Voter’s Edge Illinois
Get the facts before you vote.
Voter’s Edge Illinois
Go to top
Brought to you by
ABC 7 Chicago@abc7chicago
November 8, 2016 — Illinois General Election
Ballot and voting information for Will County.
This is an archive of a past election.

District 3U.S. House of RepresentativesNovember 8, 2016Illinois General Election

United States
November 8, 2016Illinois General Election

U.S. House of RepresentativesDistrict 3

Share This Page

About this office

Representatives are elected to two-year terms to represent the people of a specific congressional district in the federal government. They introduce and vote on new laws, hold hearings, and are responsible for approving federal taxes.
Access additional information about this contest in the tabs in this section. For most screenreaders, you can hit Return or Enter to enter a tab and read the content within.

Who’s Running?

You can vote for 1 candidate of 1 total candidates.
Candidates are randomly ordered based on how much information they have supplied. Learn more.
Elected Official
Use tab to activate the candidate button. Use "return" to select this candidate. You can access your list by navigating to 'My List'.
For more in-depth information on this candidate, follow the links for each tab in this section. For most screenreaders, you can hit Return or Enter to enter a tab and read the content within.
Candidate has provided information.
Thank candidate for sharing their information on Voter’s Edge.
  • Foster the growth of good-paying jobs for the middle class, especially in manufacturing
  • Improve our roads, public transit, and other transportation infrastructure to make commutes easier and boost the economy
  • Keep Americans safe and secure
Profession:Elected Official
Question 1

What is your biggest difference with your opponent(s)?

Answer from Daniel William Lipinski:


Question 2: National Security

Congress has declined to formally authorize America’s undeclared war against ISIS. Should Congress take a vote to authorize the use of military force against ISIS?

Answer from Daniel William Lipinski:

Since October 2014, I have called for Congress to debate a use of force authorization specific to the conflict with ISIS.  A debate on this matter would give Congress the ability to question the Administration’s strategy, progress, and objectives.  For this reason, I supported the Schiff Amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations bill for FY 2016 which would have given Congress the opportunity to debate what our nation's role should be not just in the short term but in the longer term in the region.  Congress must also make sure that it is involved in discussing and debating our actions in the region and is conducting thorough oversight so that we do not again fall into another debacle like the Iraq War, more specifically the aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussein.  I did not support the American intervention in Libya because after I received security briefings I was concerned about what would happen in the country once Qaddafi was removed. Presidents rightfully have broad powers when it comes to foreign affairs and military action, but Congress must assert itself more in these areas.  

Question 3: National Security

More generally, what should Congress do to reduce the threat of ISIS abroad and at home? 

Answer from Daniel William Lipinski:

Overseas, we should continue to work with our allies and partners on the ground to build on the military successes that have been achieved over the past year in Syria and Iraq.  One key part of that strategy should continue to be cutting off ISIS’s access to the Syrian-Turkish border where fighters and money has flowed into Syria to support ISIS’s operations in the region and abroad. We must also pursue policies that prevent countries like Libya from becoming the next ISIS headquarters.  This includes continuing to help Libya form a consensus government and assisting their neighbor Tunisia in building democratic institutions and stabilizing their economy.  ISIS flourishes in areas where there is a vacuum of political and economic stability so by helping partners achieve stability we will provide the best defense against ISIS.

 At home, Congress needs to have a more constructive debate on how to better protect Americans from terrorism, especially the increasing threat from lone-wolf attacks.  Recently this debate has been stalled by divisive rhetoric and political stunts.  To reduce the threat of the next attack Congress must improve policies across a number of areas like education, community outreach, countering extremist social media, mental healthcare, refugee screening, and terrorist watch-lists. 

Question 4: National Security

Donald Trump has called for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration. Do you support such action? What restrictions, if any, do you support on the admission of Muslims into the United States? 

Answer from Daniel William Lipinski:

The recent terrorist attacks in the U.S. and around the world mean that we should take all security threats with the utmost seriousness.  We should not deny that a form of radical Islam is a threat to the world, including Muslims.  However, placing a blanket restriction on immigration based only on an individual’s religion would not only go against the Constitution, it could also play into the terrorists’ hands by helping their recruiting efforts as several security analysts have noted.  Our process for screening immigrants and refugees can be strengthened without placing a ban on all Muslims. We ought to make sure that we are taking an especially close look at anyone coming here from places like Iraq and Syria, and we should make sure that our security agencies agree a potential immigrant or refugee doesn’t pose a security risk before admitting them.

Question 5: National Security

The United States’ nuclear deal with Iran turned one year old on July 14, 2016. Should the deal be maintained as it is, revised or scrapped completely? What is right or wrong with the Iran deal? And should the next president feel bound by it?

Answer from Daniel William Lipinski:

I voted against the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) because I believe it gave Iran too much while requiring too little in return.  Since the agreement was reached we’ve already seen Iran testing the resolve of the P5+1.  For instance, sanctioned Iranian military personnel have travelled to Moscow in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.  Iran has conducted multiple tests of an advanced ballistic missile design.  Iran has purchased advanced Russian anti-aircraft missile and air-defense systems.  Making matters worse, the Middle East is engulfed in numerous wars and Iran continues to be one of the worst provocateurs in the region by funding and arming President Assad, Hezbollah, and Houthi rebels in Yemen to name just a few.  Congress should do all it can to enforce the deal while increasing sanctions based on Iran’s human rights violations as well as ballistic missile testing and development.  We should also be working on stopping the flow of money and arms to Iran’s proxies throughout the Middle East. 

Question 6: Immigration

Should the United States build a physical wall along our nation’s entire border with Mexico? Should a “path to citizenship” be created for the millions of people already living here without proper documentation? Would you support legislation to prevent the deportations of so-called “Dreamers” — youth who came to the U.S. illegally as small children with their parents?

Answer from Daniel William Lipinski:

I have voted numerous times to increase the amount of fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border, and I have long said that increased border security should be part of any immigration reform bill. With that said, we should recognize that simply building a wall will not solve our immigration challenges.  About 40% of immigrants residing in our country illegally came here legally but then overstayed their visas.  Walls would do nothing to address this problem.  And there are some locations along the border so inaccessible that building a wall would be superfluous and wasteful.  A more thoughtful approach to securing the border would involve increasing the number of border security agents, placing fencing at appropriate locations, utilizing appropriate technology to police the border, and keeping better track of those who come here on visas.


While I am troubled by the Obama Administration’s executive actions on immigration – which set a troubling precedent in bypassing Congress – I do not believe we should punish the people who came forward under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (which would protect “Dreamers”).  Congress needs to weigh in on this issue and on border security by passing comprehensive immigration reform.

Question 7: Voting

Federal judges in July ruled against voter identification laws in Wisconsin and Texas, concluding that they disproportionately impact minority voters and violate the U.S. Voting Rights Act. Should voters be required to show a photo ID when voting? And should the federal government have a say in this, or is it strictly a matter for the individual states to decide? 

Answer from Daniel William Lipinski:

The right to vote is one of the most important features of our democracy.  While states should be allowed to choose their voting practices, the federal government has a role in protecting this right and preventing states from enacting laws that attempt to target disenfranchised voters and prevent them from voting. 

Question 8: Public Lands

Should all or certain federal public lands, including national parks, wildlife refuges and forests, be given to states to control? Do you support the opening of public lands and the outer continental shelf to exploration for oil and other fossil fuels, even if those resources are not immediately developed? 

Answer from Daniel William Lipinski:

Our national parks system was established so that future generations would get to experience America’s great natural beauty and that these lands would be preserved.  Since these lands are preserved for all Americans, not just those that live in a particular state, I believe the Federal Government should be in charge of national parks.


The area considered the “outer continental shelf” is a different kind of public land maintained by the Federal Government, and we have long allowed energy exploration on such lands.  I believe we should continue to look for ways to expand energy production in the outer continental shelf, but only in areas where it has been determined to be environmentally safe.

Question 9: Economic Security

What changes, if any, to the U.S. tax code do you support and why?

Answer from Daniel William Lipinski:

The tax code must be reformed to make it simpler, provide incentives to promote economic growth, and raise sufficient revenue for important programs.  I strongly believe that votes on any potential tax reform proposals must be analyzed in the context of overall budget discussions and congressional decision-making on national priorities and Americans’ needs.  We must also ensure that tax reform does not result in unsustainable growth in the national debt.

Question 10: Economic Security

What are the most important actions Congress can take to ensure the solvency of Social Security?

Answer from Daniel William Lipinski:

For over eight decades, Social Security has provided Americans with peace of mind in planning for the future.  While personal savings, retirement plans, and pensions are important components of planning for a secure retirement, Social Security is the only safe and reliable source of income for countless elderly and disabled Americans and their families.  Unfortunately, our aging population and the increasing number of people receiving benefits threaten Social Security’s long-term sustainability.  For years, the program collected more revenue than it paid out to beneficiaries, saving the surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund.  However, according to the program’s Trustees, these assets are expected to be drawn down until they are exhausted in 2034.  At that point, the Social Security program would only be able to pay 79% of promised benefits.  Therefore, we must consider options today that will help guarantee its viability for future generations, while ensuring that current recipients and those close to retirement receive promised benefits.

One common-sense approach to help extend the long-term solvency of Social Security is to increase the current limit on the amount of income subject to taxation.  Current law limits the collection of Social Security taxes to the first $118,500 an individual makes, and any amounts above that are not subject to the tax.  In other words, someone who earns $118,500 a year pays the exact same amount into Social Security as a person making millions of dollars.  Raising this ceiling will bring in additional revenue to help sustain Social Security and do so without adding to the economic burden that most modest and middle income workers face.  


I strongly opposed the Social Security privatization plan that was put forward during the Bush Administration because it would have done nothing to address the program’s long-term shortfall and would have undermined Social Security’s role as the only source of a safe and secure income for millions of Americans.  Instead, we should consider modest changes spread out over time to put Social Security on a more sustainable path, just as we must do with our entire long-term budget.

Question 11: LGBT Rights

The Republican Party platform defines marriage as between a man and a woman. What is your view? The Obama Administration has issued guidelines to schools, saying they must allow transgender students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. What is your view? And do you believe parents of LGBT children should be allowed to force their children into conversion therapy?

Answer from Daniel William Lipinski:

In last year’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision the Supreme Court set America’s policy on same-sex marriage when they ruled that it is a right under the due process and equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, making same-sex marriage legal nationwide.  


In a broader sense, members of the LGBT community should be treated with the proper respect and dignity that is owed to every individual.  Our policies ought to reflect that respect at all levels.  At the same time, we should make sure that the Federal Government protects religious liberty and the rights of all individuals.  Some of these issues can be complicated, but we must strive to work them out in a way that upholds American values.  

Question 12: Gun Violence

What is the single most important action Congress can take to reduce U.S. gun violence?

Answer from Daniel William Lipinski:

The most important action Congress can take now to reduce gun violence deaths is to prevent criminals and dangerous people from obtaining firearms.  Measures such as closing loopholes that allow criminals and the mentally ill who are prone to violence to purchase firearms without a background check as well as strengthening the National Instant Criminal Background Check System would make it harder for dangerous individuals to obtain firearms while protecting the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens.  I have consistently supported legislation that would make these commonsense changes to our laws.  

Question 13: Gun Violence

The “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act” would give the Department of Justice authority to keep suspected terrorists on the federal “no fly” list from buying firearms. The bill was voted down in Congress late last year but pushed again in June after the Orlando massacre of 49 people. Do you support or oppose this bill, and why?

Answer from Daniel William Lipinski:

I support measures to prevent suspected terrorists from being able to purchase firearms.  It is critical that the Constitutional right to own and purchase firearms is balanced with our safety.  It is also important that people denied the purchase of a firearm due to a “No-Buy List” are able to appeal the decision and that the list has sufficient oversight to ensure it is not abused.  

Question 14: Health Care

Should Obamacare be repealed, left intact, or changed — and if so, how? 

Answer from Daniel William Lipinski:

In 2010, I did not vote in support of Obamacare because of the many problems in the legislation.  A few of these have been fixed; for example, the long-term care program that was not fiscally sustainable was never launched.  However, other problems remain.  The way to solve these is not to repeal the entire program but to legislate fixes that can make the program work.  Since the ACA’s enactment, I have sponsored, cosponsored, or voted in favor of targeted proposals to improve the ACA more than 40 times.  For example, I introduced bills to ease the burden of new ACA requirements on employers, cosponsored legislation to remove new taxes on middle class health benefits and to protect individuals’ rights, and supported legislation that helps small businesses continue offering health benefits to their workers.

Question 15: Health Care

A plan to replace Obamacare, presented by House Speaker Paul Ryan in June, would gradually increase the eligibility age for Medicare, which is now 65. Starting in 2020, the Medicare age would rise along with the eligibility age for full Social Security benefits, eventually reaching 67. Do you support this change in the eligibility age for Medicare? 

Answer from Daniel William Lipinski:

I have great concerns that raising the eligibility age for Medicare will be harmful to many Americans and may not result in the savings that are claimed.  An across-the-board increase is likely to have a negative financial impact on seniors who would be shifted to the more expensive private insurance market.  In addition, at least some of the savings to Medicare would be offset by formerly Medicare-eligible seniors accessing other federal assistance such as Obamacare premium subsidies.  I would urge my colleagues in Congress to prioritize other options to ensure Medicare’s sustainability, such as allowing the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for better prices for Medicare Part D prescription drugs.  Additional reforms should focus on improving medical care coordination, reducing duplicative or unnecessary tests and procedures, preventing fraud and abuse, and minimizing costly medical errors.  I support novel approaches such as accountable care organizations, bundled payments, and medical homes which are expected to bring about broad cost savings and healthcare quality improvements over time both in Medicare and in other health programs.

Question 16: Health Care

The GOP platform opposes the use of public funds for Planned Parenthood and other groups that “perform or advocate” abortion. It also opposes funding health care that includes abortion coverage. In contrast, the Democratic Party’s platform called for continued funding of Planned Parenthood and repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which bars the direct use of federal funds to pay for abortion. Where do you stand?  

Answer from Daniel William Lipinski:

A large majority of Americans, including many Democrats, do not believe that taxpayer funds should be expended on elective abortions.  I have supported this principle in Congress and will continue to do so.  

Question 17: Education

President Obama has proposed making two years of community college free nationally. Do you support or oppose this proposal? If you support it, how would you have the nation pay for it? 

Answer from Daniel William Lipinski:

With the increase in skills necessary to succeed in today’s workforce, we should do all we can to make post-secondary education available to everyone.  That should include community colleges, where over 700,000 people receive associates degrees each year and where people can pick up valuable trade skills while spending less total time in school.  I believe providing financial assistance to people who cannot afford community college is an important investment that our government should make.


The case is less clear for those from wealthy families that could otherwise afford the costs of community college.  A modest expansion of current financial aid programs could allow for people who are less well-off to attend community college without debt, which could be paid for by trimming other government programs.

Question 18: Education

College costs have risen at twice the rate of inflation for about 30 years. What is driving this increase and what should be done about it?

Answer from Daniel William Lipinski:

As a former college professor, I understand how important a college education is and how tuition costs are putting graduates into deeper and deeper debt.  There are a number of different causes that are driving up the cost of tuition. For public institutions, a declining share of state revenue going to post-secondary education has put pressure on colleges to raise tuition to make up the difference.  These cuts are short-sighted and should be reversed.  Top tier colleges face increasing competition for a small pool of the top students and many universities have responded by spending more on new amenities and buildings.  This is more difficult to address, but I believe that government efforts to provide more information regarding the value of a college’s degree can help students and their parents make better-educated evaluations of which school to attend.  I know that this is difficult to do and not without many potential pitfalls, but there is still not enough information available for making decisions about what school is best for each student and the most affordable. 


Not as well known is that a share of the increase in college tuition has been caused by the Federal Government and regulations placed on universities by Congress.  Some of these are important and worthwhile to ensure that students are well taken care of, but others have questionable utility.  For example, on some joint research grants Northwestern must audit the University of Illinois and vice versa, even though both are also audited by the Federal Government for the same grants.  That doesn’t make much sense, and it has forced universities to hire more and more administrative staff to deal with these requirements.  A study done by Vanderbilt University has suggested that the cost of such requirements on universities could be in the billions of dollars nationwide.  I have introduced a bill, H.R. 5583, that would call for a government panel to recommend ways to streamline regulatory mandates at universities and colleges and to eliminate outdated or duplicative requirements.  This would reduce the need for administrative staff at universities, thereby reducing tuition costs, and let faculty focus on education and research rather than paperwork.

Total money raised: $880,336

Below are the top contributors that gave money to support the candidate(s).

Air Line Pilots Association
American Council of Engineering Companies
Blue Dog PAC
BNSF Railway
FAA Managers Association
Honeywell International
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
Laborers' International Union of North America
National Automobile Dealers Association
National Beer Wholesalers Association
National Electrical Contractors Association
Transport Workers Union of America
Union Pacific
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America

By State:

District of Columbia 31.79%
Illinois 24.00%
Virginia 11.72%
Maryland 6.66%
Other 25.83%

By Size:

Large contributions (95.85%)
Small contributions (4.15%)

By Type:

From organizations (76.83%)
From individuals (23.17%)
Source: MapLight analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission.
Phone: 773-284-8566

Please share this site to help others research their voting choices.