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

I mostly use a hybrid car, but I also use the Metra to get downtown.

What are some transportation challenges in your district?

The district stretches from the urban neighborhoods of Chicago, through the northern suburbs, and into more rural areas of McHenry County. In the more rural parts of the district, residents face long commutes, traffic congestion, and limited public transportation options—challenges that are especially acute for seniors, people with disabilities, and working-class families who may not have reliable access to a vehicle.

In the district’s more urban areas, where CTA, Metra, and Pace provide transit service, riders continue to struggle with unreliable or infrequent buses and trains, safety concerns, and the ongoing threat of bus route reductions. Until recently, unstable transit funding compounded these problems. I was proud to champion the legislation that was signed into law to provide $1.5 billion in annual, sustainable transit funding, along with critical reforms to ensure our regional transit system can stabilize, improve service, and thrive for years to come.

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

As the branch that holds the power of the purse, Congress plays a decisive role in setting the fiscal priorities of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Congress should update funding formulas to direct a greater share of federal dollars toward public transit and passenger rail, modernize grant requirements to ensure all federally funded transit projects are fully ADA-compliant, and provide stable, long-term capital and operating funding to support reliable service and the modernization of aging infrastructure. In addition, Congress must exercise rigorous oversight to ensure transportation funds are used efficiently, equitably, and in alignment with national mobility, accessibility, and climate goals.

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

Past highway investments connected our country and powered economic growth from coast to coast. Maintaining that infrastructure is essential. But our persistent reliance on highway expansion as a cure-all for traffic, while public transportation is left to deteriorate, has time and time again proven to be a false choice we can no longer afford to make. Public transportation is not only a far more effective tool for reducing congestion, but it is also the more equitable choice. It provides economic mobility and opportunity for lower-income households, previously red-lined communities, older adults, people with disabilities, and people without cars. Additionally, increased investment in public transportation is also good climate and public health policy, reducing harmful smog, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter pollution. These are some of the main reasons I was a proud champion of SB 2111 which will provide an additional $1.5 billion in sustainable public transportation funding. I've also been a supporter of our state's infrastructure capital program which has been providing critical investments in transportation infrastructure projects across Illinois.

Right now, estimates are that around 70% of U.S. Department of Transportation funding goes to highways, while around 20% goes to public transportation. To make that spending more equitable, my idea would be to shift the allocation to equal amounts, so 45% goes to highways and 45% goes to transit. That shift would help eliminate most transit deserts, ensure all public transportation systems are in a “state of good repair”, and provide significant highway congestion relief while at the same time maintaining enough funds for regular road and bridge maintenance.

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

For the past 13 years, I have supported statewide investments in passenger rail, including efforts to improve the speed of the Chicago–St. Louis rail line and to expand Illinois’ passenger rail network. High-speed rail technology has been in use since the mid-1960s, and since then, trains that utilize this technology have become faster, safer, and more widespread worldwide. The United States, and Illinois in particular, should plan for and invest in high-speed rail just as we invested in the interstate highway system in the 1950s, with the federal government covering a significant portion of construction costs. Doing so would help avoid the challenges seen with projects like California High-Speed Rail and Brightline West. Beyond improving economic mobility and regional connectivity, high-speed rail can reduce cars on the road, lower emissions, and improve public health.

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?

The Red Line Extension and Red-Purple Modernization projects are critical for Chicago. They not only expand transit reliability and access, but also advance equity across our transit system. In Congress, I will oppose any efforts to derail these projects or their funding, and I will work with my colleagues to secure sustained, multi-year federal funding to ensure predictable, long-term support. Just as I have done in Springfield, I will collaborate closely with local transit agencies to strengthen grant applications for these and other essential projects in the district, making sure our communities get the infrastructure they need and deserve.

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?

Trump’s ICE agents are terrorizing communities like mine, leading with fear, intimidation, and now, murdering civilians. I have not stood on the sidelines. I authored legislation to ensure ICE agents operating under this administration can never wear a police badge in Illinois. In our state, law enforcement is built on trust, community protection, and de‑escalation—principles fundamentally incompatible with the tactics we’ve seen from ICE. In addition, I championed nation-leading protections for people at daycares, hospitals, and courts.

In Congress, I would support holding ICE accountable and advancing immigration reform that values compassion over cruelty. If legislation eliminating ICE reaches the House floor I would support it. We need an immigration system that keeps families together, prioritizes swift processing of work authorizations, green cards, and asylum claims, and provides a clear, accessible path to citizenship for otherwise law-abiding people who are already part of our communities.