Q&A with 13th. Dist. candidates
Judy Biggert and Sean O'Kane are vying for the Republican nomination for the 13th Congressional District in the Feb. 5 primary.
The winner will face Democrat Scott Harper and the Green Party's Steve Alesch in the general election.
The district includes all or parts of Aurora, Bolingbrook, Burr Ridge, Crest Hill, Darien, Downers Grove, Hinsdale, Homer Glen, Joliet, Lemont, Lisle, Lockport, Naperville, New Lenox, Oak Brook, Oakbrook Terrace, Orland Hills, Orland Park, Palos Hills, Plainfield, Romeoville, Tinley Park, Warrenville, Westmont, Willowbrook and Woodridge.
The Daily Herald asks candidates questions. These are their responses. Some have been edited to comply with the requested maximum of 200 words.
Q. Why are you running for this office, whether for re-election or election the first time? Is there a particular issue that motivates you, and if so, what? What will be your main priority?
Biggert. I'm fed up with the nonsense that passes as political leadership in Washington. Too many in Congress have forgotten that the voters sent us there to solve problems -- not just to get re-elected or win the majority.
Things have become so politically polarized that the "gotcha" mentality and the quick sound bites are winning out over good judgment and sound policy.
My main priority is to work with others -- regardless of party affiliation -- to get something accomplished for my constituents, my state, and my country. What motivates me is a drive to cut through the partisanship and work with the people on the front lines to craft good solutions -- whether it's sub-prime mortgage reform, State Children's Health Insurance, homelessness, social security reform, immigration, NCLB reforms, alternative energy sources, or the way forward in Iraq.
I love my job, and I am grateful to the voters. What motivates me, whether now in Congress or during my years in community service and the state legislature, is a desire to bring integrity, experience and hard work to solving the problems of our day.
O'Kane. I am running for Congress because I am worried about my country. Huge problems are piling up and our elected officials are AWOL. They are not doing their job. They seem oblivious to the mounting stressors on the American public.
Instead of acting like a coequal branch of government and developing workable, practical solutions to our nation's challenges, Congress is more interested in scoring partisan points, doing the bidding of leadership and big donors, and securing money for the next election.
There are many pressing issues, but two major ones are unbridled federal spending and national security. We cannot live or spend beyond our means as individuals and the same is true for us as a nation.
Left unchecked, our irresponsible spending and resultant debts will bankrupt us, restrict our economy and unfairly transfer great financial burdens to younger generations of Americans.
National security for the United States, for our homeland, must be the mission for our armed forces. Currently, our greatest threat is from non-state actors, terrorists working in small loosely coordinated groups. The U.S. military and other agencies must focus attention on these shadowy terrorist figures. It is the job of Iraqis to solve their problems.
Q. For incumbents and non-incumbents: If you are an incumbent, describe your main contributions. Tell us of important initiatives you've led. If you are not an incumbent, tell us what contributions you would make.
Biggert. Economic/Financial: Ranking Member, Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee; wrote mortgage fraud and home counseling provisions in Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (2007); Identity Theft Prevention (2006); Financial Literacy and Education Commission (2003); co-founded Financial Literacy Caucus (2005); Church Pension law reform (2004); ChicagoFIRST Financial Preparedness (2004); Majority Whip, U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement (2003). Education/Children: Education for Homeless Children Act, Math and Science Teacher Training Act in No Child Left Behind (2001); tougher penalties for club drugs (2000); crack down on Internet pedophiles through the "CyberTipline" (1999); Co-Chair of Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus; led GOP sponsor of Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act (2007); FASFA Fix for Homeless Kids Act (2007). Energy/Technology: Chair, Energy Subcommittee (109th); secured funds for Argonne and Fermi Labs; Supercomputing Revitalization Act (2004); Energy Research and Development Act (2005); co-founded R & D Caucus (2003); Genomes to Life (2003); Energy Technology Transfer Act (passed House, 2007). Health: Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (passed House, 2007); Medicare Waste, Fraud and Abuse Act; secured funding for DuPage breast cancer study and DoD Breast Cancer Research Program; CDC MRSA 'Superbug' Research (2007). Funding: Prevent invasive Asian Carp from entering the Great Lakes (2002-07); widen I-55 and add two new interchanges; Argonne.
O'Kane. My main contribution will be bringing a new energy and an open, curious, independent mind to the work and discussions that take place in Congress.
We need legislators who come from the middle class, have worked for a living and who have experienced or are familiar with the problems and challenges regular people face on a daily basis.
Too many in Congress are unconnected from real life. The troubles of average people are mere abstractions to them. I will allow pragmatism and common sense to lead the way to improving the functioning and efficiency of the federal government, which will benefit all citizens.
Sheepish bowing to authority and closed-minded ideological thinking by many members of Congress has brought us to the gridlock that confounds us today. Sending the same people back (incumbents at a rate around 95%) to Washington and expecting different (better) results is a form of insanity.
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?
Biggert. By all accounts, violence in Iraq has substantially declined since the new U.S. strategy was put in place in early 2007. Former militia and insurgents have begun to work with U.S. troops; Iraqi troops and police continue to take on more responsibility; and people are returning to their neighborhoods and homes.
But the Iraqi government has been slow to take advantage of the relative calm to restore services and speed up reconciliation. Without significant progress on these non-military fronts, the violence could return as soon as U.S. troops leave.
What is needed now, as we begin to reduce troop levels, is a renewed effort toward meeting political and economic objectives. Significant progress is being made on the local level, but without faster movement on national reconciliation and equitable resource-sharing, the tentative peace could prove fleeting.
I co-sponsored and supported legislation that will hold the Administration - and the Iraqi government - accountable in achieving clear benchmarks. It requires the President to report to Congress every 30 days on the extent to which the Government of Iraq is moving forward on more than a dozen fronts, including troop training, security, rebuilding, reconciliation, international cooperation and enforcing the rule of law.
O'Kane. The U.S. military crushed Saddam's regime and army within weeks of the initial invasion. No WMDs were found. Freed from a brutal tyrant, the Iraqi people must now work among themselves and create their own future. The U.S. military must develop plans for an orderly withdrawal, taking all essentials with them and put it into action as soon as feasible.
The United States has its own pressing security demands to attend to, most acutely in the form of loosely organized, non-state terrorist groups. The U.S. cannot determine or pay for Iraq's future development; the Iraqis must do this for themselves. The U.S. taxpayers will have all they can handle dealing with America's own domestic needs.
Q. With baby boomers starting to retire, do you favor changes to ensure long-term Social Security solvency? If so, what changes? If not, why?
Biggert. We should consider proposals that give young people who are just entering the system some control over how a small portion of their Social Security payroll taxes are invested.
This option should not be mandatory for any workers -- young or old. I oppose so-called "privatization" or any proposal that allows the federal government to invest Social Security funds in the stock market. The problems with this proposal are numerous, from the partial nationalization of major businesses to the risk that investment decisions will be driven by political considerations, not revenue-generating considerations.
With an investment option, Americans for the first time will have the opportunity to watch a portion of their payroll taxes appreciate and benefit from compound interest and the growth in financial markets.
We must explore bipartisan ways to reform Social Security. If we do not, one thing is certain: those just entering the workforce today will end up contributing more to and receiving significantly less from the program when they retire. We cannot shortchange our children and grandchildren in this way.
O'Kane. Social Security is not a trust fund. There is no past money put away or invested for people when they retire. It is a transfer system from the working to the retired. Several generations have been misled and they sense it. My generation and our children are facing severe economic dislocation from the coming baby boomer demands on this system.
Our current GDP is 13.5 trillion. The national debt is 9 trillion and growing. The payments promised by Social Security will dwarf these numbers. Social Security has promised more than it can deliver.
The middle class wants honesty and stability not politicians' promises -- they want substantial control of their retirement. The first step is to demand real world accounting by the government that honestly assesses current and future income and liabilities. Then, we need to explore ways to make a suitable transition from this unsustainable system to a system characterized by personal control. The best way is to put people actively in charge of their futures.
All serious discussions of planned retirement reform must involve international comparisons, and all of the successful versions involve personal accounts and defined contributions. Doing this lays the foundation for the future prosperity and real security.
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?
Biggert. No. In other countries that have adopted nationalized health care, we have seen that both quality and access suffer.
With all its faults, the market-driven U.S. health-care system remains the finest in the world; federalizing it will only worsen its current troubles. To address rising costs and the number of uninsured, I support -- or have introduced or cosponsored -- the following: Health savings accounts (HSAs): expand tax deductions for health-care expenses. Associated Health Plans (AHPs): allow small businesses to band together to offer their employees the same competitive health-care coverage that large employers offer. Federal medical malpractice reform: to reduce the number of nuisance lawsuits that drive up health-care costs for everyone. Health Information Technologies (IT): including electronic health records, clinical decision support, computerized physician order entry systems and health information exchange networks. Genetic Testing: my GINA bill would update laws to ensure that Americans can fully utilize genetic testing to improve health and reduce costs. Embryonic Stem Cell Research: I have long supported measures that will allow federal funds to be used for the embryonic stem cell research that could lead to break-through cures and dramatic savings of lives and health-care dollars.
O'Kane. America's health-care system is imbalanced and obscenely expensive. It is also the finest care available (when it is available) with the most innovative cutting-edge research. The U.S. spends more per capita on health-care than any nation on earth. We, however, get poorer average results or health outcomes than many nations which spend much less. U.S. health care needs much wider access and lower costs facilitated by more information and reduced complexity.
Beyond providing health care to citizens because it is proper, from a purely competitive point of view in the global market, business both large and small need help with the ever escalating costs of health care in order to be viable.
We need to stop separating consumers from costs. Americans are sophisticated people capable of making sophisticated choices when they are provided the necessary information. Give them information, freedom and choices and they can make appropriate decisions.
Besides the existing flawed private market, the U.S. health-care system should include a government/free market hybrid system combining the best aspects of both entities: the inclusiveness of government and the efficiencies of the market while avoiding their respective weaknesses -- bureaucratic rigidity of government and profit driven incentives to deny care of the market.
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?
Biggert. Thanks to spending restraint and tax cuts, the federal deficit declined again in Fiscal Year 2007, by 35 percent to $161 billion. According to the CBO, federal revenue was up last year by 6.7 percent, while federal spending was up only 2.5 percent. Americans paid $2.6 trillion to the IRS in 2007.
They aren't taxed too little; Congress still spends too much. We should extend the tax reforms I voted to enact. These tax cuts have spurred economic growth, increased federal revenues and lowered the deficit. In the four years since the enactment of income, dividend and capital gains rate cuts, individual income tax receipts have jumped 46 percent.
Those who want to repeal tax cuts are not admitting that they want to raise taxes. The marriage penalty, death tax and Alternative Minimum Tax would be back in full force, along with higher taxes on income, dividends and capital gains. I am working to ensure that this doesn't happen. I also would like to see changes that will allow more Americans to save for retirement, education and health-care expenses. Our goal should be to overhaul the entire tax code so that it is simple, fair and encourages economic growth.
O'Kane. Tax cuts are made to generate more economic activity. Cut taxes and the economy generally expands. A growing economy generates more revenue on lower rates -- this is a good thing.
Taxes should not be used to punish success, but tax cuts should also look at those who perhaps could use them the most. The middle class is anxious about many things, and one of its biggest burdens is the tax bite.
Most people work one week every month just to pay their taxes; some work more. Tax cut should generate more tax revenue for the government. I favor movement toward a graduated flat tax and a far simpler tax code.
Federal budget deficits and the national debt could be eliminated if Congress would slow down spending, reduce the size and scope of government generally, eliminate inefficient, wasteful or fraudulent programs by rewarding whistleblowers and by keeping bills simple -- complex bills with many too different elements to read or understand often push through unnecessary programs, pork and earmark spending.
Neither party has been able of late to do anything but spend and blame someone else. An immediate strategy would be for Americans to pay attention and change their representation in Washington.
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?
Biggert. The last attempt at reform failed because it addressed amnesty before securing our borders. And we saw that the last amnesty led to even more illegal immigration, not less. I am working with other members -- on both sides of the aisle -- to see if we can pass sensible immigration reform that includes the following elements:
• Establish control of all borders and ports through increased military support; more port of entry inspectors, border agents and K-9 units, state-of-the-art surveillance technology, and expand the Tunnel Task Force.
• Mandatory Employee verification system: expand and make mandatory the e-verify system; close the existing loopholes to detect multiple workers using the same social security number; require information sharing between the IRS, DHS, and SSA.
• End "catch and release" through: mandatory detention for anyone attempting to illegally cross our borders; requiring all illegal immigrants apprehended at borders to remain in custody until removal from the country; and increased funding for new detention space and state and local assistance.
• Promote international policies to deter illegal immigration and protect valid claims of asylum.
O'Kane. Although the current Congress was split in their views on addressing illegal immigration, as a first step they should be able to agree on America's need to secure our border. We need to make our border real, not with walls, but with laws, technology and cooperative enforcement by all levels of the state and local authority.
It should be clear to any rational person that controlled borders are absolutely required for national security, and to freeze the illegal immigration problem in place, keep it from growing ever larger due to inaction in order to begin addressing its wide ranging economic and social effects.
At the very least, the status of illegal immigrants should be left murky and somewhat uncomfortable. Government entities should not be offering inducements of any kind such as driver's licenses, free tuition, etc. There should be no sanctuary cities, and any illegal aliens caught in any kind of serious criminal activity should be deported immediately like much of the rest of the world. We should expect that people who come to our country respect our laws.
Immigration is a crucial part of our national fabric. I understand the promise of America; my own parents are immigrants.
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?
Biggert. America cannot drill -- nor conserve -- its way to cheaper energy or energy security. Nor can America meet today's energy's needs -- much less tomorrow's -- with yesterday's energy infrastructure and technology.
As a member of the Science and Technology Committee and past chairman of its Energy Subcommittee, I firmly believe in the promise of advanced energy technologies. To accelerate their development, Congress must increase funding for basic science research and energy technology development at places like Argonne.
The Senate should pass H.R. 85, the Energy Technology Transfer Act, a bill I introduced that passed the House and would help move energy and efficiency technologies out of the laboratory and into the marketplace. To further speed the deployment of advanced energy technologies, Congress also should increase fuel economy standards for cars and trucks and put to use a variety of technologies that can make vehicles more efficient without compromising safety.
Emissions-free, safe, reliable nuclear power holds the greatest potential for producing enough affordable electricity to meet future needs without impacting the climate, and could even power fleets of plug-in hybrids. Technology developed at Argonne will allow nuclear waste to be recycled and reused, reducing its volume, toxicity, and time in safe storage.
O'Kane. In the early '60s, JFK declared that we would put a man on the moon within a decade. During WWII, FDR brought scientists and all the energies of the federal government together to develop an atomic bomb under the constant threat that the Nazis might get it first.
We need the same kind of commitment now by our President, the federal government, research universities and private industry to create viable cost effective alternative and renewable energy that can someday replace the need for oil and coal.
This can only be done with leadership at the top. Government should offer tax breaks and research funding and grants. Success in this area will be a great boon to the environment and to our economy. The technology developed here will put the U.S. at the forefront of a new massive global market.
With oil of diminished importance, we could further withdraw from the Middle East; then the Great Satan could no longer be blamed for their many internal problems.
We must look at all clean energy sources honestly and without bias to see which ones hold promise. This includes looking at nuclear power. Science must trump special interests. We don't want fool's gold.
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?
Biggert. Thanks to our policies and strategies -- and dedicated personnel and providence -- there has been no terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11. But we have to be right 100 percent of the time; the terrorists only have to be right once.
The Patriot Act removed senseless barriers between intelligence, defense and law enforcement agencies, helping uncover numerous terrorist plots. Anti-money laundering laws have disrupted the flow of funds, blocking hundreds of millions of terrorist assets in thousands of accounts worldwide.
I also supported laws standardizing driver's licenses; reserving spectrum for first responder interoperable communications; enhancing scanning and screening of maritime and air cargo; distributing homeland security dollars based on risk, vulnerability and threat instead of geography; providing grants for public transit security; and creating the DHS, TSA, permanent House and Senate Homeland Security Committees, and a Director of National Intelligence. I supported these measures, but Congress still must:
• Strengthen border security, so we fight terrorists abroad, not here at home;
• Improve efforts to report and access lists of lost and stolen passports;
• Refrain from creating legal obstacles to the monitoring of terrorists, tying the hands of the intelligence community, and extending fourth amendment rights to foreign terrorists.
O'Kane. We have not had a terrorist in the United States since 9/11, and thank God for that. But we should not be complaisant.
I believe we have been spared because of a combination of factors. One, we have improved awareness and coordination by various security and law enforcement groups. Two, the general population has a greater awareness of the terrorist threat. Three, we have probably forestalled an attack because of the greater difficulty terrorists have had in conducting their operations, and their preference to go for big high value targets. Finally, we've probably also had some luck.
We still need to get much more serious in thwarting terrorism. While technology can help in this fight, much more emphasis must be placed on human intelligence and the skills and capabilities of personnel. Also, working with intelligence and security services of other nations around the world, either formally or informally, is paramount.
Padding down Grandma Smith from Iowa and making her take her shoes off at the airport is a farce, a pantomime. Security services are a limited resource and must therefore be focused and employed wisely. If we are looking at everyone, to some extent we are looking at no one.
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?
Biggert. Outsourcing occurs for three main reasons: lower labor costs, lower taxes and better access to foreign markets.
We certainly don't want Americans to have to accept lower wages, but we should work to keep taxes down so that we are as competitive as those abroad. We also need to continue to bring down foreign trade barriers so that companies do not have to move abroad in order to sell abroad.
And before anyone thinks about enacting legislation to prevent outsourcing, they should recognize that they are putting at risk the tens of millions of jobs that are "in-sourced" i.e. U.S. jobs that foreign companies have created here in our country. Outlawing outsourcing would invite retaliation, guaranteeing that the U.S. loses.
To discourage outsourcing and help American workers acquire new skills to remain competitive in the global marketplace, the U.S. must continue to invest in worker training and workforce development efforts. I support efforts to strengthen workforce investment boards and expand their services to respond to the changing needs of both workers and employers.
We also must continue to invest in the research and development necessary for U.S. businesses to remain innovative and economically competitive, and continue to create new jobs.
O'Kane. I am concerned about vast swaths and sectors of U.S. jobs being sent overseas. Many of these jobs have been blue collar. Technology and communication will make possible outsourcing of many kinds of white collar jobs.
Computers and their software can be developed and serviced overseas; much basic accounting and legal work could be processed cheaper outside the U.S.; someone in India could read your X-rays and manufacture medical devises for less than in America.
There are no easy answers here. While the competition of the global market has brought many goods and services to the U.S. at lower prices it has caused economic hardship for others. The free market is good, but it is not an absolute good. Free market principles should guide but not control our thinking.
We are a nation first and an economy second. Clearly, not all jobs can be kept in the U.S., nor would we want to, but good paying jobs that are competing and being efficient should not just be sacrificed because lower wages are available in the Third World (likely always the case).
Government should encourage responsible stewardship of American companies and broaden management focus beyond just the bottom line.