What types of transportation do you use during an average week, and how has this shaped your view of transportation policy?

In a typical week I’m a multimodal commuter. I drive an EV, take CTA and Metra when it’s the smartest option, use rideshare occasionally and walk whenever I can. That mix has shaped a simple view of transportation policy: people don’t live in one “mode,” they live in a system, and the system is only as strong as its weakest links. If the sidewalk network is broken, the bus stop isn’t accessible, the platform isn’t safe or the schedule is unreliable, the entire trip fails, especially for seniors, people with disabilities and families with kids. It has also made me focus on first/last mile connections, safe street design and frequency, because those are the difference between “transit exists” and “transit works.”

In traveling across our suburbs I also realize that safety can’t be an afterthought: we need roadway designs that reduce severe crashes, protect people outside vehicles, and make it easier to choose transit, biking and walking without risking your life. Transportation is climate policy, equity policy and economic policy all at once.

What are some transportation challenges in your district?

IL-08’s transportation challenges are a familiar suburban mix: high-speed arterials that are dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists, congestion that wastes time and money, and transit that too often doesn’t match how people actually travel. Many residents are “transit curious” but face long headways, limited reverse-commute options, and weak first/last mile connections to stations. Accessibility gaps are real, too, from curb cuts and crossings to station and bus stop conditions that make it harder for seniors and people with disabilities to travel independently. We also see the strain of aging infrastructure: bridges, road surfaces, and drainage that need state-of-good-repair investment, not just patchwork. Freight and delivery traffic add wear and safety risks on local corridors, and families feel the cost of car dependence in insurance, repairs and fuel. The district needs a transportation approach that improves safety, expands reliable transit options, modernizes infrastructure for resilience and connects people to jobs, schools and healthcare without forcing everyone into a single mode. I have taken leadership here, partnering with PACE to improve first/last mile connections, and return transit to Harper College, as well as supporting multiple new bike and pedestrian pathways, cross-sections, and overpasses.. But we need more federal investment, and that is what I will fight for.

How do you view Congress’s role in setting priorities for public transit, passenger rail, and strengthening accessibility in transportation?

Congress sets the table, and states and regions cook the meal. Federal policy determines the size and stability of transit and rail funding, how funds are allocated, what counts as an eligible expense, and whether accessibility and safety are treated as core requirements or optional add-ons. I believe Congress should prioritize three things: state of good repair, service quality and equity and accessibility. That means sustained capital investment, but also smarter rules that support frequency, reliability, and fare integration across systems. Congress must enforce strong ADA requirements, invest in accessible stations and vehicles and ensure federal dollars actually improve mobility for people with disabilities and seniors. For passenger rail, Congress should provide predictable multi-year support for corridor development, rolling stock, grade crossing improvements and station upgrades.

Congress has a responsibility to use oversight to ensure projects deliver on-time, on-budget and with transparent community engagement, while also measuring outcomes like safety, emissions reduction and access to opportunity

What’s your position on the Federal government and Illinois’ current transportation infrastructure spending, and if you could change anything, what would it be?

I support strong federal and state transportation investment, but I also believe we must spend differently, not just more. Too often, the default has been expansion without fully funding maintenance, which creates backlogs and reliability problems that riders feel every day. If I could change anything, I would shift more dollars toward fix-it-first investments: bridges, signals, track, buses and accessibility upgrades that immediately improve safety and performance. I also want federal programs to more clearly reward projects that reduce serious crashes, cut emissions and expand access to jobs and education, rather than simply moving more cars faster.

Another priority is making it easier to fund the full trip: sidewalks, bike connections, bus stop amenities, and station area improvements that make transit usable. And we should be honest about climate: transportation is a major driver of emissions, so spending should accelerate electrification (including charging infrastructure), clean buses and resilience to flooding and extreme weather.

What is your position on investing to expand passenger rail service in Illinois, including the development of high-speed rail?

I strongly support expanding passenger rail in Illinois, including serious development of higher-speed and eventually high-speed corridors where feasible. Passenger rail is one of the clearest ways to reduce congestion, cut emissions, and connect people to jobs and education without forcing car dependence. For the Chicago region, improved rail means better connections among suburbs, stronger links to downstate cities and more reliable service for commuters and non-commuters alike. I support investments in track and signal upgrades, modern stations, rolling stock and grade crossing safety, as well as policies that improve frequency and on-time performance. High-speed rail should be approached pragmatically: set clear performance targets, build in phases and prioritize corridors with strong demand and economic payoff. I also believe we should integrate rail planning with local transit and land use so stations become hubs of opportunity, not isolated platforms. Done right, expanded passenger rail is pro-worker, pro-business, pro-climate and pro-competitiveness.

Federal funding for Illinois transportation projects – such as the Red Line Extension and Red-Purple Modernization projects – has come under threat from the Trump administration. How do you plan to shore up funding for critical infrastructure projects under a hostile federal climate?

First, I will treat these projects as what they are: essential public goods with enormous economic and equity returns. I will build and join coalitions across the Illinois delegation and with national partners to defend transit and rail funding in authorizations and annual appropriations and to resist politically motivated clawbacks.

Second, I will use aggressive oversight: demand transparency from agencies, require clear written justification for funding delays, and push back on any attempt to weaponize federal dollars against regions or states.

Third, I will fight to lock in funding through multi-year commitments and enforceable grant agreements whenever possible, so that projects can’t be derailed by shifting political winds. And I will communicate the local impact relentlessly: these projects mean jobs, safer stations, faster commutes and real access to opportunity, including for workers who rely on transit to get to work on time.

Fourth, I will work with state and local leaders to diversify funding stacks and ensure readiness, so Illinois can seize every competitive federal grant opportunity and keep projects moving even in a hostile climate.

Our streets have become increasingly militarized in the past several months as the Trump administration has ramped up DHS and ICE activity in our cities. This past summer, Congress voted to increase the ICE budget larger than most of the world's militaries.

What is your position on ICE and related immigration enforcement?

I oppose the militarization of our streets and the use of federal enforcement as a blunt instrument that intimidates communities and undermines trust in government. The recent federal immigration crackdowns in Illinois, Minnesota and elsewhere are living proof that ICE and Border Patrol now treat our communities like occupied enemy territory rather than neighborhoods of American families. Under “Operation Midway Blitz” federal agents descended on Chicago and beyond with militarized force. Ostensibly aimed at “criminal illegal aliens” and sanctuary cities, this operation quickly devolved into an unconscionable siege on immigrant communities and citizens alike. The tactics employed were those of warfare, not policing: flashbang grenades, helicopters buzzing low over residential streets, explosive breaches of family homes in pre-dawn raids, agents in full masks and military gear zip-tying U.S. citizens and worse. Peaceful protesters, journalists and even local officials have been met with tear gas, rubber bullets and brutality. I view these actions by ICE and Border Patrol as gross violations of civil liberties. Treating immigrant-rich communities as a “battlefield” is abhorrent. We should never tolerate federal agents behaving like an occupying force against our own cities.

Given this pattern of abuse, I cannot support the status quo of ICE. The agency in its current form has strayed far beyond any reasonable mandate. At minimum, we need an aggressive restructuring: strict oversight, accountability for agents who violate use-of-force rules, and a complete refocus of the agency on genuine public safety threats (like targeting violent criminals, not hard-working families). But if ICE’s culture is too broken to fix, then I support abolishing ICE and replacing it from the ground up with a new institution that upholds American values. That means shutting down the rogue operations, firing and prosecuting officers who abuse power, and building a new immigration enforcement body dedicated to humane, targeted law enforcement instead of terrorizing communities. In American history, we have reorganized or dissolved agencies that failed the public trust, and I believe ICE has reached that point.

As a Commissioner, I was the Chief Sponsor of a resolution of the county’s support for Due Process and Habeas Corpus as well as calling all local governments in Illinois to ban ICE from government property. I supported the ban of ICE from operating on county property, and sponsored resolutions calling for the unmasking, identification, use of bodywarn cameras, need of legal warrants, and the cessation of additional funding.