Skip to main content

WXRT: Pre-Legislative Interview

August 22, 2015
In the News

The following interview aired on WXRT on August 22, 2015. A link to the interview can be found here.

Mary Dixon: This morning we have our Congress member from the 5th district, Mike Quigley. I feel like this could be our better know a district segment, like Stephen Colbert did when he had the Colbert Report. But we're going to start with the 5th district, and Mike Quigley, good morning!

MQ: Good morning, thanks for having me on. I have to remind you that when we did Better Know a District with Colbert, so your listeners know what the 5th district is all about, his first question was, "So Quigley, 5th district, Rostenkowski, Blagojevich, have you picked out your prison yet?"

Mary Dixon: Umm, you're not going to prison this week are you?

MQ: No I told him I hadn't done that yet, and he appreciated that fact.

Mary Dixon: Well the nice thing about your segment was, I feel like you were in on the joke and not everyone was necessarily.

MQ: I think you have to understand satire, and listening to your morning show, I learned satire a long time ago.

Mary Dixon: Speaking of satire, let's talk about Congress.

MQ: Sure.

Mary Dixon: CBS News poll this year says that 17% of Americans approve of the job Congress has been doing, and it seems like every year you've got people saying, "These guys aren't getting anything done, and all they're doing is arguing. But this year in particular, 2015, this session, seems particularly gridlocked. Am I incorrect? Am I wrong in that impression? Was it kind of tough this year?

MQ: It is extraordinarily frustrating. People who appreciate history will remember Truman's do-nothing Congress that basically got him reelected. This Congress makes that Congress look positively busy. And it's frustrating. There are 535 members of this Congress and the fact is, the majority of them are hard-working, caring people who would like to get something done. I think we are captured by a minority of the extremists on the far right, and how we get past that is a really tough choice. But, I think people think that if you wanted to get something done, one person magically could. It's going to take the electorate pushing the leadership on the House and Senate side to put bills on the floor, to let the matters be discussed. Because I think we're going to be better known for what we didn't do. We didn't talk about climate change, we didn't get to immigration reform, we haven't rebuilt our infrastructure, if you're from Chicago you care about gun violence. I've been there seven years and there hasn't been a House hearing on gun violence, never mind that we haven't gotten around to education reform or tax reform or what have you. The sad part is, again, I think the majority of members have thoughts about this and could get something done if it reached the floor, but I think we're trapped by a minority.

Mary Dixon: Well, and this minority does seem to think that compromise is a dirty word. I mean, a lot of the Presidential primaries already heating up, there is a sentiment that compromising or meeting with the other side, the other guys, the other party, is a bad thing. And several of the Republican presidential candidates are running on the "I will not compromise with other viewpoints from mine," and that is gaining traction. I mean it's still very early, ultimately will not play so well, but for some candidates that's their bread and butter.

MQ: First, it reminds me of the fact that the Tea Party focuses on Ronald Reagan, in the sense that that's the person they'd like to be like. If you watch a Republican debate, you ask them what President they would like to be like, they all say Ronald Reagan. Never mind that he was the President who raised the debt ceiling, who raised taxes, and who compromised when it was appropriate. People forget that in the early 1980's, Social Security and Medicare were at great risk. And working with one of my predecessors, Dan Rostenkowski, and the Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, while they did yell at each other during the day, at night they had a beer and reached a compromise by reforming the tax code. Today that would be grounds for treason, and any President that did that would not be one that they idolized, much less one they wanted to be.

Mary Dixon: That's true. Well let's talk a little bit about what Congress did accomplish this year, what did get done. One thing we were talking about a couple months ago that did get passed, was the Fast Track Authority on trade agreements, which kind of found you in an unusual position because many Democrats and labor unions were opposed to that. They said it would be another NAFTA, that it would take American jobs out of the US, but you supported it and I'm kind of curious why.

MQ: Well first, we have to remind ourselves that this is an authority. It just gives President Obama the ability to negotiate a trade deal. This is the kind of authority that every President since Franklin Delano Roosevelt had. We just talked about the fact that Congress can't get anything done, can anyone imagine that we could get a trade deal done if the Tea Party is filing amendments on this? And if its labor issues, and environmental issues we're concerned about, do we really want the Tea Party amending that? So, on the other hand, here we have President Obama negotiating a deal who is progressive on labor and environmental issues. So I trust the President to get this done on a progressive basis. The fact that it is taking so long to get the final deals done shows me that he is doing exactly what he said. That he is exporting our morals, that he wants a good environmental and trade deal done, before he pushes it before the House and the Senate. And back to why we want to do a trade deal, let's remember: 95% of the world's population lives beyond our borders. If we're just selling each other products we're not going to do very well. 40% of Illinois crops are exported, 15,000 firms in the Chicagoland area export. We don't necessarily think about them, but Eli's Cheesecake exports, there are several. Howe Corporation, nestled in our neighborhood, exports ice-making machines to the Pacific Rim. But we're an open country, we have very few barriers to having products imported into our country. But our manufacturers face tariffs of 35-75% on items going into the Pacific Rim. If we can break that down, we will export more, and every billion dollars exported is 5,000 jobs. That's worth fighting for, if we get it done right.

Mary Dixon: Now, on the other hand, another issue that Congress approved was wanting more say with the nuclear treaty with Iran. You've got Senator Kirk from Illinois saying he is going to oppose it, he skipped the state fair this week to have a meeting with Israeli officials to discuss the Iran nuclear treaty. And you have some key Democrats. Chuck Schumer, and I think Eliot Engel, are going to oppose it. What do you think is going to happen with that, and how do you fall on the Iran deal, especially as a member of the Intelligence committees?

MQ: There's a reason that I supported, in Congress' past, the Corker amendment, which gave Congress 60 days to review this measure. It's 160 pages of extraordinarily complex detail, with important policy implications. So I'm going to take the full 60 days. As you said I'm on the Intelligence Committee, and I've been briefed in that committee on the more secret aspects of why it matters, how it affects our intelligence community and the work that they do. But I'm talking to my constituents, I'm talking to experts, and I'm proud that most members of Congress are still undecided. They're taking their time. There's a lot of hearings on this matter, and there will be when we get back, and I think that's appropriate. Look at it this way, there are positives and negatives to supporting this deal. I think what's been lost in this discussion, is the fact is, if we don't do this deal, there are ramifications as well. The United States will be standing alone without our negotiating partners there, the P5+1. And I believe that they will go forward without us. Iran will claim that it is the victim, and the other countries move forward lifting sanctions and doing business with Iran, which creates threats. In the meantime, we won't have any intelligence about what's going on, Iran won't reduce its centrifuges, it won't get rid of, or store, its highly enriched uranium, and that's a problem. So there are positives and negatives on this, I'm going to take my time and analyze this –

Mary Dixon: It sounds like you're leaning in support though.

MQ: No, it's just that when you mentioned there are people who are for, I'm saying there are reasons to look at this from both sides. There are concerns I have – the fact that it takes 24 days to get into a military institution to analyze that. The fact that it may empower Iran is of great concern. Whether that happens or not is something for us to consider. So weighing all those options we have to look at this, take the full time, and make a decision. You asked before what do I think will happen, and the final analysis, in some respects based on partisan lines, I believe that Congress will vote against this measure but the President will override. Then the question becomes: Will there be enough votes to override the President's veto? I don't think there will be.

Mary Dixon: Ok, well let's look ahead to what else is coming, but also to what didn't get accomplished in this session but may in the coming session. For example, this is another issue you may know a little about as a member of the Intelligence Committee: the cybersecurity legislation. Which stalled in the Senate, partially because Senator McConnell wanted to bring the defunding of Planned Parenthood to the floor for a vote instead, and that's another issue I want to discuss with you but, back to the cybersecurity legislation. Wouldn't it allow companies to disclose when certain information is breached and prevent them from being held liable for it?

MQ: Remind me of that point in a second, but let's get to what the Senator was talking about. When parties put forward their platforms, they make promises to America. I remind my Republican colleagues that their promise to America, their pledge to America, said that they would not put social issues on must-pass legislation. Unfortunately they seem to have broken that promise. When we were trying to authorize Homeland Security legislation, which is pretty important, they did the same thing. They tried to throw social issues on there, like Planned Parenthood. And now, on must-pass legislation, they're putting in controversial issues about Planned Parenthood, which simply don't belong. The fact is, Planned Parenthood provides extraordinarily important healthcare benefits to women and families. Only about 3% of their budget deals with abortions. Because of the Haight amendment, none of the federal funding goes to that end. To add to that "logic," it makes absolutely no sense to me, that anyone who wants to reduce abortions would defund Planned Parenthood. President Clinton once said he wants them to be available, safe, and rare. Abortions aren't going to be rare if you defund Planned Parenthood. The fact that they throw this out there reminds me of the fact that we have, over 60 times now, attempted to defund the President's health care law. So while there are many things waiting to get done, we're throwing Planned Parenthood and healthcare issues onto that issue, not because it helps get other matters done, but because it feeds the fodder, it feeds the messaging they want to accomplish.

Mary Dixon: And there's also some talk that the Planned Parenthood funding may hold up a budget, may hold up lifting the debt ceiling, and we've seen what happens when that gets held up and everything else grinds to a halt.

MQ: And again, President Reagan raised the debt ceiling. He didn't hold up the country because of it, he didn't threaten to shut the country down because of Planned Parenthood. Let's go back to cybersecurity to finish your question. This is not our fathers' or our grandfathers' conflict that we are in. The greatest generation fought and won in WWII, but when it was over, and it was finally over, we were able to commit to a peace treaty with Germany and Japan, and eventually become allies. This isn't going to happen today. These are threats our country faces probably for the rest of our lives and for future generations. Another important difference is, that threat couldn't come into your home through wires to your computer. These threats are very real, not just to individuals but to our entire country. Can they shut the lights off if there's a conflict? And there is obviously so much more at stake with the cybersecurity threat, so it makes absolutely no sense to move forward on an individual basis. If you're going to treat this issue seriously you have to treat this issue seriously and not throw other matters in there. It's tough enough to pass legislation in DC, but if you're going to add controversial issues, which really shouldn't even be debated at this point in time when you're trying to get serious matters done, you're not going to accomplish anything. It's tough enough to get things done anyway.

Mary Dixon: You're right about that. Let's talk about the transportation funding, because did that also stall? The transportation bill?

MQ: Unfortunately we have passed a highway funding bill, sort of a stopgap measure for about 34 straight times. So what they did this time was the House passed that, but the Senate has stalled on a long-term funding bill for highways. The fact of the matter is, what we should be doing is going big. For generations, this country's infrastructure served as the backbone of its economy, we dreamed big, we built bigger, and as a result our economy flourished. We've stopped doing that. Our infrastructure is rated a D- by the American Society of Engineers, and that's slowing our economic growth. Our competitors get that. Europe is outspending us on transportation 2:1, China is outspending us by a factor of 4:1, and it strikes home in Illinois. The US Department of Transportation rates our roads and bridges the worst in the country which should come as absolutely no surprise to your listeners. And how are they getting there now, to where they're going, the new generation? They're taking the train.

Mary Dixon: Well and you know for people in, this is not strictly your district I don't think. But you look at what happened with the Yellow Line this year and the embankment that crumbled because someone was doing work nearby and now the Yellow Line is not operating for several months because they need to repair it and they weren't prepared for that. And how do you address that?

Mike Quigley: We take this hundred year old CTA system for granted, but the reality is it carries more people than Amtrak does and it does it in a month. We've got to look at infrastructure as being a key component on an investment for our economy and our future. People under thirty aren't buying cars, they're taking the train, they are riding bikes. So you need someone in DC to have not just a desire to drive resources back, serving on the Appropriations Transportation Committee as I do, but you need someone who has a vision for what's going to happen in the next hundred years: what will reduce carbon gases going into our atmosphere but also get people where they need to go on a long term basis. And that's mass transit and bikes and pedestrian. We've got to fund that for the future, it does many things for our economy and our health.

Mary Dixon: Is there a chance of getting anything like that accomplished this year?

Mike Quigley: There is a chance that the Senate will do something like this. Perhaps it will be a six year highway bill funded only for three. As small as that is, at least it'll be a victory compared to these short term funding bills that we've done for thirty four straight times. Again, we have got to think big and pass a ten year bill so Chicago and Illinois knows what they can expect and they can plan for the future. We are talking about rebuilding Lake Shore Drive for the next one hundred years. That's going to cost in the billions, but we need to have the ability to plan and have the resources coming not just from the state but also from DC.

Mary Dixon: Yeah, well, and you need to be able to build a road that isn't going to be demolished in one winter, which does seem to happen.

Mike Quigley: Absolutely.

Mary Dixon: I mean I know we have a rough winter, but come one. How about the Obama administration's latest move to cut down on carbon emissions from coal fired power plants? That's already, I think, going to court, it's being challenged by industry groups, by a number of Republican lawmakers. What do you think is going to happen with that?

Mike Quigley: Well it's an important plan and in the end it reduces, carbon is the most important gas to reduce when we are dealing with climate change, and the number one source is a power plant, from a source we haven't regulated for carbon yet. So it's critical to pass these plans, it gives the states the flexibility they need in the next fifteen years to reduce carbon emissions by thirty five percent by 2030. Absolutely essential. When folks say "Why isn't this being debated in Congress?", hear is what they don't know. When I got elected to this office, I was told I have access to the best minds in the world. And that's true. Some of the best scientific groups, Nobel laureates, universities come to us, Union of Concerned Scientists. There's no excuse for not knowing. But I serve with people who are still climate doubters. The Speaker of the House does not believe in climate change. These are also folks who don't believe in evolution, that believe we were trod upon by dinosaurs. And honest to goodness, if it worked against their political beliefs I think they would start to question the laws of gravity. With that as a background, how does anyone expect us to move forward? The reality is we've gone the opposite direction. It's not just some of the states fighting these changes. The fact is, this is, statistically, the worst House of Representatives, the last two sessions, in the history of the United States on the environmental scorecard, on their repeated attempts to defund and take away all the rule making capabilities of the US Environmental Protection Agency. So we are not in the grounds of trying to deal with climate change seriously, we are actually unfortunately working in the opposite direction.

Mary Dixon: I mean, this isn't just belief, it's also money. You've got the petroleum industry, you've got the coal industry, which is, you know, has significant toehold downstate in Illinois. I mean they're spending a lot amount of money to protect their turf, and reducing carbon emissions costs them money. How do you work that out?

Mike Quigley: Look, I think there's a way and the fact that this plan takes some time, gives the states flexibility to transition those employees to other jobs. If the Obama administration has proven anything, it's proven that alternative energies create jobs. Wind and solar, for example, create jobs. Transitioning to that is the way we have to go. It's not as if we have a choice in the matter. So I understand and agree that those sources have their power and their influence, and unfortunately they are winning at this point in time. But the sooner we transition and move the economy toward a sustainable environment, the more likely we are to succeed before it's too late.

Mary Dixon: What else are you going to be looking forward to doing in the next Congress? What else are you going to be trying to persuade people to meet you in the middle on?

Mike Quigley: Well, I'll go back to one of the items I talked about at the beginning that we haven't even touched. In seven years I've been in Congress there hasn't been a single hearing on gun violence. Alright, in the meantime I was fighting to pass amendments that reduced our nuclear arsenal. And I asked, "What is it that keeps us safe? Does anyone think that the real threats we face are afraid of nuclear weapons? Does anyone think there's a terrorist in the world that's afraid of nuclear weapons? In the meantime, what are Chicagoans really afraid of?" When asked, Chicago school children's number one fear was getting shot. I don't know about you, but growing up, going to school, my number one fear was not getting shot. It may've had something to do with braces, or bad grades, or getting on a sports team. But to me that's a tragedy. And I was at the Supreme Court when the Chicago gun case was struck down. And people might forget that the justice who wrote that opinion said, "You may have a second amendment right, but it doesn't mean you can have any kind of gun you want, anywhere you want, and not everyone can have guns." I think if you look at what happened in Connecticut, what happened recently, you know weapons that were designed for theaters of war, not theaters, are at play. And you can go to Indiana to a gun show, and buy anything you want, whether you are on your third order of protection, whether you have been adjudicated dangerously mentally ill , or just fresh out of prison and you can take that anywhere and threaten people. That's just crazy and something we need to get to.

Mary Dixon: How does that happen, where you have an incident like Sandy Hook, and you have these children slaughtered in their school, and then you go to work, in the Capitol, you know, however many days later, and I mean are your fellow members saying, "Yeah I'm outraged about this but we're not going to do anything"? Does it just get swept under the rug? Like, how does that conversation grow?

Mike Quigley: Here's exactly how it goes. If you talk about it right after this, they say that you are manipulating the situation, that you are using a tragedy for political purposes, and that there needs to be a period of time for mourning and grieving for those who have been killed. And by the time that time passes, it has been forgotten. And if they can forget what took place in Sandy Hook and not move forward, and little kids are butchered and murdered, then I suppose we can pass by anything. But we owe it to those children; we owe it to the kids who that are killed in Chicago over every weekend to get something done. So if I can accomplish anything in that vein, then it would have been worthwhile.

Mary Dixon: If you can get a hearing up, that would be something.

Mike Quigley: We were allowed to have a meeting about it in my first term, in which we at least talked about some of the issues, but it wasn't a hearing and it had no effect. That shows you how much support, power, and control the NRA has in DC.

Mary Dixon: Let's go back a dozen years. Just recently, and we're going to go from Washington now to downtown Chicago and the Cook County Board, because before you were in Congress you were Cook County Commissioner. And just in the last couple of months, Andy Shaw from the Better Government Association was writing about Cook County Board President's Tony Preckwinkle's revisiting of raising the sales tax because of pension obligations, because of budget problems. And Andy Shaw and the Sun Times was suggesting that you really had a better way out a dozen years ago when you were suggesting dozens of efficiency and updating and consolidating apartments, tapping new revenues streams, eliminating programs. Is it interesting to you to hear some of your ideas that really weren't taken up coming back and being suggested again?

Mike Quigley: Yeah, they weren't really welcome back then, unfortunately. But I'm reminded, for example, when I wrote a report on reforming tiffs it was very unpopular, but now it's being quoted as mainstream. What were once vices are now habits I guess. Here's what's frustrating: there are long term solutions to our local fiscal problems in government. Unfortunately, if you wait until the eleventh hour all you can do is cut or raise taxes. But there's a better way if you do this on a long term basis, and that's to look at local government and say "If you could start over what would you do?" And let's remember most of our local governments were established and formed 150 years ago. You know, business reshape and reform all the time to meet current stresses and problems. There is no reason government can't do the same thing. Do we really need township government? Do we really need more units of government in Illinois than any other state in the United States? If we cut the number of units of government in Illinois in half by consolidation, we would still be first in the country; Pennsylvania would still be in second. I remind folks, it's not because I'm a Tea Party guy, I'm the opposite. But we are not going to tax and spend our way out of this. There's a better way. When the President accepted the nomination in Denver, people forget this, he said we need to streamline and consolidate because we can't afford to fund government without changing it ever. It's not because government is so unimportant or because someone hates it, and there are folks out there who do, it's because its services are so important that it needs to be efficient. I remind my colleagues, and people I hear from in the district, that government has a valuable purpose. When you call 911, Fred's Fire Service doesn't come out if you paid your monthly, or Joe's Police Service doesn't come out if you paid your monthly bill. The heroes of 9/11 were government workers; government workers teach our kids and protect us. When you land at O'Hare, that's a government worker. That mission matters. But I tell my folks who don't ever want to touch government, you can't afford to continue a plan that's 150 years old. But we need to do these things, it's going to take about ten years to reinvent, streamline, and consolidate our governments. So don't come to me in the eleventh hour and say "Well, your plan doesn't work right now." The fact that you didn't do anything for the last ten years isn't my fault.

Mary Dixon: We've got a few minutes left and we've been talking about some pretty serious stuff. But I know you're a real music guy. And so since you're home for summer vacation, let's lighten it up a little and tell me what you've been listening to lately that you've liked.

Mike Quigley: You know, I still like going out to the music festivals in Chicago, it's one of the great treasures we have, and hearing a group I've never heard before. I like hearing some of these kids that play at these Schools of Rock, it's just so refreshing. Most of the audience are their parents, of course, but it reminds you of where you came from in rock and roll, right. It was raw, it was a garage band, it was something special. You know, I learned about music outside the mainstream, listening to XRT when it wasn't a twenty four hour station. Back then it there was WLS and WCFL, and it was really top ten. And then along came WXRT and it really opened up the world. People forget that back then you didn't hear Led Zeppelin or you didn't hear David Bowie, or Roxy Music, or Muddy Waters. And you had, you know, Jazz Transfusion, and you opened up a world to a whole listening audience.

Mary Dixon: Yeah, that was the avant-garde. That was progressive stuff.

Mike Quigley: People forget, I mean, the millennials enjoy the ability to go on and hear something that no one's ever heard before, and that is wonderful is many respects. It was more a challenge when I was their age, and it was tougher. And I'm reminded you can still do that when you go to festivals, and you go to a club and hear something. It's pretty rare but I do like some of the stuff you hear on XRT. I like Al King, and I was talking about him on the way in. I like stuff that you can get away from the works of Congress, and go work out. The Cowgos, and so forth, very intense, get your blood flowing. So, there is still the ability to listen to fresh music and to have your mind lifted by something new.

Mary Dixon: Well, thanks, thanks for the plug, thanks for listening, and thanks for coming in today. Fifth District Congressman Mike Quigley here on WXRT and HD1 Chicago. If you didn't catch all of this this morning, you can listen to it as a podcast on 93XRT.com. Thanks for listening.

Issues:AppropriationsEconomy and JobsTransportation