2008 General Election: 14th Congressional District

Bill Foster, 53, a Democrat, won a special election earlier this year to take over the seat from retiring former House Speaker Dennis Hastert. This is Foster's first regular general election contest. Jim Oberweis, 62, a Republican, is the challenger. He lost to Foster in the special election.

Bill Foster
Why are you running for this office?
The American people deserve a responsive, bipartisan government committed to serving the public interest and finding solutions that will work for us all. As a scientist and a businessman, I believe that facts, not ideologies, should be the basis for that problem solving, and that our government works best when members of both parties come together to reach a reasonable compromise. For example, I have co-sponsored the bipartisan compromise on offshore drilling and renewable energy, joined with bipartisan majorities to pass a GI Bill for the 21st century, and supported a Farm Bill that will both help our farmers and strengthen our nation's nutrition programs. In addition, I worked with Rep. Judy Biggert and members from both sides of the aisle to restore funding to science and save jobs at Fermilab.

I also believe that listening to my constituents is at least half the job, and I am proud of coming back to the district every single weekend, holding 25 sessions of "Congress on Your Corner," answering thousands of constituent letters, and personally meeting and talking to thousands of people on a one-to-one basis. At a fundamental level, I feel that you cannot represent people unless you listen to them.

Given what you know today, what should be done to protect taxpayers when major segments of the economy fail?
Government inaction in times of crisis is not an option. Therefore, I voted in favor of the recent financial rescue legislation that was signed into law. The commercial credit system in our country had frozen up, and as a businessman, I understood that when a company's line of credit is frozen or retracted, it means layoffs and financial ruin. While this is a terrible situation that our country finds itself in, I feel that voting "NO" would have been highly irresponsible.

This legislation included important taxpayer protections that were not present in the original plan presented by Secretary Paulson. The bill also places limits on CEO compensation so that the CEOs of participating companies do not make a profit at the expense of the taxpayers. In addition, provisions for the taxpayers to profit when a firm that is "bailed out" recovers its value should ensure that if this is managed correctly, the American people stand to break even or make a profit on this deal.

In general, do you favor more, less or the same amount of government oversight of the financial sector? Why?
I favor a consistent level of government oversight, rather than the cycles of over-regulation and under-regulation, boom and bust, that characterize our recent history.

It is notable that we would not be in the crisis that we are in today if we only had normal, regulated financial institutions - community banks, credit unions, and so on. The current crisis is almost entirely due to unregulated entities - investment banks, storefront mortgage originators, etc. that behaved irresponsibly during the real estate bubble and then evaporated after the bubble burst. Going forward, I believe that any entity that is "too big to fail" in today's interconnected financial system must be subject to regulation so that it does not endanger our entire financial system.

How long should the U.S. remain in Iraq? In Afghanistan? Do you favor a timeline for troop withdrawal?
Different regions of Iraq have been stabilized at different times. Kurdish Iraq has remained relatively stable throughout the war by granting it de-facto autonomy. In the Anbar province, the key development was the "Awakening" of the Sunni tribes against Al Qaeda, which occurred months before the surge started. In Basra, the British established a timeline and pulled the troops out, and although there were difficulties, it has been possible to maintain order without troops patrolling the streets and with only limited air support. The surge had the greatest effect in the Baghdad region, which has also been stabilized by physical walls between ethnic neighborhoods as well as the exhaustion of ethnic violence.

At this point, we should follow the consensus of the Iraqi government, the Iraqi people, and most Americans to establish a firm timeline for the responsible withdrawal of U.S. ground troops. It is time to stop arguing about mistakes of the past and begin redeploying our troops out of Iraq and devote resources to tackle the real war on terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Finally, it is inexcusable that we are spending $10B each month on this war when the Iraqi government is sitting on $80B in oil revenue.

I support our troops, but our men and women serving in Iraq have been on an undefined mission, refereeing what has now become a civil war. The tremendous resources we are investing in Iraq are causing us to be unable to fight the real sources of terror. We need to make our national security a priority, but the war in Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror.

Stabilizing Afghanistan will require: 1) An increase in troop levels. 2) Encouragement of legitimate agricultural crops instead of the opium poppies that continue to provide a source of revenue for the Taliban. 3) Increased cooperation with the tribes located on the Afghani/Pakistani border to drive out Al Qaeda. This is analogous to our collaboration with the tribes of the "Sunni Awakening" in Iraq that drove out Al Qaeda. It is crucial that the efforts to stabilize Afghanistan continue to be seen as an international responsibility rather than a unilateral, maverick operation like Iraq.

In addition to militarily purging Afghanistan and Pakistan of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, we need to work with the Islamic moderates in each country to build a long-term relationship to improve their quality of life, on their own terms, while avoiding pushing western beliefs and culture. If we can respect their faith and traditions, and work with the moderates, then we can lessen the impact of the radical clerics and the hate that they preach towards us and towards freedom. Education and economic empowerment of women is crucial to this effort.

Given what you know today, can you envision a scenario in which you would support congressional authorization for military action against Iran? North Korea? Do you support the Bush Doctrine?
U.S. military involvement in emergency situations, or when immediate retaliation is unquestionably called for, must always be on the table and must be under the control of the President. For example, for decades North Korea has had the conventional armaments to destroy most of South Korea, and has been deterred at least partially by the threat of immediate U.S. retaliation. Taking the threat of this retaliation off of the table would be a mistake.

Wars of choice should take place only after the full discussion and debate called for in our Constitution. While Iran and North Korea have the potential to develop into emergency situations, I believe that at present continued diplomacy is called for.

I do not support the Bush Doctrine, as defined by an acceptance of unilateral attacks on other nations simply because they might someday pose a threat to us.

Much has been made in recent years about the partisan battles in Washington, D.C. Is partisanship a bad thing? Why or why not?
We all know that Washington is a mess. People are sick of the partisan bickering that has failed to produce real solutions to the biggest issues our nation faces. It is frustrating to me that I am able to have thoughtful and candid conversations with members of both parties, but when all of the members stream down to the House floor, they seem to break up into street gangs, with each side finding ways to undercut any record of achievement of the other side. This is not the way our government should work.

I think that as a nation, we need to elect competent, reasonable moderates who are willing to compromise for the good of us all. I have found that I am most successful when working in bipartisan coalitions to get things done. For example, I was proud to work with a coalition of 24 Republicans and 23 Democrats to support a legislative energy compromise that would allow domestic and offshore drilling but also fund research and development for the alternative energy sources. This compromise came about not because of the wishes of the leadership of either party, but because a number of us from both parties came together to forge a compromise that was best for our country.

What should Congress do with regard to the national debt? Do you support cutting government spending to pay down the debt? If so, what specific areas of the federal budget would you trim? Would you support a tax increase?
Our country needs to pay down the debt that was built up in the last 8 years, and cutting spending will be an essential part of that. Getting down to specifics, I believe that there are instances of corporate welfare that can be cut. According to the CATO Institute, the government provided $92 billion in direct and indirect subsidies to business and private-sector entities in fiscal year 2006. Continued subsidies to some of our largest and most successful companies are unacceptable, and I plan on working to curb this wasteful spending.

Other specific spending cuts I support include ending the war in Iraq, ending over-use of contractors and consultants for government functions, and terminating spending on technically questionable military systems.

I have consistently supported tax cuts for the middle class, while returning to the tax rates of the 1990s for the wealthiest 1-2% in our country. I voted against the Democratic Party's Budget - six times - because it failed to do enough to lock down the middle class tax cuts that I had campaigned on and because it failed to deal honestly with the true costs of the war in Iraq.

The first bill I introduced in Congress - The "Universal Homeowner Tax Cut of 2008" - provided a property tax deduction for middle-class homeowners who did not itemize, and paid for this tax cut by closing a loophole that encouraged wealthy people to escape taxation by moving their money overseas.

Should energy companies be charged a "windfall tax?"
Different people have very different ideas about what is meant by "windfall profits." While consumers are struggling to afford skyrocketing energy prices, energy companies are raking in record breaking profits. To the extent that these profits represent the payoffs of wise investments made years ago, I support them. To the extent that they may be the result of market manipulation, I question them. One of my great disappointments about the oil companies is that they have not reinvested a significant fraction of their large profits of recent years to develop alternative energy sources. If they remain unwilling to do this, then I support altering the tax structure to incentivize R&D instead of profit-taking, and using the revenue to support federal research into advanced energy production and efficiency initiatives.

What should Congress do to encourage or mandate energy independence? Should lawmakers authorize the drilling of more oil wells? Should more regulations be placed on the automobile and energy industries to move the country closer to energy independence? Should people receive government financial incentives for purchasing electric, flex-fuel or hybrid vehicles? Should people be taxed for driving vehicles low in fuel efficiency? Is any of this the federal government's responsibility?
We need to find a set of solutions that make good business and scientific sense. In the medium term (5-15 years), exploration of domestic oil shale, offshore drilling, advanced extraction techniques for natural gas, and other sources of fossil fuels will be important in reducing our trade deficit in the energy sector. These are unlikely to result in a large drop in the price of oil and gas since they represent a small fraction of worldwide oil supplies, and the extraction costs will be significantly higher than traditional sources of oil. However, they do represent a significant revenue source that will reduce our balance-of-payment deficits.

At the end of July, I was proud to become an original co-sponsor of energy legislation that was formed by a coalition of Republicans and Democrats alike, not from House leadership. This bill is a bipartisan legislative compromise that rightly allows environmentally friendly onshore and offshore drilling, exploitation of oil shale, and other domestic energy supplies while using the revenue for the development of alternative and renewable energy sources. I am determined to work with my colleagues and House leadership to pass this bill or a similar piece of legislation. In addition, when it appeared the House was stalemated at the end of the spring session, I voted against adjournment because I wanted to continue working on this bipartisan legislation - and I voted against adjournment again on September 11 for the same reason. Ultimately, a similar piece of legislation passed the House.

Efficiency improvements will be important in the medium term. The technology for these exists, and a combination of mandates and market incentives is appropriate.

In the long term, we need to invest in new clean energy like solar power, deep drilled geothermal power, wind energy, fusion, and sensible development of nuclear power and biofuels. Prioritizing the R&D among these areas will require congressional guidance with scientific and business sense - an area where I am beginning to play a significant role.

What should Congress do to address global warming?
We must address global warming because it is the most serious environmental issue that we are faced with today. I have been frustrated that this Administration has not made progress on this issue, refusing to either acknowledge or address global warming. I look forward to working with a new Administration that recognizes the importance of combating the effects of global warming, and will act as a leader on this issue, calling for specific and economically viable plans for the reduction of carbon emissions at home as well as from countries across the globe.

What role should the federal government play in improving our regional transportation infrastructure?Federal planning and oversight is required in our area due to Chicago's role as a national transportation hub, where people and freight are transported throughout the country. State lines are crossed by transportation issues such as the EJ&E expansion, a high-radius ring highway around Chicago, and the infrastructure improvements to support the transfer of freight traffic from trucks to rail as a result of increased energy prices.

One issue in which federal transportation planning is inadequate is the Surface Transportation Board (STB), which is the dominant federal player in the proposed EJ&E rail expansion. I was proud to be part of a bipartisan coalition backing legislation to reform the STB decision-making procedures so that the overall public good, and not just the economic health of the railroads, was the primary consideration.

What can/should we do for the millions of Americans who can't afford health insurance?
I believe that every man, woman, and child in the United States deserves access to a basic level of healthcare. While I believe in the importance of covering each individual, I am open to ideas and experimentation to determine the most efficient form of public-private partnership to provide this basic level of health care. Controlling costs will require a serious and ongoing discussion in our country about what is meant by the "basic level of health care." I also believe in ensuring the right of a patient who can afford it to purchase additional coverage beyond the minimum level provided.

When determining how best to deliver such a system, our priorities should be reducing the high administrative overhead that inflates the costs of delivering healthcare without bringing any actual improvement to the quality of the healthcare received by the patient, cost-saving technologies such as electronic medical records, and improving the transparency for choices and costs within the system.

As first step, I strongly support the SCHIP bill that helps ensure adequate access to health insurance for our children.

What would you do to ensure Fermilab's continued viability?
Science funding was drastically cut by the Administration last Christmas, and I worked with a bipartisan coalition to help restore funding to science. I was proud of the way Rep. Judy Biggert and I worked with members from both sides of the aisle to build support for this funding, and we were ultimately successful in restoring funding to science in general and Fermilab and Argonne in particular. However, we still have a long road ahead of us, and I will continue to work in a bipartisan way to ensure that Fermilab has the funding required to retain jobs and continue vital research.

The key element in sustaining a healthy future for Fermilab is to build a new, world-class set of facilities and experiments to supplant the Tevatron as it approaches the end of its scientific lifetime.

What issues would you like to see Congress address?
• From my position on the Financial Services Committee, we must ensure that there is adequate and consistent oversight applied to the markets and that we work together to jump-start America's lagging economy.
• Developing a comprehensive long term national energy policy that lowers energy prices and invests in alternative energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
• Bringing the Iraq War to a responsible end and focusing on providing our military the support they need to achieve victory in Afghanistan.
• Providing all Americans with at least a basic level of health care.
• Paying down the debt built up under the last 8 years of economic mismanagement.

Jim Oberweis
Why are you running for this office?
I am running for Congress because I want to ensure that my five children and fourteen grandchildren have the same opportunities to succeed that I had, and because I want to extend those opportunities to others. Twenty years ago, in the wake of the 1987 market crash, I lost everything - I was left with a net worth of zero. But with a lot of hard work, and a little bit of luck, I was able to rebuild my businesses. And since then, I've created thousands of jobs right here in Illinois, and I've protected billions of dollars in assets.

Frankly, I think my background as a professional investment adviser for more than 20 years uniquely qualifies me for service in the next Congress - a Congress that's going to be dominated by discussion and debate over the fundamental nature of the relationship between government and the private sector. I think it's very clear that there are key leaders of the Congress who want to use our current financial and economic crisis to reshape the institutions of the federal government and recast government's role over our economy, and I believe it is crucial that this next Congress have Members who understand how and why markets work, and what government can do to help OR hurt them.

Given what you know today, what should be done to protect taxpayers when major segments of the economy fail?
Balancing the conflicting interests of one's constituents is fundamental to effective representation. On the one hand, taxpayers have an interest in keeping government expenditures and government intervention low; on the other, they have a competing interest in making sure that the economy as a whole continues to function properly.

In this most recent financial crisis, I believe government missed the boat. I didn't just oppose the Bush/Pelosi bailout plan on principle; I also opposed it because I didn't think it would work. Apparently, I wasn't the only one who didn't think it would work - since it passed, the Dow has lost almost 2,000 points, and the Administration itself has taken other radical steps.

An important part of the longer-term fix will be to provide incentives for private equity capital to come off the sidelines and get back in the game. I believe legislation creating a new class of stock, to be treated as capital gains tax-free for a limited period of time, could be part of that solution.

In general, do you favor more, less or the same amount of government oversight of the financial sector? Why?
It's not a question of more oversight or less, it's a question of BETTER - that is, we don't need MORE oversight, we need BETTER oversight. In fact, I believe the basic elements of our current crisis stem not from too LITTLE government action, but from too MUCH government action - action that happened to be BAD government action. I'm speaking specifically of the Community Reinvestment Act and its mandates to force mortgage lenders into making subprime loans to borrowers with poor credit histories, no income verification, or a combination thereof.

But that wasn't government's only failure. Congress failed to properly oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, largely because Fannie and Freddie were spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress. As far back as 1999, leaders were sounding the alarm against the lack of proper oversight on the two lending giants. Instead of passing the necessary oversight legislation, too many Members of Congress worked to defend Fannie and Freddie and maintain the status quo.

How long should the U.S. remain in Iraq? In Afghanistan? Do you favor a timeline for troop withdrawal?
The recent troop surge - combined with other factors, such as the Anbar Awakening and the decision by Muqtada al-Sadr to stand down his Shiite militia - has led to a significant decrease in violence in Iraq. Observers and analysts can argue over which was the more important factor in achieving the reductions in the level of violence; Congress, instead, should look forward, not back, in determining with the next Administration the next steps we take.

While I don't believe setting a public timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat troops makes sense (I am persuaded by the argument that doing so is akin to showing the other team your playbook), we should bring back U.S. combat forces as rapidly as we can do so without unreasonably risking the gains we and our Iraqi allies have made at so great a cost.

Before we can call the entire operation in Iraq a success, we need to work harder with the Iraqi government to ensure that their own military is capable of defending their nation (we have seen their capabilities grow, with the Iraqi military handling major provinces on their own and gaining more strength every day). We also need to ensure a stable government exists in Iraq that cannot be easily overthrown or intimidated by external forces.

In Afghanistan, we must take the necessary steps to ensure that the success we've enjoyed does not evaporate and allow a resurgent Taliban to emerge. I note with alarm that recently the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, indicated that we need to overhaul our current strategy and move significant additional combat forces to Afghanistan to prevent that from happening. We need to work more closely with the Afghan and Pakistani governments to utilize the U.S. military already deployed in Afghanistan.

Given what you know today, can you envision a scenario in which you would support congressional authorization for military action against Iran? North Korea? Do you support the Bush Doctrine?
It is difficult to predict with any degree of certainty the conditions that may call such an authorization vote to the floor of the House - but I can say with certainty that were I ever to conclude that using military force against Iran was in the national interests of the United States, I would not hesitate to cast my vote for authorization.

As for the "Bush Doctrine," I'm not sure to what, specifically, you are referring. I would note that following Charlie Gibson's recent interview of Sarah Palin, columnist Charles Krauthammer - who coined the phrase in the first place - wrote that by his count, there were no fewer than seven different "Bush Doctrines."

If by "Bush Doctrine," you mean "preemptive military action," I would say yes, I support it - and I would note that every American President since World War II has supported it. That is, EVERY President since Truman has made clear that if actionable intelligence indicating an imminent attack upon the U.S. homeland or U.S. interests abroad were to be presented to him, he would take whatever action he deemed necessary to prevent it.

Much has been made in recent years about the partisan battles in Washington, D.C. Is partisanship a bad thing? Why or why not?

The partisan nature of Washington has grown to such a level where Congress can no longer take the proper action to alleviate the problems Americans face. Because of the political in-fighting, we have delayed energy solutions to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, we have sky-rocketing healthcare costs, a looming Social Security and Medicare crisis and not enough legislators willing to work across the aisle to work out a solution. I don't intend to go to Washington to ideas of one party over another. I intend to go and support the ideas of the residents of the 14th District who want to see action from Congress, not more of the same partisan bickering over what is wrong with the other party.

What should Congress do with regard to the national debt? Do you support cutting government spending to pay down the debt? If so, what specific areas of the federal budget would you trim? Would you support a tax increase?
When my brother John had a stroke and couldn't run the family dairy any longer, I stepped in and bought the company. The first thing I noticed was how much money the dairy was losing. Immediately, I took action to fix this problem. I cut spending and renegotiated contracts. Over time, the business went from losing money and having only 50 employees to making money and employing more than 1,000 people today.

Congress must approach the federal budget with the same determination. Under Ronald Reagan, the Grace Commission recommended more than 2,000 significant cuts to programs that would have saved taxpayers almost $500 billion over just three years. I believe we should create a Grace Commission II to examine the federal budget and recommend similar cost savings.

As for the tax side of the equation, I have signed the Taxpayers Protection Pledge of Americans for Tax Reform - I have promised that I will oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and that I will oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

Should energy companies be charged a "windfall tax?"
No.

What should Congress do to encourage or mandate energy independence? Should lawmakers authorize the drilling of more oil wells? Should more regulations be placed on the automobile and energy industries to move the country closer to energy independence? Should people receive government financial incentives for purchasing electric, flex-fuel or hybrid vehicles? Should people be taxed for driving vehicles low in fuel efficiency? Is any of this the federal government's responsibility?
Most of us agree that the United States has depended on foreign sources of oil for too long. We need to get serious about addressing this economic and national security risk by pursuing a variety of ideas that will help us do three things: produce more American-made energy; consume less of it; and invest in developing new alternative and renewable sources of energy. Increased drilling in the United States - including off-shore and ANWR drilling - are important elements of the solution. We must build new refineries, remove government restrictions on using oil shale, increase nuclear production and encourage wind and solar technology.

But even as we encourage the creation of more American-made energy, we must also take steps to reduce the rate of growth of our energy consumption by providing increased incentives for conservation. For example, we should provide businesses with tax incentives to encourage their employees to use mass transit. Simply making employer provided mass transportation vouchers tax deductible for the employer, or perhaps even the employee, might be a step in the right direction.

What should Congress do to address global warming?
Congress can take an important leadership role in curbing global warming through programs and incentives that would help people and businesses choose to take the role of a conservator of energy. Extending the tax incentives for hybrid vehicles, encouraging the continued development of all alternative energy sources and promoting the use of clean fuels that we have today, such as nuclear power and clean coal, are strong steps to take to encourage businesses to develop cleaner alternatives and people to embrace them and integrate them into their daily lives.

What role should the federal government play in improving our regional transportation infrastructure?
The federal government's most important role in transportation is as a partner in funding our regionally important projects. Speaker Hastert was able to adjust the federal government's formula for allocating road funds to create a fairer system, better reflecting the contributions of Illinois into the funds. Unfortunately, the mismanagement and failures of Springfield have prevented hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds to improve our local roads, including Highway 47, and these funds could be lost because of the lack of state matching funds.

As a Congressman, I look forward to supporting important regional projects such as the Metra STAR line, western access to O'Hare, widening of Rt. 47 and expanded Metra service to Oswego and DeKalb. I will also work with members of the Illinois Congressional delegation to oppose the CN railroad acquisition of the EJ&E line to ensure we maintain the safety and quality of life of our communities.

What can/should we do for the millions of Americans who can't afford health insurance?
There are several things the federal government can and should do to make health insurance more affordable and available.

America has the best health care in the world; why else would the world's most powerful people regularly come here for life-saving, cutting-edge treatment? The problem is not the health care itself; the problem is the delivery system we've devised over the years to deliver that health care to Americans in need. This "third party payer" system, in which most Americans get their health insurance through their employer, creates strange incentives, and, because the consumer of the health services is divorced from paying for those services, offers no incentives to manage health care costs better. Moreover, too many workers are left in a "job lock," where they are afraid to move to a new job because they would lose their current health insurance coverage. This stifles economic growth and increased productivity, and is a further drain on our national economy. What we need to do instead is to offer new opportunities for those who do not currently receive health care insurance through their employers.

Please note - I am NOT calling for an end to employer-provided health care. I am merely suggesting that we need to INCREASE the options available to consumers, not leave them locked into a system that doesn't allow them to move from job to job without risk of losing their benefits.

Because most uninsured Americans work at a job where their employer does not offer health care coverage, this seems a reasonable place to start. And which are the businesses that don't offer health care coverage to their employees? Small businesses -- 99 percent of large employers in America regularly include health care coverage as part of their employees' compensation packages, while just 41 percent of businesses with between 1 and 10 employees can afford it. Small businesspeople and self-employed individuals should be able to join together, through a trade or professional association, to negotiate cost-effective health insurance coverage for their members.

Alternatively (and/or simultaneously), we could create -- at the state level -- statewide health insurance exchanges, through which the self-employed, and those who work for small businesses which don't provide coverage, could purchase their own lower-cost policies. These policies would be personal and portable, and would be tax-advantaged.

No discussion of health care reform would be complete without taking a look at the need to reform our medical malpractice system. Too many places have made it unaffordable for doctors to stay and maintain a practice. They simply cannot afford the medical malpractice insurance necessary to operate a medical practice. Reforming this system must be a top priority of any comprehensive health care reform effort.

What would you do to ensure Fermilab's continued viability?
Fermilab is a national treasure that should be continuously supported to further pursue the fundamental questions of science. It was unfortunate to see Congress use Iraq as an excuse to cut funding from this vital laboratory and I was pleased to see most of the funding restored this year. As a Congressman, I intend to work with my colleagues to make sure Fermilab's funding levels are never again in jeopardy, working with Reps. Biggert and Roskam to protect this treasure's future as a pillar of the science community.

What issues would you like to see Congress address?
Every year Congress promises they will address the continued growth of our national debt and our national deficit. Every year, millions of Americans are left wondering what happened to that promise. I would like to work with other Congressman to bring Washington's appetite for spending under control. We must work together to reduce spending and balance our budget.