Illinois' 6th Congressional District election, 2018

Veterans Policy
Veterans, Servicemembers, and Military Families

My father was a U.S. Marine and served our country in Vietnam, my grandfather served in the European theater during WWII and fought at the Battle of the Bulge. They fought and protected our democracy alongside many of their fellow Americans from all walks of life. They also served in an era when it was taken for granted that every generation would serve their country. I grew up around their commitment to service and while I myself did not serve, I have hired and worked with many veterans, and have a first-hand appreciation for the skills and character that are common to our veterans.

At our best, our country should see veterans as a resource. They have already proven their mettle and commitment. Providing them with education, healthcare and employment when they return to civilian life is not just the morally right thing to do — it’s the smart thing to do. But we also need to realize that our veterans have real and unique stresses and challenges, from PTSD to reintegration into civilian society.

When military service was more widely spread throughout the electorate, we understood those challenges more directly. That’s no longer the case. As we’ve shifted to an all-volunteer force, that experience is increasingly localized to isolated military communities. And when less than one percent of the population is shouldering the burden to fight our country’s wars and armed conflicts, it is too easy for most of us to ignore their sacrifice. This has led to a situation where we are committed to maintaining the pre-eminent military in the world (a good thing) but have become far too willing to put our service members in harm’s way, and lost our commitment to provide those veterans with the support they need when they come home.

How I will support veterans, servicemembers, and military families: Make the VA a leader in national health care reform by filling the estimated 30,000 vacancies with qualified doctors and medical staff, employing improved technology, and continuing to reduce wait times at VA health facilities. Update the medical record-keeping system to include modernization of the VA’s and Department of Defense’s IT healthcare systems as well as integrate the DOD and VA networks in order to ease the transfer of care. Block efforts to privatize the VA health care system. Markets are inherently efficient, but come with the risk of price and supply volatility. And while competitive markets include for-profit businesses, the existence of a for-profit business does not imply the existence of a market. Since we should never tolerate price or supply volatility in the health care we provide our veterans, there is no economic argument to privatize the VA. Strengthen and expand the 2014 Choice Act that enables veterans to obtain care from private doctors under certain circumstances. Expand mental health services for veterans and servicemembers to meet the urgent mental health needs of our veterans. The risk of suicide among veterans is, alarmingly, 22 percent higher than the rate among civilians. This crisis calls for an immediate increase in coordination between the Department of Defense and the VA. Improve VA services for our 2 million female veterans, including through support for the Deborah Samson Act which will enhance access to earned services and reduce disparity in care. I support this Act for improving peer to peer counseling services, enhancing gender-specific VA health care, improving the quality of care for infants as well expanding the availability of legal services for female veterans. Support the inclusion of all qualified Americans who want to serve their country in the military. I will protect the rights of LGBT members who are bravely serving in our military and I oppose President Trump’s ban on transgender service in the military as unnecessary and discriminatory. The military has long been at the forefront of equal opportunity, recognizing that the best military employs the best people – not just the ones that fit a specific racial, gender or sexuality profile. We should take pride in that history, not regress to a less tolerant era. Support programs to address and prevent sexual assault and domestic violence in the military as well as gender specific programs to treat PTSD suffered by military victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. Expand and increase coordination among job training and business programs so veterans have the comprehensive tools and networks they need to find a good job or start their own business. I will support and work to enhance the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment services available through the VA to help vets with job training, resume development, job seeking skills coaching and starting their own business. I am committed to enhancing the effectiveness and ease of access to such programs as the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service available through the US Department of Labor. Fully fund the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill and allow servicemembers to transfer their benefits to family members. I support the preservation of Gainful Employment and Borrower’s Defense legislation to protect veterans against fraud, waste and abuse in relation to educational and employment opportunities. I will support existing programs such as Yellow Ribbon, Tuition-Assistance, and Survivors and Dependents education assistance through the VA Department.

The Right to Vote
The American democratic experiment depends first and foremost on our faith that our vote counts and that every vote counts equally. Any challenge to that belief is an attack on our democracy, and we must demand vigilance to protect against those who would seek to disenfranchise American citizens or otherwise compromise the integrity of our electoral system. This should not be a partisan issue. We all have a stake. It is imperative that we strengthen the integrity of our elections by making voting, registering to vote, and getting to the polls as easy as possible. We must vigorously oppose gerrymandering, voter suppression and other efforts to make our government anything other than a representative of all the people. We must remove the outsized influence of money on our elections by overturning the Citizens United decision and restoring transparency to all money donated for political purposes.

My opponent, Congressman Peter Roskam, supports the Citizens United decision, which has enabled extremely wealthy individuals and corporations to plow unlimited money into our elections. And he has opposed efforts to shine a light on “dark money” to create greater transparency. In fact, just this year Roskam co-sponsored a Koch Brothers-supported bill that would no longer require nonprofits that donate to political candidates to submit donor lists to the IRS. This would make it much easier to hide donations and cover up the influence of money in politics. He also voted to repeal a rule that required energy companies to disclose their payments to foreign governments.

It has been established without a doubt that Russia actively sought to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. Whether or not the Trump team colluded with Russians is the subject of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing investigation, which he must be allowed to complete. A government that depends on the consent of the governed cannot long survive if our elections are subject to foreign manipulation or interference. Our political leaders of both parties must be dedicated to finding out the truth about that interference and taking strong action to prevent it from ever happening again.

As a Member of Congress, I would take the following actions to protect the free and fair elections that are central to our democracy:

Introduce legislation to create a “Geneva Convention” for cyberwarfare and election tampering. We need an international framework to create unambiguous lines and an international consensus on how to deal with future cyber attacks – political or otherwise. Protect our voting machines. I would convene relevant experts from the Department of Defense and the National Security Agency to do a full vetting of voting machine technology to ‘hack-proof’ our election systems from foreign or domestic interference.

Incentivize all states to adopt automatic voter registration to ensure a fully representative democracy.  Rather than seeking to restrict or repress the right to vote, we should embrace a national policy of encouraging all who are eligible to exercise their franchise.
Restore the provisions of the Voting Rights Act that were gutted by the Shelby v Holder decision.  Subsequent efforts to restrict voting rights demonstrates that this decision has encouraged some state-level authorities to disenfranchise poor, minority and student voters.  We must correct that mistake.
Support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision.  In the meantime, we should take concrete, immediately achievable actions to increase the transparency of campaign spending, such as the Shareholder Protection Act.
Support efforts to curtail gerrymandering, which has enabled politicians to choose their voters rather than the other way around.  We should encourage the states to adopt non-partisan redistricting through successful reforms like Arizona’s non-partisan commission and Iowa’s computer model.

Restore voting rights to non-violent offenders. America is a place where one can redeem themselves and earn a second chance at success, even after breaking the law. Once someone has done their time and paid their debts to society, they should regain the right to vote. A chief role of our criminal justice system is rehabilitation and preparation for successful re-entry into the community. It is not possible to say re-entry is successful when former felons are functionally second-class citizens. Over six million Americans are disenfranchised due to prior felony convictions, many of which are crimes committed years or decades ago and for non-violent, non-sexual offenses. A disproportionate number of those affected are people of color. Congress should work toward smart criminal justice reform, which must include full restoration of voting rights for non-violent offenders. Move Election Day to the weekend. Getting out to the polls can be hard regardless of what day of the week it is — especially for parents working multiple jobs or lacking access to adequate transportation. Keeping Election Day on Tuesday makes it even harder for more Americans who work regular hours. We should move federal elections to the weekend, to give the more families the most flexibility to exercise their right to vote. Lower the federal voting age to 16. For many, their first election corresponds to their first time living independently, leading to a corresponding reduction in voting relative to other demographics. By dropping to 16, peoples’ first vote will be with their parents, starting a culture of participation. As states like Illinois institute motor-voter registration, this will also serve to tie the right to drive with the right to vote.

Jobs and Growing our Economy During my career I’ve rejected the notion that we have to pick between a better environment or creating jobs. I know we can have both, because that’s what I’ve spent my career doing. And I can tell you that the barriers to doing this are neither technological nor economic; they are policy barriers. What we need to do to grow the economy and create jobs is the exact opposite of what Donald Trump and Peter Roskam propose.

Infrastructure is one of the best investments we can make, because those jobs can’t be outsourced. And it gives our businesses and citizens the tools to grow and create even more jobs. We need an infrastructure package that invests both federal dollars and private capital to build critical and necessary bridges, roads, power plants, and industrial facilities that will provide decades of future value. These are the things that are going to help the economy and the middle class — not huge tax cuts skewed to the very wealthy.

Clean energy is another area where we could be growing jobs by investing in research and technology, so that the next generation of wind turbines, solar panels, fuel cells, and more are designed and manufactured right here, by American workers.

Health Care
My approach to U.S. health care reform The easiest way to evaluate the U.S. health care system and the best ways to improve it is with the proven “best-practices” model that businesses use when evaluating their own competitive landscape. It’s pretty simple: review what other countries are doing, see who’s doing a better job than we are, and then integrate the best pieces of their model into our system.

For health care, the two metrics that matter are the per capita cost of health care and the quality of health outcomes. The U.S. has per capita healthcare costs of nearly $10,000 per year and “mortality rate amenable to health care,” or MAH, of 112/100,000. On both metrics, this is worse than every other country in the OECD. The bulk of industrialized countries cluster between $4,000 – $7,000 per capita annual health care costs and MAH of 60 – 100/100,000.

With a population of 300 million and an annual healthcare cost of $2.7 trillion, that means that just getting down to a midpoint range where our trading partners have already achieved — say, $6,000 per capita annual costs and a MAH of 80 — would lower our annual health care expenses by $1 trillion and save over 100,000 lives per year. Imagine 100,000 Americans living rather than dying each year and the impact that would have on their loved ones and our communities. We cannot even begin to put a price tag on that, but it is a big deal, and a win-win.

So how do we get there?

First, and most importantly, we must insist on true, universal health care. Not just the kind where anyone can go to the emergency room, but the kind that our allies and trading partners have, where everyone, regardless of employment or wealth, has access to full preventative health care services — check-ups, screenings, and all the other early-detection measures that reduce the need for higher-cost, later-stage interventions.

The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. “Obamacare”) took a big step toward universal health care in the U.S., providing more than 20 million additional Americans with access to affordable insurance for themselves and their families. But the work is not done. We need to finish the job by (1) ensuring that all Americans have health insurance and (2) fixing the flaws in the ACA exchanges to ensure they remain available and solvent.

To address the first goal, we need to add a taxpayer-funded, means-tested base level of health care coverage — means-tested to make sure that this base coverage is only available to those who don’t have health coverage through their employers, unions, V.A. office, Medicare, Medicaid, or personal wealth.

We should also ensure that anyone who doesn’t qualify for this taxpayer-funded plan has the option to buy into that plan — along with whatever other options they may have from their employer or the ACA. This is functionally similar to the Sen. Chris Murphy’s proposal to allow people to buy into Medicare, which I support.

Next, we need to repair the ACA exchanges to make them accessible nationwide. As an employer with staff in different states, it was frustrating for us — and our insurers — to have one set of plans in one state, one in another, one set of plans for private employers, another for government employees, and another for unions. We can make those exchanges much more efficient if we instead set them up to provide a set of national options for people with similar health needs across the country. The ideal health insurance package for a family of 4 with a young kid getting vaccinations and a teenager getting ready for orthodontia are not that different if the family is a union family in West Virginia or a pair of lawyers in Glen Ellyn. Let markets more efficiently allocate services by making sure that both families have the option to buy into the same plan.

Taken together, this approach would provide universal health care, taxpayer-funded for those who cannot afford it and market-provided for those who can. It would provide a path to Medicare for all, but only provided that Americans — at their discretion — chose to buy into that option. It would also provide an identical “menu” of choices for all Americans who elect to buy into for-profit plans, such that if those market-situated providers offer a more competitive value proposition, Americans can — again, at their sole discretion — buy into those options. Thus, it does not stipulate an end-state based on the idealized views of a few hundred legislators in Washington, but rather based on the informed choices of a few hundred million Americans.

Interestingly enough, this approach is very close to the Swiss model, which delivers a lower MAH than any other industrialized country (approximately 55/100,000) and costs $7,000 per capita per year.

In other words, we have real, fully implemented case studies to show that going to the model I propose would lead to lower costs and better care. A win/win. Are there models that deliver still lower costs? Yes — but none of them with better outcomes. So while some may personally decide to choose still cheaper, but lower care costs, that should be subject to personal discretion, not by government fiat.

To understand why it’s so important to allow markets — rather than governments — to choose, one need look no farther than Minnesota. While the U.S. as a whole has a higher MAH than any other industrialized nation, Minnesota as a state has a lower MAH than any other industrialized nation — even Switzerland.

This matters because for an average Minnesotan, a sudden leap to the Swiss model would represent a lower cost and marginally worse health outcomes. That might be a trade off that individuals are willing to make, but we should not assume that all will prefer that option. It also means that we have lessons learned in our own country that we can apply to our health care system without going overseas. (My guess, which I cannot prove, is that a significant reason for the improvement in Minnesota is the Mayo Clinic, which somewhat uniquely compensates their doctors based on health outcomes rather than procedures ordered. Getting economic signals right matters.)

Finally, we cannot talk about health care without also talking about pharmaceutical pricing. It is true that pharmaceuticals in the U.S. cost a lot more than other industrialized countries. It is also true that innovation in drug development is overwhelmingly concentrated in U.S. markets. While we should do everything in our power to lower the cost of pharmaceuticals, we also need to recognize that drug development is a very high cost / high risk activity, with more drugs that never make it to market than do. It is appropriate and necessary to allow those that succeed to earn high profit margins, or else we will not attract the innovation necessary. However, there is much we can do to lower the cost pharmaceuticals without compromising innovation.

Specifically, we must allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, as the V.A. and for-profit health providers already do. No company would ever go into a negotiation without the right to serve the best interests of their stakeholders, and Medicare’s stakeholders are not the pharmaceutical companies. We need to empower them to meet their mission.

Secondarily, we need to take a much more aggressive posture against the extension of patents and re-purposing of drugs for new diseases that serves only to extend the profit margin of those drugs long after pharmaceutical companies have recouped their initial investment.

How I will advocate for better, more affordable health care: 1. Defend the ACA and support modifications only if they can be shown by non-partisan experts to lead to an improvement

2. Support proposals to accelerate the transition to universal health care, possibly including but not limited to:

A public option The creation of a taxpayer-funded, means-tested base health care plan to fill in the gaps where individuals not currently eligible for employer or existing government programs are not served (this could be through an expansion of existing Medicare networks) Allowing any American to buy into Medicare and/or the Medicare Advantage Plans 3. Support the elimination of differential health care coverage for federal employees

4. Defend and protect Medicare

5. Allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices

6. Act as a strong advocate for consumer protection, working to direct the FDA and others to be highly skeptical of any patent renewals for drugs that have already recouped their initial (high and risky) investment associated with drug development and testing

7. Work with health care providers and hospitals to ensure that the for-profit ends of the health care industry have an economic incentive biased in favor of health outcomes rather than medical procedures

Donald Trump and Peter Roskam have been horrible on health care: Peter Roskam voted three times to take healthcare away from millions of Americans — before even knowing the full impact of his vote as detailed by a CBO report. Republicans in Congress have blocked full implementation of the ACA, making it impossible to fully know the impacts of this legislation or how we need to fix it. Despite having more than 7 years to come up with a proposal that would improve upon the ACA, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan came up with no substantial proposals beyond simply repealing parts of a law that has extended coverage to millions across our nation. By voting to repeal the ACA, Peter Roskam wants to allow insurers to once again charge prohibitive rates — or deny healthcare entirely — to those with pre-existing conditions. This is even more troubling considering insurers have considered just being a woman or being older to be an excuse to charge more.

Women’s Rights and Opportunity
We must support and expand women’s rights and opportunities — by protecting reproductive rights, fighting for equal pay for equal work, defending women subjected to harassment and abuse, and much more. Not only do our laws fall short of granting women equality, but our culture has perpetuated inequality and gender discrimination.

In Peter Roskam, we have a representative who voted against the Violence Against Women Act, believes abortion should be illegal even in the case of rape and incest, and refuses to condemn abusive men like Roy Moore. We need leaders who will stand up, hold men accountable, and fight for policies that will promote women’s rights and opportunities.

How I will advocate for women’s rights Keep birth control affordable and accessible Advocate for paid parental leave so new parents have time to spend with their newborn babies Support legislation protecting pregnant women from discrimination at work and in the hiring process Defend and restore access to safe, legal abortions Protect the Violence Against Women Act and its funding Support the Paycheck Fairness Act, which empowers women in gender pay disputes and improves avenues of recourse Fight for legislation that will keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers Stand with Planned Parenthood by supporting the important work they do in providing essential health and reproductive care Support the ME TOO Congress Act. We must put an end to the outrageous practices in Congress that allow members to settle claims of sexual misconduct with taxpayer dollars, mandating complainants to wait 30 days before filing a complaint, and requiring them to sign nondisclosure agreements Support legislation to remove the ratification deadline in the Equal Rights Amendment Peter Roskam has been a disaster for women Voted against the Violence Against Women Act in 2013 Previously stated that he opposed abortion rights in all cases, including in cases of rape and incest Cosponsored legislation to ban abortion under the Right to Life Act Voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act Wants being a women or sexual assault survivor to once again be treated as a pre-existing condition by insurance companies, making it expensive and even impossible for them to receive health care

Education
My plan for education Our most fundamental responsibility as a nation is to provide a world-class education for every child, regardless of race, religion, economic status, or zip code. We are at our best when every child has equal access to opportunity. But we know — and data shows — that the potential of a life is overwhelmingly defined by early access to education. We must commit to providing universal early childhood education and ensure that all students have access to comparable — and top quality — elementary and high school education. We should do this not out of charity, but out of self-interest. The scientists, entrepreneurs, musicians, and political leaders who will take us into the future are in elementary school today. We owe it to ourselves to enable them to realize their full potential.

In too many communities children are robbed of a quality education precisely because of where they live and how much money their parents earn. They are denied opportunities that should be provided for all, but that are too often only available to kids in the next town, in the “nicer” community. Our ability to address this — to reaffirm that commitment to all of our children — has been hindered by the destructive policies of Donald Trump. His education secretary continues to weaken public education by taking resources from an already financially strapped system — responsible for more than 90 percent of our children — and redistributing them to private and for-profit schools.

While we have failed in our responsibility to provide equal educational opportunities to all children, the policies of the current administration also weaken the role of public schools as the backbone of American civics. Chipping away at the public school system has societal consequences. In an increasingly stratified society, elementary and high school education is the last bastion of true cross-community interaction; the place where we are truly integrated, sharing classrooms, locker rooms, and sports fields with students of every race, religion, and income level. Later in life, as interests, talents, and income levels diverge, we lose opportunities for interaction — but carry those memories, friendships and impressions with us. This was my experience. My high school graduating class was 50% African-American; the white students were predominantly Jewish. My college, graduate school, and professional experiences were not nearly as diverse, but the experiences from my formative years stayed with me. My wife Kara feels the same about her experience growing up in public schools, one of the many reasons we send our girls to public school in Downers Grove.

The government’s role should be to make the public school system as good as it can possibly be. It should not be to grease the paths for the most wealthy or intelligent to exit the system. Current policy creates a race to the bottom, leaving the public schools with the hardest work and the fewest resources. We must recommit to providing universal and high-quality public education to all.

When it comes to higher education, the burden of student loan debt is crippling and can deter many from even considering college. Prior to 2005, individuals could discharge debt obligations through personal bankruptcy. Changes made in the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill effectively eliminated that option, on the logic that the low credit scores of many college freshmen coupled with high post-graduation earnings potential might create a “moral hazard” — an incentive for opportunistic use of the bankruptcy code. However, as the Brookings Institution noted in 2015, there was no subsequent reduction in bankruptcy filings after passage of the 2005 law. More precisely, the analysis did “not reveal responses to the 2005 bankruptcy reform that would indicate widespread opportunistic behavior by private student loan borrowers before the policy change.”

Listed below are legislative initiatives I support:

I support significant expansion of early childhood education. Extensive research has shown that the potential of an individual’s life is overwhelmingly correlated with the quality of educational access available in the child’s first 6 to 8 years. Investments in early childhood education provide a much greater return on investment than later-stage interventions. In many cases, these investments set kids up for success, making subsequent interventions unnecessary. This is the right place for investment and support that will yield long-term social and financial dividends. I actively oppose any policies that direct public schools to adopt anti-scientific curricula. Evolution should be taught in public schools. So, too, for climate change and other settled scientific concepts and principles. I support a reintroduction of civics into middle and high school curricula. We have lost a shared understanding and teaching of American history and values. As school budgets have been slashed, reading, writing, and STEM have been preserved but often at the expense of arts, music, and social studies. This has left us with a wildly disparate set of opinions about what it means to be an American. We should require that all high school students graduate with a common understanding of U.S. history and civics. I support testing in schools for the purpose of student evaluation. I oppose testing for the evaluation of schools and teachers. Many schools have become too burdened with testing and reporting, distracting from teaching. Moreover, standardized testing often does not provide results in time to guide teachers in the classroom. A teacher recently asked me, “Who do you think of when I ask you about the teacher who most impacted you? What about when I ask about the standardized test that most impacted you?”Impactful teachers teach a set of lessons and life skills that don’t necessarily manifest in test results. Teachers know what good teaching looks like. Politicians generally don’t. We would never ask non-lawyers to decide who should pass the bar exam this year, or let non-doctors decide who should pass the medical boards, or let non-engineers decide who is licensed to inspect high pressure boilers. And yet politicians seem to believe that they are qualified to evaluate teacher performance. They aren’t. I support allowing any holder of student loan debt to refinance at current rates. I support linking Pell Grants to the rate of increase in college tuitions, so their value doesn’t diminish over time. I support an overhaul of the provisions in the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill, which has made it practically impossible to discharge student loan debt in bankruptcy. As the Brookings Institution notes, it is likely that the non-dischargeability of student loans increased the amount of loans available, so it may be more prudent to provide more robust rules around the “moral hazard” circumstances under which non-dischargeability may apply than to undo the provisions entirely. We need to increase our investment in STEM programs. I support programs enabling trade-path students. All students do not want or need a 4-year college degree. There are currently thousands of unfilled high-tech manufacturing jobs, and we need to provide the education and training to match students with those jobs. Donald Trump and Peter Roskam have failed on education The National Education Association has given Congressman Roskam a D grade for his lack of commitment to fighting for strong public schools. Trump’s budget proposal includes $9.2 billion in cuts to education. The budget would drastically reduce or eliminate programs for teacher training and reduced class size, literacy programs, and subsidies to pay for the interest on student loans. The Trump Administration has: Relaxed standards and regulations on for-profit colleges Rescinded 72 guidance documents that outline disabled students’ rights In 2014, Peter Roskam joined Republicans in blocking the House version of Senator Warren’s student loan reform bill that would have allowed more than 25 million people to refinance their loans at lower rates. In 2013, Peter Roskam voted for a bill that could have raised student loan interest rates up to 8.5%.

Energy and Climate Policy
U.S. energy and environmental policy is massively complex — but every facet of our lives is affected by it and we all share the same planet. Within the current regulatory landscape, there are a host of policies that may have once made sense individually but that do not add up to a coherent whole.

While it’s impractical to suggest rewriting all of our energy policy from scratch, there are many easy, high-impact policy changes that we can and should make to lower energy costs, decrease pollution, and create jobs.

My approach to energy and environmental policy is informed by the following:

There is no inherent trade-off between increased energy efficiency and economic gain. For decades, environmental policy discussions have been framed around the fallacy that there is conflict between the environment and the economy. Too many rules and regulations have been crafted with this mistaken assumption. These rules have led to inefficient and unnecessary trade-offs, often disincentivizing win-win investments that many energy and environmental experts know exist. Fixing these policies doesn’t require political conflict — it requires electing experts who understand the issues and can reach across the political divide. Energy and environmental policy must incentivize goals, not paths. The Homestead Act instructed citizens to “go west, improve the land, and you can keep it.” It was massively successful because it rewarded the goal. It did not instruct citizens to “buy a Conestoga wagon, hitch it to a team of not less than 6 horses, and head west via one of three routes identified in Exhibit G, and plant a field with one of 4 approved crops. If you do this, we will provide you with a tax credit equal to 10% of the capital you invested subject to schedule D attached hereto.” Our energy policy does the latter. We provide wildly different incentives and mandates for technologies that deliver otherwise identical environmental outcomes. This has led to less than optimal investment decisions and has slowed the adoption of many economically beneficial clean-energy technologies. Shifting to a goal-based regulatory model would unleash massive economic activity while simultaneously rewarding environmentally beneficial outcomes. Our environmental regulatory model must change to prioritize CO2 reduction. The Clean Air Act has done wonders to clean the air, but was never designed to account for a pollutant that scales with fuel combustion rather than the use of exhaust control technology. Modernizing the Clean Air Act to incentivize and reward energy efficiency and conservation is critical to ensure we protect the planet and reduce CO2 as quickly – and as cheaply – as possible. On the margin, tax policy is a bad way to incentivize investment. Businesses that meet social goals to invest in clean energy technology typically have very little taxable income, thanks to the depreciation and interest expense that naturally result from that investment activity. Providing further tax incentives, whether through production tax credits, investment tax credits, or accelerated depreciation schedules, too often provides tax credits that businesses can’t use. This has been a windfall for banks that provide so-called “tax equity” financing, but means that a significant portion of the money we allocate for clean energy flows to financial services businesses rather than to those who are leading the clean energy revolution. The U.S. must use the power of competitive markets to encourage energy innovation, coupled with a strengthened antitrust program. Alfred Kahn, former Chairman of the Civil Aviation Administration, famously wrote that when markets are deregulated, the burden of consumer protection shifts from rate regulation to antitrust enforcement. The 1992 Energy Policy Act set in motion the national deregulation of our energy industry, but then proceeded inconsistently and incompletely across the 50 states. The result is that much of the electric industry has abandoned historically socialized “obligation to serve” benefits but has not yet fully embraced competitive markets. This “half-pregnant” model is far from ideal, as utilities now lack any real incentives to build the long-term capital assets that we need to ensure future energy security and reliability. Market power is still far too concentrated in certain regions, keeping new entrants from challenging incumbent monopolies. We too often confuse the interests of extractive industries with the interests of energy consumers. Miners and oil drillers have a vested interest in maximizing the rate of resource extraction / depletion. Every other sector of the economy — from oil refining to trucking, from wind turbine manufacturers to homeowners — has a vested interest in getting as much value as possible from as little energy input as possible. Energy efficiency is the common thread that unites the overwhelming majority of the country’s businesses and consumers, but gets short-shrift in our energy policy. And unlike extractive industries, energy efficiency is fuel-agnostic. Good policy should always first maximize the efficiency for all fuel sources and only then get bogged down in the merits of any particular fuel. As a member of Congress, I will work to improve our climate and energy policies in the following ways: Champion output-based standards. Many pollution standards crafted subject to the Clean Air Act have targets and compliance obligations based on a so-called “input-based” standard. This often creates an inadvertent disincentive for energy efficiency as lower fuel consumption will — all else being equal — make it harder to meet pollution-per-unit-input metrics. Several states have led the way in converting to an “output-based model” that sets allowable pollution limits per unit of useful output (e.g., pollution per kilowatt-hour). I will work to nationalize this approach, which has already been proven to work at a state level. Pass a national Fossil Energy Reduction Standard. Many states have adopted “renewable portfolio standards” that direct their utilities to ensure that a certain portion of their energy generation mix comes from renewable resources. But almost every state has a different definition of “renewable energy” and provides a different incentive level for different types of renewable energy. There have been several failed attempts to pass a national Renewable Portfolio Standard, which have gotten bogged down in the same definitional challenges. I propose instead the creation of a national “Fossil Energy Reduction Standard” that mandates a rising percentage of power from power sources that reduce fossil energy use, without any preference on technology. Direct federal agencies to lead by example. The federal government is the largest single purchaser of electricity in the country. For many other social goals — from Davis-Bacon procurement rules to minority- and women-owned business incentivization — we have willingly and successfully used federal purchasing guidelines to drive change. This proposal applies that logic to clean energy. Under this plan, the federal government would direct all government-owned buildings and properties to purchase a stipulated and rising percentage of their electricity from clean sources — just as major Fortune 500 companies like Walmart and PepsiCo already have done voluntarily. This would not only accelerate the adoption of clean sources, but would also provide a critical offtake contract to clean energy developers — often the single biggest barrier to clean energy project financing. Eliminate efficiency disincentives in major modification section of Clean Air Act. Under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) of the Clean Air Act, facilities with air permits are not allowed to increase the output of a permitted source without being subject to a re-opening of their air permit. While this prevents companies from sneaking new sources into their old permit, it inadvertently discourages those same businesses from investing in efficiency that would increase plant output without requiring additional fuel combustion / pollution. This causes many power plants to actively avoid investments in energy efficiency for permitted facilities. It also creates an opportunity, as a simple fix would both create an immediate incentive for significant, nationwide capital investment and reduce the energy-intensivity of our economy. Support nationwide CO2 regulation, governed by three goals: (1) incentivize the most rapid possible reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; (2) given scarce resources, favor the most cost-effective greenhouse gas reductions available; and (3) encourage the construction of the capital-intensive assets needed to overhaul and modernize our energy system. These three goals are paramount, and are vastly more important than models that penalize CO2 emitters. Replace tax credits with revenue grants (at least for clean energy sources). I will advocate to amend clean energy tax incentive regulations to provide investors with an option to take their tax credit as a revenue grant, set to be equivalent to the dollar value of the tax credit multiplied by their marginal tax rate. Identify and eliminate economically inefficient cross-subsidies that discourage the development of clean energy sources. Incumbent energy providers in the U.S. benefit from a host of historic policy decisions that have a practical effect of lowering the apparent costs of dirty energy to consumers. These range from the health costs of pollution that are borne by our health system to the military costs of protecting foreign shipping lanes that are paid out of our income taxes (to name just a couple). Meanwhile, new energy sources — from biofuels to solar electricity — must compete economically, bearing their full costs of fuel procurement, distribution, conversion, and delivery. The resulting economic inefficiency distorts market forces and slows the adoption of cleaner technology. Identifying and fixing these market failures will lower total energy costs, clean the air, and grow the economy. Support Senate Bill 1068 as introduced by Ron Wyden. This bill would modify existing technology-based clean energy tax credits to provide equivalent incentives for all technologies that achieve equivalent fossil fuel reduction. Peter Roskam is ignoring the facts and hurting the environment Roskam has referred to global warming as “junk science.” Roskam has received an abysmal 3% rating from the League of Conservation Voters. Roskam voted to bar the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases and voted against enforcing limits on CO2 emissions — one of the main contributors to global warming. Roskam voted against renewing tax credits to those choosing to install solar panels on their homes, purchase electric cars, or use biodiesel. Since Trump was elected, Roskam has been a reliable vote for Trump’s disastrous environmental record: Voted to delay implementation of ozone standards (HR 806 – Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017) Voted to repeal a rule requiring that energy companies reduce waste and emissions (HJ Res 36) Voted to repeal the stream protection rule, putting Illinois waterways at risk of pollution (HJ Res 38) Voted to repeal a rule that required energy companies to disclose payments to foreign governments (HJ Res 41) Roskam voted against banning mining in wilderness study areas and requiring mine operators to restore areas damaged by their mining operations (HR 2262).

LGBTQ Rights
LGBTQ rights are human rights, period. To deny any citizen the full set of rights and opportunities afforded to any other citizen is simply wrong and unconscionable.

Too many LGBTQ children face harassment, are exposed to homelessness, and take their own lives. Too many qualified members of our workforce face discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity. And too many gaps exist in our civil rights laws, leaving LGBTQ Americans without the full protections that other citizens enjoy.

Throughout our nation’s history, it’s taken time for society to catch up with the spirit of our founding documents. To establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and truly proclaim that all people are created equal, we must continue to expand and fight for LGBTQ equality.

How I plan to lead on LGBTQ issues Support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to ensure that LGBTQ workers cannot be discriminated against in the workplace and hiring process Support the Equality Act, which will expand upon our civil rights legislation to ensure non-discrimination protections against LGBTQ Americans in “employment, housing, credit, education, public spaces and services, federally funded programs, and jury service” Fight to protect the Affordable Care Act provisions that prohibit discrimination in the insurance market Protect the Adoption Tax Credit, which enables same-sex couples to adopt and start a family, and fight against discriminatory practices in the adoption process Support legislation that would ban the heinous practice of conversion therapy Defend legislation such as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act that protects LGBTQ Americans against hate crimes and fight to protect funds for state and local agencies to investigate and prosecute these crimes Support services for homeless youth, ensuring that those services do not discriminate against individuals because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and support and expand funding for federal grants for organizations that serve homeless LGBTQ youth Act as a watchdog for the district to ensure that all existing federal protections for LGBTQ Americans are recognized, including in our school districts — so that LGBTQ students feel safe

Fight to fully fund programs that prevent, educate about, and treat HIV/AIDS

Support legislation to ensure that our foreign policies are inclusive, promoting the human rights of LGBTQ individuals Support efforts that enable transgender Americans to change their gender on government identification documents and allow transgender Americans to use the public facilities that fit their gender identities Donald Trump and Peter Roskam have failed LGBTQ Americans For the last three Congressional sessions, Peter Roskam has received a ZERO score from the Human Rights Campaign for his failure to support any of their legislation to protect and expand LGBTQ rights. When moderate Republicans attempted to make their party more inclusive in 2016, Peter Roskam lobbied the Illinois GOP to keep language in the party platform defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The Trump Administration has: Rolled back the Department of Education and Justice guidelines allowing students to use the facilities that correspond to their gender identities Disempowered the Obama Administration executive order ensuring that federal contracts are not awarded to companies that discriminate against LGBTQ employees Stated that transgender Americans will no longer be allowed serve in the military Promoted ACA repeal, with Peter Roskam’s support, which would have stripped health care access to individuals living with HIV/AIDS

Immigration Reform
My plan for immigration reform We are, as the cliché goes, a nation of immigrants. We know this to be true, but we’ve somehow stopped thinking about what it means. None of us, other than Native Americans, have any birthright to U.S. soil and we are at our best when we recognize that the meaningful difference is when we came — not from where we came. Those who immigrated to the U.S. voluntarily all did so with the common idea that they would have more opportunity in the U.S. than they had at home. Many of those who came here in bondage would later lead the Great Migration northward, driven by the same impulse. This American willingness to uproot and resettle in a foreign land gave us a legacy of risk-takers, adventurers, and hard workers. It is what continues to make America great.

Yet we now find ourselves in a country where too many of our leaders focus on the poverty of the countries immigrants are coming from rather than the strength of character that inspired them to leave.

Of course, we need to protect our borders — and vet those who wish to come to our country. That is not in dispute. More people want to immigrate to the United States than we can accommodate. But that is a blessing, not a burden.

For too long, we have written immigration policy at the corners, rarely with a holistic view of our national goals or interests. Immigration is too often an afterthought to other initiatives. International narcotics policy, the “war on terror,” and economic policy are set nationally, but also tamper with the effectiveness of local law enforcement, from community policing programs to coordination with cross-border colleagues. We cannot ignore the fact that our historic immigration policy has been used by demagogues to scapegoat foreigners rather than address fundamental challenges in the economy; it’s always easier to blame others than to honestly confront structural changes in the U.S. economy, but that doesn’t make it right.

Nationally, we know these things to be true, and we know we need comprehensive immigration reform to address them. As recently as 2013, the “Gang of Eight” came close to achieving a fix for many of these issues. Unfortunately, partisan politics prevented the effort from moving forward, leaving us with only temporary patches made to DACA under President Obama. A positive step, to be sure, but far from comprehensive.

In 2011, I helped publish a white paper for the Chicago Council of Global Affairs with fellow Emerging Leaders to review comprehensive immigration reform and its impact on the Chicago area. That report can be found here. In addition, I serve on the Thayer School of Engineering Corporate Collaboration Council, which helps engineering graduate students secure internships and long-term employment — many of them are foreigners in the U.S. on education or H1B visas. In 2001, our family set up a five-year exchange program to support 5×1 year exchange programs with a high school in East Java, Indonesia after 9/11 to facilitate cross-cultural communication. Going back to my early days, when I was a toddler in 1972 in Columbus, Indiana, my parents worked with local churches to create a resettlement program for Vietnamese refugees. It changed the character of that town and — as it spread across America — helped change our national attitudes for the better. Ironically, we find ourselves with Columbus-native Mike Pence in the White House, demonizing refugees as undeserving of our support despite the internationalization and positive impact immigrant families had on the fabric of that community.

My approach to immigration policy We must pass legislation to formally approve DACA and protect immigrants who entered the country as children from removal by future presidents (e.g., through the DREAM Act). We must secure our borders — but we also must recognize that the bulk of undocumented immigrants to the U.S. are visa overstays, not illegal border crossings. Border walls are an expensive waste of resources paid by U.S. taxpayers, not Mexico as Donald Trump promised. The CIA and FBI should delegate more authority to local law enforcement agencies in border regions, so as not to frustrate the ability of those “boots on the ground” to coordinate with cross-border allies to fight drug and crime syndicates. For most of U.S. history, our immigration policy has been biased towards a national-origin based preference system, tending to favor immigration from countries who “look like us.” At various times in recent history our immigration policy was biased against southern Europeans, Irish, eastern Europeans, and Chinese. Today, it is biased against people from North Africa and the Middle East. In all eras, policymakers framed these biases with concerns about national security or changing American values; in hindsight, they were simply xenophobic. We have partially adopted a “skills-based” approach in our H1B program, but even there, an applicant’s country of origin matters, frustrating the intent of that particular visa. I favor a stronger shift to preferences based on the employment needs of the U.S. economy. Notwithstanding the prior point, we must guard against extreme isolationist policies supported by Donald Trump and some Republicans that prioritize a “skills-based” immigration model as an alternative to moral and humanitarian preferences for family reunification and assistance to refugees and other persecuted groups. A “points-based” system need not favor only skills, and I will commit to making sure that family reunification, humanitarian assistance to refugees, and protection for those who risk persecution in their home countries are also preferentially favored. We must close private immigration detention centers. We detain too many immigrants in facilities that dehumanize them and harken back to dark days of Japanese internment camps. We are better than that as a country and should not allow these facilities to remain open. We must limit the ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to interject themselves into local law enforcement. Local police forces almost unanimously oppose the federal overreach that ICE has applied to compel disclosure of immigration status. Those programs frustrate community policing, put victims of domestic violence at risk and increase our risk for communicable diseases — all because they create a culture wherein otherwise law-abiding undocumented immigrants are reluctant to engage with public officials. Some cities and states have responded by adopting public policy guidelines that limit their cooperation with ICE in the enforcement of federal immigration law when federal immigration law may infringe upon an individual’s right to due process, but we need to provide them with responsible federal policy — not to ask them to correct our mistakes. Donald Trump and Peter Roskam have failed on immigration Congressman Roskam said that trying to achieve comprehensive immigration reform is too big an undertaking because “there is little capacity to get something big done on something as controversial as immigration without it all breaking down.” That kind of defeatist attitude is why nothing gets done in Washington. (Daily Herald) President Trump repeatedly demonstrates his contempt for people from other countries, most recently using vile and vulgar language to describe Haiti and African countries. President Trump has adopted and injected racist language from the alt-right that the GOP has been all too happy to normalize, coarsening our public conversation and giving voices to the worst elements in our society. The GOP-wide co-option of the term “chain migration” not only ignores that many African-Americans arrived here against their will in actual chains, but also cheapens the real chains of love and family that are at the heart of our good policies to facilitate family reunification. President Trump has no real stance on DACA and views the protection of Dreamers’ legal status as nothing more than a bargaining chip. OMB director Mick Mulvaney stated clearly that Trump’s position “depends on what we get in exchange. What do we get for border security? What do we get for the wall?” (The Week) President Trump wants to end the Diversity Visa Lottery program, which allows 55,000 people from countries with lower U.S. immigration rates to come to the U.S. Rep. Roskam failed to push for a clean resolution on the federal budget without holding Dreamers hostage.

Gun Safety
My plan for gun reform Every year, guns kill more than 30,000 Americans. (To put that grim number in perspective, that’s equivalent to losing every man, woman, and child in St. Charles — every single year.)

Why? Because the gun lobby is holding Congress hostage.

Consider these facts:

57% of Americans favor a ban on the sale of assault weapons. 60% of Americans agree that laws governing firearm sales should be made more strict. 75% of Americans believe there should be a 30 day waiting period on all gun purchases. 70% of Americans believe that all privately owned guns should be registered with the police. 92% of Americans favor background checks on all gun purchases. Even among gun owners, there is support for these common-sense restrictions.

Yet our representatives in Congress have failed to pass these sensible reforms — because they prize the gun lobby’s money above the lives of their constituents. And all the gun lobby cares about is selling more guns.

What I plan to do

When I’m elected to Congress, I’ll shut my door to the gun lobby. Instead, I’ll stand up for the sane gun laws that the people of the 6th district demand.

I’ll support bringing back the Assault Weapons Ban. I will advocate for laws that allow the ATF to store gun records in searchable, electronic records to bring law enforcement into the 20th (much less 21st) century. I’ll support the Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act, banning access to lethal weapons for offenders who have been convicted of domestic violence or who are under a restraining order (H.R. 2670). I’ll support a national ban on high-capacity magazines. I’ll support laws to close the gun show loophole. I’ll support “no fly no buy” rules to prohibit gun sales to suspected terrorists on the federal no-fly list. I’ll support repeal of the “Dickey Amendment,” which forbids the Center for Disease Control from studying gun violence in the United States. Anyone who opposes these sensible regulations on Second Amendment grounds is simply wrong. Not one of these measures would limit the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns, but every one of them would save lives.

As Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has written, the Second Amendment was written during a time of debate on how the newly-formed United States would organize its army. Our Founders could not have imagined today’s assault rifles — and they would never have defended a disturbed individual’s right to buy an automatic weapon and spray bullets at helpless schoolchildren.

The Declaration of Independence states emphatically that every person has the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These assault weapons were designed, quite literally, to take aim at those rights, and no true constitutional scholar — and no elected officials who truly care about the people they serve — would argue otherwise.

I’m tired of hearing lawmakers offer their “thoughts and prayers” after every new report of a tragic mass shooting. It’s time to offer Americans smart, effective gun laws that will save lives.

^[57]

National Security and Borders
There’s no issue more important to Peter than keeping our country and our communities safe. We must develop a long-term strategy to combat the spread of radical Islamic extremism. The rise of ISIS and extremist groups around the world has led to terror attacks against our citizens at home and abroad. This is unacceptable and it must stop.

Peter voted to halt the unchecked influx of Syrian refugees into our communities until we have better screening processes in place to keep out violent extremists who intend us harm. Any efforts to reform our country’s immigration system must start with border security. The federal government has been derelict in its duty to secure our borders and the result is a serious threat to our national security.

Peter is leading the charge against President Obama’s dangerous and misguided deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. He bucked his own party’s leadership to prevent a vote affirming the deal after the White House refused to unveil key details of the agreement. We should immediately reinstate and strengthen sanctions against Iran, not hand over a $100 billion check that the president himself admits will be used to support terrorism.

Peter stands proudly as one of Israel’s strongest supporters in Congress. He understands the only true democracy in the Middle East is our strongest ally in the region and serves as a crucial check against the rising tide of violent extremism. Peter has worked tirelessly against those who seek to delegitimize Israel, fighting the insidious Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Peter passed legislation, over President Obama’s objections, to protect American companies doing business in Israel from discrimination. He serves as Co-Chair of the Republican Israel Coalition and the Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Anti-Semitism.

Health Care
By almost every conceivable metric, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has failed. Americans have seen their healthcare plans cancelled and their options limited. We pay more for less, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. We must repeal and replace this misguided and harmful law.

Peter has long supported the full repeal and replacement of the ACA. As a member of the Ways & Means Health Subcommittee, he supports patient-centered alternatives designed to increase access to affordable, portable health insurance and spur competition among providers to bring down costs.

To achieve those goals, Peter voted for legislation that protects coverage for people with preexisting conditions, increases competition in the marketplace and lowers premiums, and ensures long-term viability of the healthcare system.

Oversight and Accountability
As Chairman of the Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee, Peter has been leading the fight to reform the IRS and root out the mismanagement and abuse the troubled agency has inflicted upon hardworking taxpayers.

When the IRS got caught abusing its power and unfairly targeting conservatives, Peter led the charge to investigate and hold the guilty parties accountable. When the agency tried to use gift taxes to target and diminish charitable donations to conservative groups, Peter passed a law to stop it – scoring a major legislative victory. He will continue to hold the IRS accountable and make sure these abuses never happen again.

Peter has been a leading voice fighting to change the culture at the IRS. He wrote and passed into law the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which protects taxpayers and their private information from IRS abuse. He forced the IRS to re-train every one of its employees and hang a copy in every one of its facilities. Through his oversight and accountability work, Peter exposed major abuses of power by the IRS. The agency used strong-arm tactics to seize the assets of law-abiding citizens and small businesses. He is now forcing the IRS to repay every dollar they took and is changing the rules so that it can’t happen again.

Peter is also a leader on healthcare issues, using his oversight chairmanship to protect doctors, patients, and taxpayers. Medicare fraud costs hardworking families more than $165 million each day – more than a billion dollars each and every week. Peter authored legislation to apply credit card-style, anti-fraud technology to Medicare payments, receiving support from a wide variety of groups such as the AARP, the National Healthcare Anti-Fraud Association, and Citizens Against Government Waste. This important legislation will help prevent improper payments from being issued in the first place, a better alternative to tracking down stolen funds after the fact. It’s critical we adopt private sector innovations and the latest technologies to make sure Medicare dollars go towards care for our seniors, not fraudsters and identity thieves.

Tax Reform
The last time the tax code was overhauled, the Bears had just won the Super Bowl! We’ve spent the last 30 years with a bloated tax code full of special interest carve outs that added complexity but benefited very few.

Since Peter joined the Ways & Means Committee in 2009 he has been working tirelessly to rewrite the tax code, and in 2017 he helped author and pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. As both the Chairman of the Tax Policy Subcommittee and a member of the bicameral conference committee, Peter played a key role in advancing the legislation.

Our goals for this overhaul were simple – put more money back in American families’ paychecks and get our stagnant economy growing again to create new jobs. This law accomplishes both. A family of four making the median income for IL-06 of $135,485 and taking the standard deduction will see a tax cut of $4,673. In fact the average family in every income bracket in IL-06 will see a tax cut. Additionally this law cuts taxes for small businesses, allowing for a 20% deduction in taxable income for main street businesses, with guardrails in place to ensure that this benefit is used fairly. Finally this bill encourages companies to move operations and jobs back to the United States by lowering what was the highest corporate tax rate in the world and ending an antiquated taxation system that punished global companies that chose to headquarter in the United States.

Throughout this process Peter fought to preserve key provisions of the tax code such as the state and local tax deductions, the charitable deduction, and he even had his own bill, Stop Taxing Death and Disability, included in the law. This provision ensures that in the tragic event of a student passing away, their grieving family is not hit with a tax bill as a result of the deceased’s forgiven student loans.

This law is a win for the middle class and a win for the Sixth District of Illinois. Peter is proud to have played a key role in its success.

Family
Peter is unapologetically pro-life and consistently ranks among Congress’s strongest advocates for the unborn. He also understands that family issues go well beyond protecting the sanctity of life. Peter will continue fighting for healthcare access and affordability, lower energy costs and energy independence, as well as educational opportunities that empower parents, not government bureaucrats. Most recently, Peter has been leading an investigation into the rising costs of higher education.

^[57]