Voter’s Edge Illinois
Conozca la información antes de votar.
Presentado por
November 8, 2016 — Illinois Elección General
Estados Unidos

U.S. House of RepresentativesCandidato para Distrito 4

Photo de Luis V. Gutierrez

Luis V. Gutierrez

Elected Official
Use tab to activate the candidate button. Use "return" to select this candidate. You can access your list by navigating to 'My Choices'.
Para obtener más información a fondo sobre este candidato, siga los enlaces de cada pestaña en esta sección. En la mayoría de los lectores de pantalla, puede presionar Regresar o Ingresar para entrar a una pestaña y leer el contenido.
El candidato(a) proporcionó información.
Agradezca al candidato por compartir su información en Voter’s Edge.

Mis 3 prioridades principales

  • Working Families Agenda: raise the minimum wage, guarantee equal pay, ensure paid vacation, family and sick leave and affordable childcare
  • Comprehensive gun control legislation that includes as a requirement a background check on every gun sold in America
  • Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) so that our nation finally has the functioning immigration system it deserves

Preguntas y Respuestas

Preguntas de Chicago Sun-Times (18)

What is your biggest difference with your opponent(s)?
Respuesta de Luis V. Gutierrez:


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?
Respuesta de Luis V. Gutierrez:

I think Congress should debate and hold a vote on an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIS. In fact, in 2015 President Obama asked Congress to do just that.  Republicans in Congress have rejected the idea, however.  While the fight against ISIS has proceeded anyway under the legal authority extended from the 2001 AUMF, I feel that the American people and our nation deserve a vote that would specifically define how our government is to wage our current battle with ISIS.  



More generally, what should Congress do to reduce the threat of ISIS abroad and at home? 
Respuesta de Luis V. Gutierrez:

ISIS is like no terrorist threat we have ever confronted before because, instead of massive attacks like 9-11, they use more rudimentary means to carry out their violence and instill fear and terror, such as suicide bombs and mass shootings.  Our intelligence agencies and the U.S. military with our international coalition partners should hunt down terrorists wherever they are and provide the training and support that Iraqi and Syria forces need to fight and defeat ISIS on the ground. We also need as our number one diplomatic priority to negotiate a transition in Syria that removes Bashar al-Asad from power and replaces him with a government that represents all Syrians. On the domestic front, we need to prevent suspected terrorists on the no-fly list from purchasing weapons, reinstitute the assault weapons ban, shut down the ability of ISIS to conduct on-line recruitment in the U.S. and work closely with the Muslim-American community to fight against radicalization and Islamophobia, both of which create opportunities for ISIS’ reach in the United States.  Finally, I believe we need to put the best minds together in the public and private sectors to identify the most effective, technologically feasible solutions to track terrorists’ encrypted communications without resorting to mass surveillance that most Americans reject.

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? 
Respuesta de Luis V. Gutierrez:

I strongly oppose such a ban.  Americans' beef is not with Muslims, but with ISIS, al-Qaeda and terrorists who seek to harm us. It is our commitment to religious equality and the freedom to worship that has made us the greatest nation on earth and this is no time to abandon who we are by imposing a religious test on those who seek to enter the U.S.  We should not succumb to fear of ISIS and abandon our core American values. That’s why I voted against the so-called SAFE Act of 2015 which would limit the admission of Iraqi and Syrian refugees to the United States.  Of course our utmost priority is the safety of the American people, but protecting our homeland and accepting refugees are not mutually exclusive goals.

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?
Respuesta de Luis V. Gutierrez:

I absolutely support the nuclear agreement.  As I explained in an Op-ed in The Hill that I penned with John Yarmuth, my colleague from Kentucky (, the nuclear agreement with Iran is good for America, crucial for Israel and an important step toward a more peaceful Middle East. I shared Americans’ skepticism and mistrust of the Iranian regime and could not have supported the deal without strict verification and enforcement of its terms by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in which the IAEA has unfettered access to inspect each and every nuclear site, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Should Iran fail to comply, the crippling international sanctions which forced Iran to the negotiating table would snap back into place.  It is clear that the deal is working, because Iran has already fulfilled some of its key commitments.  The deal has seriously restricted Iran's ability to produce fissile material, the key ingredient to nuclear bombs. Iran also removed several thousand centrifuges that can enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb, has shipped out stockpiles of enriched uranium and, instead of completing construction of a new reactor capable of producing plutonium for a bomb, has filled the core of that reactor with concrete so it can never be used again.  Unlike before the agreement, Iran is now unable to make a nuclear bomb and if Iran ever starts trying to build one, we will catch them.


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?
Respuesta de Luis V. Gutierrez:

My record on immigration and my proposed solutions to our broken immigration system are well known, and they do not have anything to do with building silly walls or deporting DREAMers or their families or other undocumented immigrants with strong ties to the United States who have come here, like immigrants before them, in search of a better life and to help build America. I am the lead democratic author of Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) in the House of Representatives (with Senator Ted Kennedy in the Senate) and I continue to fiercely advocate for it so that American families need not fear deportation of their loved ones and American workers and businesses are able to play by the rules to the benefit of all--and our nation finally has the functioning immigration system it deserves.  Despite Republicans' refusal to allow a vote on CIR, I have helped to advance the cause for DREAMers by signing up thousands for the DACA program that provides them with a work permit and protection from deportation.

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? 
Respuesta de Luis V. Gutierrez:

I agree with the judges.  IDs should not be required when voting—anywhere in the United States.  Protecting the right to vote is a critical legislative priority of mine.  I would not represent the residents of Illinois’ 4th congressional district had African Americans and their allies not fought and died for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. The right to vote gives everyone an equal voice in who represents them in government, and it is a right that cannot and should not be chipped away at through ID requirements or other initiatives that seek to limit people’s unfettered access to the polls.

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? 
Respuesta de Luis V. Gutierrez:

I strongly support keeping public lands, including national parks, in the control and care of the federal government and I oppose opening public lands and the outer continental shelf to oil and fossil fuels exploration.  I also support conservation and protection of our forests, wild refuges and public parks for the enjoyment of all for generations to come—not for industry or special interest groups to exploit for their own benefit or profit.  Our federal lands and parks make up so much of our national identity, it would be a shame to break them up among the states and possibly lose them to influential developers or the highest bidder.


What changes, if any, to the U.S. tax code do you support and why?
Respuesta de Luis V. Gutierrez:

I believe changes to the tax code must be balanced in terms of spending cuts and revenues. Corporations and the wealthy must also share the burden to help reduce our deficits. I support limiting high-income tax benefits, eliminating tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy and special interests and securing the payment of taxes on profits hidden in offshore accounts. Greater investments in America--in infrastructure, manufacturing and education--are needed to increase tax receipts, spur the economy and create jobs, reduce crime, and help revitalize neighborhoods like those in the 4th District.

What are the most important actions Congress can take to ensure the solvency of Social Security?
Respuesta de Luis V. Gutierrez:

Millions of working Americans and their families depend on the earned benefits from our social safety net to stay out of poverty. I have opposed proposals that would cut the earned benefits in Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.  Instead, I would support raising the wage cap on Social Security payroll contributions to extend solvency by bringing in additional revenues.  When I first ran for Congress, I expressed my commitment to raising this cap and indeed we did.  But the cap needs to be raised again; I would be glad to contribute a greater percentage of my paycheck to help keep Social Security solvent and viable for my grandson and future generations.  Too many in my congressional district believe Social Security is a ponzi scheme, and we must act to contradict that narrative.

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?
Respuesta de Luis V. Gutierrez:

I strongly support same-sex marriage.  I have never believed that my marriage with my wife, Soraida, was diminished in any way by two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together, simply because they share the same gender. No one should be discriminated against because of who they love.  When I review my congressional career, I consider my vote in 1996 against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be among the most important votes I have cast. And like the majority of Americans, I was extremely pleased when, after years of civil rights struggle, the Supreme Court finally legalized gay marriage nationwide by ruling the U.S. Constitution bars states from denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I also support the Obama guidelines issued that obligate schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity. This is both an issue of dignity for all students and consistent with federal laws and Title IX, which protects people from discrimination based on gender in federally funded education.  Finally, I believe conversion therapy should be banned.

What is the single most important action Congress can take to reduce U.S. gun violence?
Respuesta de Luis V. Gutierrez:

I think the single most important action Congress can take to reduce gun violence is to make anyone who wants to purchase a firearm first pass a background check.  Currently only 60 percent of gun purchases are conducted with a background check.  And despite the fact that 90 percent of Americans support such checks, the powerful gun lobby continues to exert its influence over many members of Congress to prevent action on this straightforward and lifesaving measure.  Given the daily loss of life to gun violence, including horrific mass shootings, this inaction is a shameful stain on the U.S. Congress.

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?
Respuesta de Luis V. Gutierrez:

I strongly support and was among the first in the House of Representatives to sign onto the Discharge Petition to force a vote on the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, a commonsense proposal that would close the loophole that currently allows individuals on the FBI’s Terrorist Watchlist to buy guns.  It is ridiculous that we would prevent a dangerous individual from boarding a plane for fear of them harmimg Americans, but allow them to purchase weapons in the U.S.

Should Obamacare be repealed, left intact, or changed — and if so, how? 
Respuesta de Luis V. Gutierrez:

I strongly support the Affordable Care Act and oppose its repeal.  More Americans have health insurance and the quality of that coverage has improved for millions of Americans.  Obamacare also eliminated gender discrimination by health insurance companies and ensures coverage of preventive and essential services for women.  Of course, there is room for improvement, which is why I introduced the “Exchange Inclusion for a Healthy America Act,” a bill that would impose the individual mandate on undocumented immigrants who meet residency requirements and allow them to purchase health care insurance in the exchanges with subsidies if they qualify, spreading risk and further reducing the number of uninsured.  I also strongly support the Health Equity and Accountability Act, which would inform our future efforts to improve America’s healthcare system by finally collecting the data we desperately need to reduce health disparities among racial and ethnic minorities.

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? 
Respuesta de Luis V. Gutierrez:

Like the majority of Americans, I oppose increasing the eligibility age for Medicare.  Medicare is one of the most successful government programs ever and it enjoys widespread support throughout the country.  The purported cost savings of raising the age of eligibility would actually result in greater spending—for the federal government through Medicaid enrollments, for the states as uninsured older Americans search for other care in their communities and for individuals, as they would be forced to pay more out-of-pocket.  I also oppose increasing the eligibility age because it would disproportionately harm Americans most in need of a health safety net as they age: communities of color, lower-income Americans and blue-collar workers.

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?  
Respuesta de Luis V. Gutierrez:

Throughout my career I have defended Planned Parenthood and their vital federal funding for their healthcare services—reproductive health services, education, birth control, cancer and STI screenings, mammograms, etc.—against fabricated and politically motivated attacks. I was also honored to serve this year on the Democratic Platform Committee and was proud to support the provision to repeal the Hyde amendment.  A woman’s right to an abortion is guaranteed by our Constitution, and a woman’s decisions about her health and her body should not be determined by how much money she makes.

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? 
Respuesta de Luis V. Gutierrez:

I support this proposal. The tuition is paid for through federal-state partnerships with community colleges and the goals of the proposal are gradually being realized as states, community colleges and other stakeholders get involved and work together to identify needed funding. A growing number of jobs in our economy require at least some college education and making the first two years of college free will be an important public investment in promising students and our economy where these students will soon be working (and paying their share of taxes).  States and localities across the country, including Chicago, are already offering or working to offer such support to students who may not otherwise be able to afford a college 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?
Respuesta de Luis V. Gutierrez:


There is a difference between what it costs for a student to attend a college and what a student is actually charged for tuition.  There is also a difference in funding between public and private universities.  In general, I believe tuition increases for students in the former are often a result of cuts in public funding and in the latter, cuts in subsidies for students.  This has been especially true during the recent recession, when unemployment surged and housing values crashed.  Federal and State treasuries had far fewer receipts and universities across the nation faced cuts in donations and private support.  In addition, college costs have gone up, at least in part, because colleges have significantly improved their curriculums and expanded services and extracurricular activities over the years, all of which adds to the ultimate price tag of a college degree.  As a legislator, I strongly support adequate funding for our public colleges, and believe that state and federal governments have the obligation to ensure that students, regardless of economic background, have access to a college education that doesn't make them drown in debt.  Bringing public funding for college up to pre-recession levels is a good place to start.  I also support increases in Pell grants, and debt relief for students who are facing insurmountable debt.

¿Quién proporcionó dinero a este candidato?


Dinero total recaudado: $507,169

Principales contribuyentes que dieron dinero para apoyar al candidato, por organización:

Border Health PAC
Ernst & Young
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
Service Employees International Union
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW)

Más información acerca de contribuciones

Por estado:

District of Columbia 37.41%
Illinois 36.19%
Texas 5.19%
Maryland 3.70%
Other 17.51%

Por tamaño:

Contribuciones grandes (98.60%)
Contribuciones pequeñas (1.40%)

Por tipo:

De organizaciones (66.65%)
De individuos (33.35%)
Fuente: Análisis de datos de la Comisión Federal Electoral de MapLight.

¿Quién más se está postulando?

Comparta este sitio para ayudar a otras personas a investigar sus opciones para las votaciones.