appropriate support to mitigation projects along the EJE.
I have also introduced legislation so that the Surface Transportation Board, which oversees the freight rail industry, will take into account the community impacts of freight rail when assessing proposed mergers. I will continue fighting for federal funding assistance for mitigation projects, so that our communities can move forward with expensive grade separations to reduce traffic bottlenecks and keep drivers, citizens, and pedestrians safe.
I have consistently advocated for each of these priorities through requests for federal appropriations, federal authorizations, and coordination with local officials and stakeholders. Earlier this year, I convened a round-table with Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, so that local officials from across the 8th District could weigh in with him on area needs. I will continue to push for a comprehensive transportation reauthorization bill in Congress, which is the most important step we can take toward addressing long-term infrastructure financing challenges.
Although I have joined my colleagues in making federal funding requests for the STAR Line, the project cannot move forward until Metra and the state find adequate matching funds. I supported Metra's request to extend federal funding authority on the project by an additional year, which does not increase the level of funding, but gives Metra more time to secure matching funds.
I support O'Hare expansion. Completing capacity enhancements at O'Hare is critical, given its important role as a regional, national, and international logistics hub for air traffic.
Walsh: Traffic congestion is the single most pressing transportation issue facing suburbanites. As population growth in the suburbs has increased and expanded outward from the city, it has created a huge stress on the condition of use of our roads and highways and use of. The congestion has led to costly commutes to work and school, impacting businesses, employment, and quality of life for families.
Short and long term solutions include widening many of the two lane arteries where the need is the greatest, maintenance of upkeep of all the roadways, and, with regards to the 8th District, and those living in Lake and McHenry counties it includes extending Route 53 at least up to Route 120 and possibly up to the Wisconsin border. This project has been studied for years and the time is now to develop the funding and move on the construction of the extension which will take a number of years.
Canadian National Railway's purchase of the Elgin, Eastern, and Joliet Railway will negatively impact the quality of life in a number of villages in the 8th District, and further add to already heavy traffic in the impacted suburbs. Barrington and a number of other communities have filed final briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals requesting that the U.S. Transportation Board reconsider its 2008 approval of the purchase. That Transportation Board's decision should be reconsidered and other alternatives should be reviewed.
Finally, the STAR Lone rail project is another transportation issue that's been talked about for years. While I appreciate some of the environmental benefits, at this point, the project's feasibility and workability still would benefit from a more thorough private and public analysis. Study after study has shown that individuals prefer automobile use, it's a more private and convenient way to travel, no matter how much we try and subsidize rail transportation.
I support the expansion of O'Hare Airport.
Scheurer: Lane expansion of the state and county roads that serve as major arterial routes throughout the district. Getting federal funds to help with these projects is a top priority. I do not support taxpayer funding of the proposed STAR Line rail project, or of the proposed O'Hare expansion.
Q. Is government debt a problem? If so, what should be done? If you were in Congress at the time, how did you vote on measures, including the financial reform bill? Are you against earmarks? Will you accept them? Should taxes be cut at the federal level? Bean: The government's fiscal position, and its role in overseeing Wall Street, promoting economic growth, and formulating tax policy are all important responsibilities that sometimes overlap, but each merit separate examination.
As a longtime fiscal conservative, I share the concerns of my constituents about the increase in our national debt. As one of Congress' strongest supporters of fiscal discipline, I have voted against more than $900 billion in spending over the last two years alone and was one of the lead advocates for the restoration of strong pay-as-you go budget rules. Signed into law as part of H.J. Res. 45, this legislation requires Congress to constrain mandatory spending to budgetary limits, so additional spending is not borrowed from future generations.
I also support the President's freeze on discretionary spending, although I think more is needed. While we must look at every facet of government spending to find inefficiencies within the system and work to rid programs of unnecessary waste, cutting discretionary spending alone is not enough. If Congress voted against all discretionary spending #8211; literally shutting down the military, the FAA, the FDA, and all other federal services #8211; we would still have a deficit. We cannot solve our nation's fiscal problems without reforms to mandatory spending programs.
I co-introduced the bipartisan SAFE Commission Act (H.R. 1557), which establishes an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate and propose reforms to our nation's entitlement programs and federal budgeting process. Congress would be required to introduce and vote on legislation to implement the commission's recommendations, or an alternate plan, within 90 days or lose budgeting authority. Such bipartisan commissions have proven an effective method in the past for achieving bipartisan buy-in to make the tough choices necessary.
As Congress has failed to move my bill, I support the President's similar bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. I am encouraged by the commitments of leaders in both the House and Senate to allow a vote on the Commission's recommendations upon completion and I will hold them accountable to that pledge.
My efforts on deficit reduction have been broad based. I co-sponsored and helped House colleagues pass the statutory pay-as-you-go law. It requires Congress to constrain mandatory spending to within budget, so it is not borrowed from future generations.
To prevent representatives from protecting their individual spending requests, I co-sponsored and introduced the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act, which would authorize the President to rescind wasteful congressional spending with specific cuts, which Congress would be forced to vote on without amendment.
To identify ineffective and wasteful spending in government, I co-sponsored and passed an amendment to House rules that now strengthens audits on every federal agency, requiring regular oversight hearings.
And to hold Congress accountable, I wrote and introduced H. Res. 965, to require an up-or-down vote on raising the federal government's maximum level of debt, or "debt ceiling," and introduced my Voting Record Transparency Resolution (H.Res. 287), which changes House rules to require all representatives to post their full voting records on their publicly-funded official websites.
Although earmarks represent less than one-half of one percent of the federal budget, every tax dollar matters. Therefore, like any project eligible for federal funding, earmarked projects should meet clear and specific criteria to ensure American tax dollars are spent wisely and with full transparency. I oppose excluding Representatives from the funding process, which would mean all funding decisions being delegated to agency bureaucrats in Washington, arbitrarily deciding where funding should be directed.
Representatives are connected to their districts and better understand the local projects that their communities prioritize and which best serve local needs. I remain committed to making details about any 8th District project funding requests available to the public and post all funding requests on my official website.
The reforms to Wall Street regulation enacted into law are not directly related to the government's level of spending, as the legislation reduces the deficit by $3.2 billion. However, the new law will ultimately improve the government's fiscal position by strengthening one of the foundations of our economy #8211; our financial system.
When American families lost $17.5 trillion of their net worth in the recession and financial crisis they demanded action, and this new law answers with tough new watchdogs on Wall Street to protect consumers, end taxpayer bailouts, and prevent the type of crisis and bailout we experienced in 2008 from ever happening again.
As a member of the House Committee on Financial Services, I helped draft H.R. 4173, The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. As vice chair of the New Democrat Coalition, a moderate, pro-growth coalition and co-chair of the coalition's Financial Services Task Force, I worked to include the following measures:
#376; New federal lending requirements to stop lenders from putting people into homes they can't afford.
#376; Risk-retention requirements to restore lender incentives to write good loans.
#376; Adding liability for credit-rating agencies and removing implicit government guarantee on AAA securities.
#376; Regulating and requiring capital reserves, for the first-time, in the multi-trillion-dollar OTC derivatives market that exacerbated the crisis and led to the collapse of AIG.
#376; A systemic risk council to oversee risks to the entire financial system.
#376; Most importantly, an END TO TAXPAYER BAILOUTS, with new government authority to dissolve failing firms that endanger the entire system and recoup all costs from the liquidation of their assets and from the financial industry #8211; never taxpayers.
Enactment of these reforms will close the book on the anti-regulatory culture that has reigned in Washington and on Wall Street for too long.
Regarding taxes, given the continued fragility of our economy and slow pace of recovery, I am concerned with the negative impact tax increases would have on Eighth District families and businesses at this time. That is why I support extending both middle class tax cuts and high-income tax cuts. While the highest income brackets comprise only two to three percent of American taxpayers, economists estimate that they are responsible for 25 percent of national consumer spending and up to one-third of these high-income taxpayers are successful small business owners, our nation's job creators.
As a longtime fiscal conservative, I remain highly concerned with our increasing national debt. I have reservations about increasing our debt by $700 billion, which would require borrowing money from countries like China, to give a permanent tax cut to less than three percent of American taxpayers.
I am proud of my consistent support for lower taxes on families and businesses. I have voted to cut taxes by: adjusting the Alternative Minimum Tax for millions of middle-class families; reducing the capital gains and dividends rates; reducing estate taxes; eliminating capital gains tax on small business investment, expanding the child tax credit, co-introducing and passing the college tuition tax credit; extending the first-time homebuyer tax credit; and by introducing and passing small business tax cuts like Net Operating Loss Carryback and accelerated depreciation of capital purchases.
I have consistently voted against a proposal to permanently increase the carried interest capital gains tax, which would increase the costs of investing in small business and real estate investment funds, drying up sorely needed capital in hard hit sectors of our economy.
Walsh: I believe that the national debt is the single largest challenge facing our country. It threatens our economic future and, with so much debt owned by countries like China, our sovereignty. The national debt is now $13.4 trillion. Since Democrats took charge of Congress in 2007, they have increased the debt by 54% (or $4.7 trillion). This is the fastest rate of increase in the debt in our history. Washington spending is beyond reckless and it threatens our children's future.
I would have voted against the financial reform bill for two reasons. First, despite the promises made by Washington politicians, this bill created permanent authority for more bailouts. Within weeks of this bill becoming law, the President used the authority in the bill for another bailout. Second, the bill opens the door for labor unions to have special powers to elect their members to the boards of public companies.
A similar system has been tried in Europe and has reduced investment and jobs creation, reduced corporate accountability to all shareholders and harmed consumers. This provision threatens the retirement security of every American because it will reduce the value of everyone's retirement savings.
In these current economic times, we simply cannot afford earmarks. Someone may argue that earmarks are necessary to fund bridges or roads but federal money isn't the only way to build a road. Federal money for road construction comes from the same source as state or county money #8211; the taxpayers. Instead of sending our money to Washington so that Washington can give it back to us, we should keep the money here at home. We will spend it better than Washington ever could.
In addition, we would stretch the dollars further because we would no longer have to let Washington skim money off the top to fund their bureaucracy. But earmarks present a bigger problem too: they cause members of Congress to look the other way on spending. A member is not likely to object to spending in a bill if that bill contains that member's earmarks.
Taxes should be cut at the federal level. Small business owners are getting hammered by high taxes and it is costing us jobs. This Congress wants to impose an automatic tax increase on people that will kick in on Jan. 1, 2011 and the health care bill also increased taxes on small business owners. Small business owners can't afford these policies. We have tried to spend our way out of a recession and it didn't work. I believe we need to encourage private sector investment and job creation by cutting taxes.
Scheurer: Yes, federal trade and budget deficits are an existential threat to our country. The obvious answer to our federal deficits is that we need to massively cut spending and restore revenues. Upper income tax rates need to return to levels that are high enough to pay our bills (all of them), and to make sure there is enough money in wide circulation to support a healthy economy.
I completely opposed the bank bailouts and the so-called #8220;stimulus spending that added to our deficits, lacked any consistent sense of sustainable strategic investment in the long-term growth of our economy, and distributed federal largesse in line with favored political connections.
I would have voted for the so-called financial reform bill, even though it is widely off the mark. It does nothing to get the Wall Street casino out of our banking system, which corrupts and debases our basic money supply. It does very little in the way of real reform. Politicians are like little kids at a soccer game always chasing after where the ball used to be.
They need to get real and undo the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which was the bulwark of protecting our money supply from the speculative securities markets. Yes, I am adamantly against earmarks. However, I will aggressively pursue them for our district as long as the corrupt and unaccountable practice continues. No, we should not cut federal taxes, we should cut federal spending. We already fail to pay enough taxes to cover our spending.
Q. Do you believe the country's immigration laws should change? If so, how? Do you favor or oppose Arizona's new immigration law and why? Would you support increasing the cap on the number of legal immigrants in the U.S.? Bean: I can understand the frustration of the people of Arizona, given recent acts of violence on their border and the high number of illegal immigrants crossing the border into their state. Their recently enacted state law underscores the need for recommitment to federal border control and immigration enforcement, which are the responsibility of the federal government.
My approach to immigration reform has always placed border security first. I oppose a Reagan-style amnesty and have voted consistently to build border fences, add border guards, and make illegal immigration a felony. Legislation I've supported has built over 600 miles of border fence and has doubled our border patrol agents since 2001, to more than 19,000 today.
These efforts are making a measurable difference, according to a study released last month by the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center. As of March 2009, the number of illegal immigrants crossing the border had dropped more than 60 percent, from 850,000 to 300,000 per year, as compared to the first half of the decade. An estimated 11.1 million illegal immigrants were living in the U.S. in 2009, an 8 percent decline from the peak of 12 million in 2007. However, border security remains a problem.
Remember that in 1986, President Reagan granted a blanket amnesty to undocumented immigrants living here. To answer concerns that his policy would encourage more foreigners to enter the U.S. illegally, Reagan and Congress promised to secure our borders. There were about three million illegal immigrants living here then and there are about 11 million now. Clearly, Congress and the Administration didn't get the job done. Any changes to immigration policy should only be tackled once we've secured our borders.
One of the best ways to deter illegal immigration is to make sure employers know that if they hire illegal workers, they will pay a severe price. We should provide employers with the resources to determine whether they are hiring illegal workers, then prosecute those who knowingly do so. I continue to support federal efforts to improve and expand employee verification systems so that employers have no excuse for hiring illegal workers.
I continue to urge colleagues to pass the SAVE Act, which I helped introduce in Congress last year. This bill would strengthen requirements and penalties on employers, so they verify immigration status before making new hires. It would also hire more Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, increase border patrols, implement new aerial and satellite surveillance programs, and expand detention capacities to more effectively deal with those who are here illegally and end the flawed policy of "catch and release."
Legal immigration has always been an important part of our economy and culture. One in four new companies are founded by immigrants, and their contributions to our nation are profound. In today's global economy and dynamic labor markets, it is to our competitive advantage to continue to welcome skilled, legal immigrants to our workplaces and universities, provided our visa caps are set at levels appropriate in the context of the U.S. job market.
Walsh: I would like to start by having the Obama administration enforce the laws that are already on the books. We don't know if the current laws will work because the Obama administration has stopped trying to enforce them. Instead of deporting illegal workers who were arrested in Bellingham, Wash. last year, the Obama administration gave them work authorization and recently the Administration began dismissing deportation cases for thousands of illegal aliens.
One aspect of the law that is often overlooked is the fact that illegal aliens use fraudulent or stolen Social Security numbers in order to work. This is a felony and it creates a tremendous burden on the victims of these crimes. Our immigration system will not work if the Administration continues to refuse to enforce the laws it doesn't like.
I am sympathetic toward people who want to come to the U.S. in search of a better life but our immigration policies must serve America's national interest. Most reasonable people would agree that we have to have some limit on the number of people we admit as immigrants each year and, once that limit is set, we have to enforce it. American's embrace immigrants and we should, as a nation, continue to do that but we should not admit so many people that we lose the ability to help them assimilate, learn English and become productive members of our society.
Like most Americans, I support the Arizona law. Congress has previously recognized that states have inherent authority to enforce the nation's immigration laws. We have to allow states to protect their citizens. Violence along the U.S.-Mexican border threatens our citizens and immigrants living in the region. If Arizona believes that law is important to protect the people in the state, the federal government should not deny them the right to enforce a properly enacted, Constitutional law.
I would not increase the immigration cap. We have nearly 15 million Americans who are out of work. It would be wrong to increase the cap to admit new immigrants with work authorization when so many Americans, including immigrants, are out of work and their families are suffering as a result. The level of immigration to the U.S. must serve the national interest and increasing this cap does not presently serve our interests.
Scheurer: Immigration control is primarily a jobs issue for me. The moneyed interests that fund our political campaigns pursue a two-pronged path of exporting jobs to cheap labor countries, and importing workers from cheap labor countries for the sole purpose of lowering the price of labor by disrupting the balance of supply and demand.
This is why politicians in both parties consistently fail to control unlawful immigration and enforce the law. The first concern of our federal government with respect to uncontrolled immigration is to protect and control our borders to take control of the flow as prescribed by law. This is a basic obligation of our federal government, and should be a legitimate area of peacetime activity for our army, navy, coast guard, and air force.
I oppose any new legislation attempting to alter the status of people who have come here illegally until we have stopped the flow of new unlawful immigrants joining their ranks. The federal government should do its job, then we would not have to talk about symbolic acts of frustration like the Arizona law. No, I do not generally favor increasing the number of legal immigrants to our country when we are at record unemployment and stagnating and declining wages.
Q. What is your view on the Defense of Marriage Act? Should gay and lesbian couples receive the same benefits as heterosexuals? What's your view of "don't ask, don't tell" and why? Bean: I support the law in Illinois, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. However, I am opposed to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning gay marriage because I believe marriage should continue to be handled at the state level.
As an advocate of equal treatment under the law and a co-sponsor of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, I support domestic partner benefits for gay and lesbian couples.
Service in the Armed Forces is one of the greatest contributions any American can make to his or her country. As the daughter of a Marine veteran, I believe this honor should be available to all Americans who want to serve, regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender and sexuality. Especially now, we cannot discourage Americans from joining the military during a time of war.
I agree with many military leaders, including current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and former Chairman General Colin Powell, that the current policy is not a satisfactory solution, is not working, and should be reconsidered. A 2006 Zogby poll found that 73% of current military personnel are comfortable with lesbians and gays serving in the military. I support the Administration's current effort to end the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy in a way that does not detract from our military readiness.
Walsh: I support the Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted in a bipartisan manner and signed into law by President Clinton. I believe that this law is Constitutional. Society and government should protect marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.
Like the Defense of Marriage Act, the current policy of "don't ask, don't tell" was put into place by President Clinton. The purpose of our military is to defend our nation. To do this our military must maintain a constant state of readiness. I believe that we should listen to our military leaders when they express concern over repealing this policy and I, like a majority of Americans, trust our military officers when they say repealing this policy would jeopardize military readiness and threaten unit cohesion.
Scheurer: I support the equal protection of the law for all citizens. The so-called Defense of Marriage Act is a blatantly unconstitutional violation of the equal protection of the law. I also support the repeal of discriminatory practices by our armed services.
Q. Should there be more or less government oversight with oil drilling? What are your ideas for improving the U.S.'s response to the BP oil spill? What would you have done differently if you were in Congress at the time? Bean: While I continue to support offshore drilling, as I have in the past, we need to have a better grasp of the ecological and technological challenges surrounding deep- and ultra-deep-water drilling.
We need to address the lapses in oversight that led to the blowout on the Deepwater Horizon well and the spill that proved so hard to contain. To this end, I supported the House-passed Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources (CLEAR) Act, which eliminates the $75 million federal liability cap for damages related to offshore drilling spills, increases safety standards and penalties for violations, and establishes a Gulf Coast Restoration Program funded by drilling revenues.
I strongly support action by Congress and the Administration to separate the Minerals Management Service's revenue collection activities from its safety and environmental protection functions #8211; eliminating an institutional conflict of interest.
I'm proud of my work with my colleagues in the Illinois delegation to pass a permanent ban on domestic drilling in the Great Lakes, the largest source of drinking water in the country. I recently joined my colleagues in the region in an effort to encourage Canada to reassess its drilling policies and ultimately cease all Great Lakes drilling.
Walsh: I support domestic energy exploration. Exploration is vitally important to our nation's economic and national security interests. It was government, not the private sector, that pushed deep sea drilling so far out into the Gulf of Mexico. The greatest challenge to capping the BP well was the ocean depth.
Had BP been allowed to drill closer to shore, BP and the federal government would have had far more tools at their disposal to cap the well. Less oil would have spilled and the environmental impact would have been far less harmful. Far-left environmental policies greatly contributed to the damage from the spill.
Congress should adopt policies that allow for more land-based oil and gas exploration and more exploration closer to shore. These policies will make energy exploration safer and lower energy prices.
Scheurer: More government oversight which is subject to corruption, incompetence and co-optation is not the answer. Removing government subsidies and artificial protections like arbitrary caps on liability is what we need. As a member of Congress, I will move to remove all taxpayer subsidies for oil companies and artificial limitations on liability.