Q&A with Biggert
1. 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?
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. In everything I do, I strive 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 and Afghanistan. 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.
2. 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.
Despite partisanship and divisions in Washington, I think I'm known as someone who reaches across the aisle to find solutions to problems. Under a Democrat Congress and a Republican White House, I worked to get three major pieces of legislation enacted this year alone. The GINA law bans employers and health insurers from discriminating against you on the basis of a genetic test. The Energy Technology Transfer Act quickly moves breakthrough energy technologies out of the laboratory and into the marketplace so they can make a difference in our lives. And the Protecting Our Children Comes First Act will help find and protect missing, runaway, and exploited children. Late last year, when Congress and the President were hopelessly deadlocked on the SCHIP, colleagues from the other side of the aisle asked me to lead a negotiating team that led to the reauthorization -- through mid-year 2009 -- of this important program. But at the end of the day, it's the work I do back home for constituents that is most rewarding, from fighting the merger of the CN and EJ&E, to keeping the invasive Asian carp out of Lake Michigan, to ensuring funding for Argonne and Fermi Labs.
3. In which ways, if at all, would you alter U.S. policy in Iraq and Afghanistan? How would you characterize the effect of the U.S. "surge" in Iraq? What objectives, if any, must the U.S. still meet before it begins to withdraw troops?
The surge is working; violence in Iraq is down 80 percent since early 2007, and almost all of the 30,000 surge troops have been withdrawn. Besides security, other key benchmarks are being reached: troops trained, rebuilding, reconciliation, the new provincial powers law, and others. Our troops should not stay in Iraq one day longer than is absolutely necessary, and it's my hope that we will continue to draw down forces as quickly as conditions permit. These gains all could be reversed with the abrupt and arbitrary withdrawal of all troops that some have advocated. Iraq and the US have drafted a proposed security agreement that would set a goal of fully withdrawing US troops by 2011. I see the aggressive Iraqi push for independence as a positive development. The stronger and more confident the Iraqi government becomes, the quicker US forces can withdraw so that we have a reliable ally against terror in the region. As the situation in Iraq improves, we cannot allow it to worsen in Afghanistan. Recent increases in Taliban activity and violence require renewed attention. We must work aggressively with the Afghan government, the new government in Pakistan, and our NATO allies to prevent backsliding.
4. What short-term steps, if any, would you advocate to keep gasoline prices in check?
The best way to ease the pain at the pump in the short term is to signal the market that we are seriously addressing supply and demand in the long term. We must lower demand through conservation, alternatives, and renewables, and increase supply through environmentally-responsible drilling off shore and in a limited area of ANWR. I have sponsored, cosponsored or supported legislation that would: Reduce the number of boutique fuels that only add to the cost of gas and lead to shortages when there is a supply disruption; Direct the FTC to combat price gouging related to the sale of crude oil, gasoline, diesel, home heating oil and biofuels; Increase fuel economy standards to 35 mpg by 2025; Give the DOJ tools to go after nations that try to set the price, restrain trade, or limit the production of petroleum products; Provide employers with a tax credit for mass transit benefits for employees, up to $115 per month; Encourage the blending of gasoline with no less than 10 percent renewable fuel by 2012; Suspend the delivery of 70,000 barrels of oil daily to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which currently is at near capacity.
5. Please list the key elements of your preferred long-term energy policy. Rank or rate the relative importance of domestic oil exploration, conservation and alternative-energy development. What part, if any, should ethanol play in U.S. energy policy?
My plan includes all three elements: conservation, drilling, and alternative technologies. For years, I've fought for investments in alternative and renewable technologies, funding research into solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, cellulosic ethanol, and even hydrogen fuel cells and nuclear. Much of this research has been done right here at Argonne National Lab, and at companies in the district that are developing the technologies discovered there. There is good news on this front, with break-through technologies in battery plug-ins, cellulosic ethanol, geothermal and other clean, renewable alternatives just around the corner. I will continue to support these investments, as well as tax incentives for individuals and businesses to switch to alternatives. Besides conserving and aggressively pursuing alternatives, we must move forward on the supply side, giving the green light to environmentally-responsible exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and in a small portion of ANWR. But the overall goal must be to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels as technology continues to provide us with clean, safe, renewable, domestically-available alternatives. Last, I am a strong proponent of the development of ethanol made from cellulosic materials - switch grass, corn husks, wood chips, even garbage -- that will not affect the price of food.
6. What steps, if any, should Congress take to promote economic recovery? What steps by the federal government might make the nation's economy worse?
First and foremost, Congress must stop spending and borrowing like there's no tomorrow. From a bloated farm bill that bestows hundreds of billions of dollars on millionaire farmers to earmarks for Christmas Tree Museums and bridges to nowhere, to new entitlement "slush funds," the list goes on. What Congress can do to promote economic recovery is: extend the tax cuts, stop excessive spending, dramatically reform the earmark process, and pass the pending free trade agreements. Reducing trade barriers abroad creates good jobs here at home. The worst thing that Congress can do to the economy is allow the tax cuts to expire. If the leadership in Congress continues to block a vote, automatic tax increases will kill jobs and cripple the economy. Everyone will be affected; the marriage penalty and death tax will return; individual, capital gains, and dividend rates will increase; and millions of low-income Americans who now pay no taxes will be back on the tax rolls. What the Illinois economy needs most urgently at this time is something only the Governor and General Assembly can provide: a capital bill to provide a match required to tap the federal dollars we secured to improve our roads and transit.
7. Do you favor or oppose a larger federal role in health-care? Either way, why and what should the federal role be? What, if anything, should be done about rising health care costs and Americans who do not have health coverage?
I oppose federalizing our health care system. 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 US health care system remains among the finest in the world; federalizing it will only worsen its current troubles. But those who support a federalized system refuse to admit that's it's the taxpayers who will pay for it. They also continue to block reform efforts at every turn. 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 frivolous lawsuits that drive up health care costs for everyone. Health Information Technologies (IT): including interoperable electronic health records, clinical decision support, computerized physician order entry systems and health information exchange networks. Genetic Testing: my GINA bill, signed into law this summer, will ensure that Americans can fully utilize genetic testing to improve health and reduce costs.
8. Would you maintain or scale back federal tax cuts made during the past eight years? Either way, why? How, as specifically as possible, would you try to reduce federal budget deficits and the national debt?
I strongly support extending the tax cuts. Besides reducing the average tax bills of Illinoisans by nearly $3,300, they spurred economic growth, increased federal revenues, and lowered the deficit. In the four years after the enactment of income, dividend, and capital gains rate cuts, individual income tax receipts jumped 46%. Americans aren't taxed too little; Congress still spends too much. The best tools we have to reduce the national debt and annual budget deficits are spending restraint and a strong economy. Automatic tax increases will kill jobs and cripple the economy. If the leadership in Congress doesn't allow us to vote to block these increases, recovery will stop dead in its tracks. After extending the tax cuts, the best way to reduce the federal deficit is to stop the enactment of huge new entitlement programs that plunge our country further into debt. From a bloated farm bill that bestows hundreds of billions of dollars on millionaire farmers to earmarks for Christmas Tree Museums and bridges to nowhere, to new entitlement "slush funds," the list goes on. The budget outlook simply will not improve significantly unless we curb the growth in mandatory spending and dramatically reform or scrap the earmark process.
9. The current Congress could not agree on immigration reform. What would you do to advance reform in a divided Congress, and, briefly, what should the key policy elements be?
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; and state-of-the-art surveillance technology. Mandatory Employee verification system: improve and make mandatory the E-Verify system; close 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. End "sanctuary cities" by withholding certain funding from cities that prohibit law enforcement officials from communicating with federal immigration authorities. Promote international policies to deter illegal immigration.
10. 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?
Until very recently, the U.S. was in danger of failing its citizens on the foreign intelligence surveillance (FISA) front. I strongly supported closing the terrorist loophole and giving our intelligence community the tools it needs to protect the American people. We worked to modernize our terrorist surveillance laws while ensuring that constitutional rights are not compromised. I also supported legislation that shields innocent Americans who report suspicious activity to law enforcement officials from retaliatory lawsuits. Both bills were enacted. Despite our best efforts to date, we have failed to capture Osama bin Laden and break the back of the Al Qaeda terrorist network. 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.