Q&A with U.S. House Dist. 14 GOP hopefuls

With the retirement of longtime Republican legislator Dennis Hastert, three candidates are vying for the Republican nomination for the U.S. 14th Congressional District in the Feb. 5 primary -- writer Michael Dilger, 34, of Evanston; state Sen. Chris J. Lauzen, 55, of Aurora; and businessman James D. Oberweis, 61, of Sugar Grove.

Two of the primary candidates filled out a Q&A. Here is a sampling of their answers. Dilger did not respond to the Q&As and did not send a photo.

Q. Tell us what contributions you would make if elected to this Congressional seat.

Lauzen. There are three main contributions that I can make to my constituents, in ways that I have shown I will through my past performance. First, when people experience problems with government, constituent service becomes the top priority. I have built a reputation of responding personally to every constituent telephone call and piece of correspondence since I was first elected. I have solved stacks upon stacks of problems for those I serve. Secondly, a congressman can communicate proposed solutions for complex problems through especially newspapers and radio. In the State Senate, I have routinely written articles called "Voice from the Senate Floor" for five years, which have given constituents an up-close behind-the-scenes look at what's happening in their government. The articles began to be circulated among a handful of special friends and the distribution by e-mail has now grown to over 25,000 recipients and has been reprinted in area newspapers or discussed on talk radio. Finally, teamwork is the shortcut through the massive number of legislative issues in Springfield and Washington, D.C. When I first arrived in Springfield 15 years ago, I helped form the "Fab Five" state senators that included Fitzgerald, Rauschenberger, O'Malley, and Syverson. We passed substantial legislation and had an immediate, positive impact. There is a group of 50-plus traditional conservative congressmen from all over the nation called the Republican Study Committee which I would join to come up to speed as quickly as possible.

Oberweis. One question I hear a lot on the campaign trail is simple: "What makes you think you would be able to get anything done as a freshman member of the minority party?" Well, history proves that if an idea is good enough, it doesn't make any difference who was its author. For example, two of the most significant pieces of legislation passed in the last three decades were originally proposed by junior members of the minority party -- Henry Hyde was only in his second term when he authored the amendment to prohibit U.S. taxpayer funding of abortion (an amendment that still bears his name, and which is still in effect 30 years later), and Dick Armey was only in his second term when he authored the legislation creating the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission.

With my background as the CEO of an asset management firm and as the CEO of a dairy, I've got a special interest -- and expertise -- in fiscal and monetary policy, and in agriculture. Reform of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare is going to have to be on the agenda of any responsible Congress within the next few years, and I want a seat at the table

Q. In which ways, if at all, would you alter the U.S. course in Iraq? What objectives, if any, must the U.S. still meet before it begins to withdraw troops?

Lauzen. Terrorists declared war on the United States in a cruel and conspicuous way on 9/11. We face a threat, whether we wish to fully recognize it or not, from people who will strap bombs to their sons and daughters and send them to blow up innocent human beings in the name of a warped religion. It is better to fight fanatics like these in their own territory rather than on our streets. We must support our troops in battle, in support, and just as importantly, when they come home … if they survive. At my own initiative and expense, several years ago, I visited Walter Reed Army Medical Center to try to comfort wounded soldiers when they returned. Any person who says that they're sure about what our course should have been or should now be has not carefully enough looked into the eyes of enough of our wounded, or listened closely enough to the family members of those killed in combat. Sometimes, we must fight out of self-defense, but I believe that the majority of people in the 14th do not wish to shed the blood of their sons and daughters to fill an expanded role of "policeman to the world."

I am relieved and grateful that the surge is working to reduce military and civilian casualties, and to improve political stability in Iraq. Army Gen. David Petraeus has a plan that is working to reduce our commitment of men and women deployed. I support the gradual reduction of troops and the evolution of our troops to training and advisory roles as Iraqi's step up to assume their proper combat roles.

Oberweis. By all accounts, the situation in Iraq is improving. Even Congressman Jack Murtha, one of the Administration's fiercest critics, himself said so, just recently. This improved situation on the ground is largely the result of a new counter-insurgency strategy implemented over the last several months.

Petraeus has already begun the process of withdrawing troops -- some 6,000 American soldiers are scheduled to come home this month. The general says he believes it is possible -- and desirable --that we could withdraw as many as 30,000 troops by late spring of 2008. I agree with him -- I don't want to see U.S. combat troops in Iraq any longer than they have to be.

That is not to say, however, that I agree with those who demand from Congress a date certain beyond which no U.S. combat forces will remain in Iraq. Setting a date certain for withdrawal would be nuts -- it would telegraph to our enemies our strategy, and would greatly enhance both the threat of attacks against our withdrawing troops and the risk of strategic disaster.

Q. Do you favor or oppose a larger federal role in health-care coverage? Either way, why? And either way, what, if anything, should be done about rising health-care costs and Americans who do not have health coverage?

Lauzen. No. Please see "Health Care" position paper at www.Lauzen2008.com under Issues.

Oberweis. I oppose a one-payer universal coverage system like those found in many European countries -- I believe that would lead to a health care system with all the efficiency of the post office, at Pentagon prices.

There are really two major problems we face in the health insurance arena: finding a way to make health insurance more available and affordable for the tens of millions who don't currently have insurance, and finding a way to reduce the ever-increasing costs of health insurance for those who DO have coverage.

I believe we should move major medical malpractice reforms -- studies show that up to 30 percent of the cost of health insurance is directly related to medical malpractice insurance costs. Reforming the medical malpractice system would save significant amounts.

We should also allow small businesses to pool together to purchase insurance, and we should allow health insurance to be sold across state lines, to introduce a greater element of competition -- and lower prices, with better service -- into the system.

Over the longer term, I favor efforts to increase choice and accountability, while reducing costs, by using tax credits to make health insurance more affordable and available.

Q. Do you favor maintaining or scaling back federal tax cuts made during the past eight years? Either way, why? What specific strategy, if any, would you apply toward reducing federal budget deficits and the national debt?

Lauzen. Scaling back. Please see "Reducing Our Tax Burden: Three Stages of Reform" at www.Lauzen2008.com under Issues.

Oberweis. We must maintain the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 -- allowing them to expire (as they're currently scheduled to do) at the end of 2010 would mean a trillion-dollar-plus tax increase. And we need to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax to ensure that 25 million Americans don't face a massive tax increase next year.

I believe we should move further, and reform the tax code entirely. I support the Taxpayer Choice Act, which would allow a voluntary move by individual taxpayers to a system that is fairer, flatter, and more efficient, with two (much lower) tax rates.

Economic growth stimulates increases in tax revenues. Thus, rate cuts do not result in losses of tax revenues; history has shown the opposite -- that when we cut rates, we increase economic activity, and increase the flow of tax revenues into the treasury.

At the same time, we must get a handle on spending. A fundamental reform would be to put virtually all federal expenditures -- other than direct income transfers -- online and available for public inspection in an easily-accessible, easily-searchable Web site database. This would reintroduce the concept of public shame as a brake on spending, even as it introduces a new level of competition -- and the lower prices that go with it.

Q. The current Congress could not agree on immigration reform. What would you do to advance reform in a divided Congress, and, briefly, what would the key elements be in your own immigration policy?

Lauzen. Co-sponsor bipartisan HR4088. Please see "Illegal Immigration" at www.Lauzen2008.com under Issues.

Oberweis. Ending illegal immigration is one of the most important issues facing Congress. Its failure earlier this year to enact legislation is the direct result of its inability -- or the Congressional Democrats' leadership's unwillingness -- to adjust itself to the public's mood on this issue. Public opposition to anything that smacks of amnesty for those who have broken our laws is simply too strong -- and, therefore, any reasonable attempt to actually address the problem must begin with a recognition that no amnesty can be allowed.

I believe that we should focus efforts on reducing the incentives for immigrants to break our laws by strengthening sanctions against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, and by enhancing employment verification with a tamper proof biometric identification card that would be issued to temporary foreign workers and students.

Congressman Heath Shuler's Secure America through Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act is a good bipartisan approach to securing our borders and reducing the flow of illegal immigration.

Q. Given rising oil prices and Middle East turmoil, what specific steps, if any, do you favor to accelerate research into and application of alternative energy sources? Which alternative sources do you think hold the most potential for producing large amounts of affordable energy?

Lauzen. A diversified portfolio of alternative clean and safe energy sources is needed to end our dependence on foreign petroleum. I am drafting an Energy Policy position paper that will be at www.Lauzen2008.com by Dec. 20, 2007. Safe nuclear energy seems the large and most immediate technology available along with improvements in electrical storage (battery) technology.

Oberweis. For too long, our dependence on oil -- particularly foreign oil -- has shaped our foreign and national security policy. This doesn't make economic sense, and it doesn't make sense from a national security point of view, and we need to change it.

The success of the Manhattan Project during World War II and the Kennedy-Johnson era drive to land a man on the moon prove that when America sets its mind to achieving something, there is nothing that can stop our technological know-how. In both cases, we succeeded because our national leaders set and announced a clear national goal, with a clear timetable, and then committed the resources necessary to accomplish the mission.

We need such a determined plan of action now to develop a comprehensive energy policy for the 21st century, so that we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and claim energy independence.

This comprehensive strategy should focus on research and development of alternative, renewable forms of energy -- such as ethanol, solar, wind, and clean coal -- while simultaneously creating effective, common-sense incentives for conservation. With the current high price of oil, new technology makes oil shale a potentially competitive alternative source as well.

Meanwhile, we must take advantage of the rich natural resources America enjoys.

We should increase domestic supplies of energy, including allowing for exploration and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- a place where, studies show, we could draw as many as 10 billion barrels of oil, the rough equivalent of 20 years' worth of imports from Saudi Arabia.

And we should reduce the regulatory red tape that has effectively shut down the growth of one of the cleanest, safest, most affordable sources of energy we have -- nuclear power. We now operate 104 nuclear power plants in 31 states, but we haven't built a new nuclear power plant in America in a generation. We need to ease the burden and increase incentives for the construction of new nuclear plants.

Q. In what ways is the U.S. government successfully defending citizens against terrorism, and in what ways is the U.S. failing in that regard?

Lauzen. Our foreign intelligence agencies seem to be in chaos, i.e. both parties agree that there were major flaws in reports leading to Iraq II war and now the apparent reversal in Iran. I respect how nearly impossible these responsibilities are, but I also recognize how indispensable accurate information is in order to make life-and-death decisions regarding war and peace. I will support measures recommended by experts to improve American capabilities.

Oberweis. No major terrorist attacks have occurred on U.S. soil since 9/11, and it's safe to say that this success on the defensive front isn't the result merely of a lack of effort on the part of those who would do us harm -- rather, repeated U.S. government successes in infiltrating terrorist cells and blocking their plans is at least partly due to enhanced intelligence efforts by U.S. agencies, and efforts made by other elements of the U.S. government to reshape itself to adapt for the new national security challenges of the new century.

With due respect, this is an extraordinarily difficult question to answer -- by definition, the successes of the U.S. intelligence community are not made public, so those of us not privy to classified information have no way of knowing "in what ways" the U.S. government is "successfully defending citizens against terrorism." All we can know is that there must have been successes, because there have been no catastrophic failures.

Q. Are you concerned, or not, about the number of former U.S. jobs being outsourced? Either way, what policy changes, if any, would you favor in that regard?

Lauzen. Very concerned. This is a major difference between Oberweis and me, since he believes in unfettered free trade and I believe in free trade that is fair. His China Opportunities Fund capitalizes companies that unfairly compete with U.S. service and manufacturing jobs on the basis of manipulated currency advantage, human rights violations, and environmental abuses. See "American Competitiveness" position paper at www.Lauzen2008.com under Issues.

Oberweis. Of course, I'm concerned about the number of former U.S. jobs being outsourced; but, more importantly, I'm concerned about the people behind the numbers. They're not just statistics; they're our friends, and neighbors, and colleagues, and for many of them, losing a job to outsourcing means a difficult time ahead, as they struggle to adjust to changed and changing realities. They've got mortgages to pay, and college educations to fund, and retirement savings to secure, and losing a job in the middle of their professional careers isn't what they were expecting.

That said, nothing the U.S. government can do can stop the forces driving global competition. We might as well stand on the shore and demand that the tide not come in; the forces driving competition are inexorable.

What the U.S. government can do is to make our economy even more competitive than it is now. We can do this by cutting taxes and regulations, and thereby creating a more attractive magnet for investment. Higher investment leads to greater productivity, and greater productivity leads to a higher standard of living for all of us. Government also can provide some transitional training for those working in industries where new competition resulting from opening markets has resulted in major economic shifts. Workers can be transitioned to those areas where we have new competitive opportunities from those industries where we may no longer be competitive.