Questions by Columbian staff writer Kathie Durbin
Q: Economic recovery: As a member of Congress, how would you work with other House members, the Obama administration and Washington state leaders to help small businesses and create jobs in Southwest Washington? Please be specific.
A: I believe this government and its policies have been a hindrance to job growth in Southwest Washington and throughout the country. However, there are men and women in both parties who recognize that small businesses are the engine of the American economy. I will work with those members on specific plans for job creation:
1) I will craft legislation to establish “enterprise zones” in distressed counties.
Under my plan, any county in the nation that has an unemployment rate of 8.5% (above the mean for the decade) or higher will automatically be designated an Enterprise Zone. Once a county is designated an Enterprise Zone, they become eligible for the following:
Any new business cited in the county employing 25 or more people has its corporate income tax (or corresponding tax depending upon business designation) waived for four (4) years;
Any new business cited in the county employing 25 or more people has its payroll taxes reduced by 35% for four (4) years;
All employees of the business are exempt from income tax for their first two years of employment;
In-state businesses moving from a non-Enterprise Zone county to an Enterprise Zone county do not qualify for benefits;
Any new business will be eligible for accelerated depreciation schedules on the purchase of new equipment for the first five years;
Any foreign registered business employing 25 people or more, that moves into an Enterprise Zone designated county will receive all of the benefits that new and businesses receive;
Depending upon the type of business, R&D credits, or investment tax credits, will be available for the first four (4) years of business.
The purpose of the Enterprise Zones will be to enable distressed counties to more rapidly achieve economic success. The plan is by no means perfect, but it will be a good first start to attracting new employers and encouraging innovation, ingenuity, and entrepreneurship.
2) I will work with other Western state members of Congress to conduct a comprehensive review of the regulations that inhibit job growth in the West — particularly with regard to those environmental regulations that have decimated our natural resource based industries.
3) I will encourage tax incentives and other incentives to establish and maintain a viable biomass industry in Southwest Washington.
4) I will sponsor legislation that will cut the corporate income tax in half and reduce payroll taxes.
Q: Columbia River Crossing: Our congressional delegation warns that the window for securing federal funding for a new I-5 bridge over the Columbia is rapidly closing, and that the region’s failure to reach consensus on a bridge design and the local funding match could kill the project. Do you believe a new crossing is essential to the growth of Southwest Washington? If so, what would you do to break the political gridlock? If not, what if anything should be done to improve the existing spans?
A: I do believe that a new crossing is essential to job growth in our region, and I further believe that, as an interstate highway, the federal government should bear the majority of the cost. The Columbia River Crossing is essential to the movement of goods and services up and down the west coast, and is a critical component to our ports (particularly the Port of Vancouver).
When elected, I hope to sit on the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee in order to play a key role in getting the funding needed to complete the project.
Q: Energy: Describe briefly your vision for the nation’s energy future and the region’s. What new energy sources should the federal government promote/subsidize? Do you believe it’s possible for the U.S. to wean itself from fossil fuels? Regarding the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, what steps, if any, would you support to hold BP accountable, repair the environmental and economic damage in the region, and strengthen federal spill prevention rules?
A: We are blessed in the Pacific Northwest with an abundance of hydroelectric energy that provides us with lower energy rates than other part of the country. In addition, the presence of BPA provides us with some consistency for our energy grid. Although I support the use of wind, solar, biomass, and other “alternative” forms of energy, they are not currently capable of meeting the energy needs of our region.
I support continued investment in wind energy and would like to see a renewed interest and emphasis on biomass. In addition, I support the siting of new nuclear energy plants. Nuclear energy represents the cleanest, least costly, and most efficient energy source. Additionally, if we transform the American auto fleet from gasoline powered to electric powered, only nuclear energy will provide the increased energy needed for that transition.
I agree with former CIA Director James Woolsley that our goal should be to make oil the “salt of the 21st century”. Meaning, if we wean ourselves off of oil, oil becomes as important as table salt in our economy. However, I also realize that a shift from a fossil fuel based economy will not happen overnight. To that end, I believe it is in our national interest to explore for and utilize the natural resources (oil, natural gas, coal, etc.) that are available in this country.
With regard to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, it has been an environmental disaster of catastrophic proportions. I believe that BP is being held accountable for its role in the spill and will continue to be held accountable as legal action is taken against them. However, the Federal government’s response to the spill has been inadequate at best. The environmental review process has hindered efforts by Louisiana to build barrier islands, the Jones Act was not waived to allow expert countries (like Norway and Denmark) to bring skimmers in to help contain the spill, and it took the government too long to allow private boat owners to assist with spill containment.
Q: Financial reform: What is your plan to protect American consumers from a recurrence of the abuses committed by Wall Street investment banks that led to the Great Recession? Do you favor reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act or something similar?
A: I reject the premise that Wall Street investment banks alone caused the “Great Recession”. Reinstatement of Glass-Steagall will do nothing to address the underlying problems that led to the financial meltdown in 2008. My plan will be to take a look at the major culprits that led to our financial downturn — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Taxpayers remain on the hook for billions of dollars to keep Fannie and Freddie afloat. It was their lead role in the housing bubble that played a major part in the events of 2008.
I was disappointed that the recently passed financial reform bill did not address the role that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played in the economic downturn. Nor did it address the “too big to fail” issue, in fact the bill makes it worse. Instead of setting up a commission to identify systemic risk, a comprehensive reform of our Chapter 11 bankruptcy laws would have been more in order. Allowing complex financial firms to go through an orderly bankruptcy is much better approach than establishing a process to have those firms bailed out. Additionally, the Fed had the responsibility of identifying “systemic risk” to the system and failed. I have zero confidence that a newly created government commission/agency will do a better job.
In addition, many of the big financial firms (like AIG) where overleveraged. When the market had its precipitous drop, AIG’s overleveraged position made it impossible for them to survive. Comprehensive reform must address this issue and, unfortunately, the current legislation does not.
Q: Immigration reform: Assuming Congress does not act this year, what is your vision for strengthening our borders and dealing with the 12 million undocumented immigrants who are in the U.S. today? Do you favor amnesty? Deportation? A path to citizenship for illegals? What is your take on the Arizona law? Please be specific.
A: I do not favor amnesty. Any discussion of how to deal with illegal immigrants must begin from the perspective that amnesty is off the table. You do not get citizenship when your first act upon entering this country was an illegal act.
From my time working at the Department of Homeland Security, I came to realize that border security is a national security issue. We must secure the border by using physical barriers, drones, advance sensor technology, and National Guard troops until additional border agents can be trained.
We must require the use of E-Verify by every public service agency and every private employer. And, every illegal immigrant who is currently in jail must be deported to their country of origin.
Once these three things have been done, I believe we can have a reasonable discussion about remaining illegal immigrants.
I did support the Arizona law and believe it was the right step for the state of Arizona. We cannot begin to fathom what that state goes through on a daily basis. In addition, the Arizona law mirrors federal law. If the federal government is not going to uphold its responsibilities, the state has a duty to protect its citizens.
Q: Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: President Obama announced in March 2009 that he would withdraw most combat troops from Iraq by August 2010, deploy 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and train Afghan troops, and begin withdrawing military forces from Afghanistan in 2011. Do you agree in general with those goals? Briefly, what in your view should be the nation’s future military and political objectives in these two countries?
A: I had, and continue to have, concerns about announcing a set date for withdrawal. As a veteran of the U.S. Navy, I understand that military operations require a clear objective and an achievable goal. Once you’ve achieved the goal, you leave. That is what I would like to see happen in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
With regard to Iraq, a remarkable transformation has occurred in the country. Although some sectarian violence continues, the country is relatively safe and peaceful. I would like the U.S. to continue to develop strong relations with Iraq and maintain a small presence in the country. I believe they will become a strong, strategic ally in a tumultuous region.
In Afghanistan, I have serious concerns about the lack of will that appears to be settling in among our NATO allies. In addition, unlike in Iraq, the Afghan government appears unable to provide security to the Afghan people. This makes it extremely difficult for U.S. and NATO forces to truly secure areas of the country. If this situation continues, it will be very hard for the U.S. to stabilize the country and remove the Taliban as a political force.
