Incumbent John Kline, a Republican, is in his third term of office. He is being challenged by Steve Sarvi, a Democrat from Watertown. The pair answered questions posed by the Minnesota Newspaper Association. Here are Sarvi's answers:

Q: Briefly summarize your personal background and qualifications.

A: Residence: Watertown.

Birthdate: Jan. 30, 1965

Birthplace: East St. Louis, Ill.

Family: Wife, Barb; three school-age children

Religion: Catholic

Work history: City administrator in Minnesota communities of Lanesboro, Watertown and Victoria, 1994-2008.

Military service: U.S. Army, 1982-1992 (includes time in Reserve, ROTC and active duty). Rose to rank of captain. Minnesota Army National Guard, 1999-2007. Served in Kosovo and Iraq – the latter for 16 months, returning in July 2007. Honors: Bronze Star Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Armed Forces Reserve Medal, Good Conduct Medal, Minnesota Commendation Medal, Kosovo Campaign Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Parachutist Badge, Army Service Ribbon, NATO Medal, Global War on Terrorism Medal

Education: Bachelor of arts, political science, University of Minnesota, 1987

Previous elective offices: Mayor of Watertown, 2001-2005 (elected three times – 2000, 2002, 2004; stepped down in 2005 to serve in Iraq).

Q: Terrorism: Should the United States maintain its current military strength in Iraq, or do you support a specific timetable for withdrawal of troops? If you support a specific timetable, what is it? Would you vote to end the war in Iraq?

A: Terrorism is a defining issue of the new millennium. We need to fight it with a stronger, more agile military – but we also need to eliminate the circumstances that give rise to it. Countries that frequently produce terrorists share common traits: Deep economic disparities, a pervasive sense of hopelessness and a widespread belief that the West only values them for their natural resources. A Marshall Plan-style investment in these parts of the world, shifting from a focus on armies to a focus on people, would reduce poverty, fear and despair – leaving terror leaders’ radical messages to fall on deaf ears.

But switching gears: It’s interesting that a question titled “terrorism” immediately asks about Iraq. The terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001, were not from Iraq. Terrorist activity increased in Iraq after we invaded.

I spent 16 months in Iraq. During my tour, I met with many village elders and sheiks who believe we’ll never leave. I believe the only way to effect the changes in political will that are necessary to bring peace and prosperity to Iraq is to begin withdrawing our troops. And while we should begin withdrawing now, we must plan and act carefully. I do not support a specific timetable. We owe Iraqi families, who have suffered much, an orderly withdrawal, not more chaos.

Q: Health care: Do you support universal health care coverage?

A: Health care should not be a luxury. High quality, essential health care is a right we must guarantee, and American citizens should not face bankruptcy because they get sick.

Unfortunately, President Bush and my opponent, Rep. John Kline, seem to be fine with the status quo, in which more than 40 million Americans see the emergency room – the only place where care cannot legally be denied – as their primary source of care. Beyond the uninsured are tens of millions more people who have insurance that keeps costing more and covering less.

In defending his vote against expanding children’s health insurance, John Kline said that we should avoid “reckless funding schemes” to bring about affordable health care. But continuing to rely on emergency care adds unnecessary expense that is borne by all of us – and by any measure, that is a reckless funding scheme.

Law- and policy-makers who are truly interested in saving Americans money on health care should be first in line to bring about meaningful change. It is fiscally irresponsible to make timely treatment and prevention less affordable for those who most benefit from it: children and those with chronic health conditions. That is what makes Congressman Kline’s position against expanding affordable health care to more kids so puzzling. Every dollar spent on preventive care and early intervention is paid back many times over through fewer days missed at work or school, gains in productivity and less expensive treatment. The old adage rings true: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Q: Education: Do you support or oppose the No Child Left Behind Act? Can it be strengthened, or should it be scrapped?

A: Much of “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) should be left behind. I don’t have a problem with testing; I do have a problem with kids being taught only to take tests. Kids learn to the best of their ability when they have an ample supply of professional educators who are recognized for their training and talent.

I support:

- More local authority. The federal government should let districts have more say about the tests used to measure students' progress so that those tests can be more helpful to teachers trying to make that progress happen.

- Adequate funding. The funding for carrying out NCLB has been irresponsibly low. Unfunded federal mandates like NCLB divert the resources teachers need and force local property taxpayers to pay the price, force schools to operate from referendum to referendum or put districts in the red, forcing serious cuts in academic programs.

- Rewards for innovation. Minnesota is responsible for some of the premiere education innovations of the past century. Rather than merely punishing schools for “failing,” our government should reward schools for developing programs that enhance learning.

- Promotion of better teaching. It doesn’t matter how many times you test a child on something they don’t know. Tests don’t teach. Schools should be places where teaching and learning thrive through appropriate teacher-to-student ratios, continuous teacher training on best practices and frequent peer review.

- Better measurement of results. We should track individual student progress, not year-group progress.

Q: Energy: Should the United States allow additional oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Should additional nuclear plants be part of the energy mix in this country? Please explain.

A: As even John McCain has said, ANWR is a refuge. It should be off-limits for drilling.

There are currently 68 million acres of land under federal lease by oil and gas companies that are ripe for drilling. Let’s drill there first.

Nuclear should be part of the mix as long as we solve two key issues: waste storage and waste transport. Many people are in favor of nuclear power until we start talking about putting plants near their homes. If we’re in this, we’re in it together – we can’t always be trying to push the consequences of our energy choices into someone else’s back yard.

Fortunately, since the 1970s much progress has been made on nuclear power, with Europeans using new-style reactors that are much safer than those that have been in use in the U.S.

There also are many other forms of energy we need to be exploring and developing: wind, solar, and biomass among them. But to fully explore and make these options real, we need to make smart choices with our money. Oil companies earning record profits do not need government subsidies – but today they’re receiving some $18 billion of them. This money should be reinvested in alternative energy research and development.

Q: Agriculture: Do you support the farm bill passed by the 2008 Congress? Why or why not?

A: The 2008 Farm Bill plots out a healthy future not just for farmers, but for all of us. A great deal of hard work and negotiation went into arriving at the legislation. I’m particularly pleased that it recognized the importance of sustainable agriculture, which is crucial to Minnesota’s economy and farming future. I hope that down the line, we’ll see further progress for small and family farmers, but this year’s bill represented real progress.

Q: Job creation: What policies do you support so U.S. companies can compete effectively in overseas markets?

A: Global competitiveness is only going to get more important. I support:

- Taking the burden off our economy that is the war in Iraq by beginning to withdraw our troops.

- Lowering health care costs and increasing quality by spreading costs, cutting the middle man and focusing on prevention. Healthcare costs are one of the chief reasons American business is less competitive overseas.

- Making sure our energy grid can keep up with demand.

- Responsibly fixing our credit crisis so that business can borrow at reasonable rates.

- Making sure our education system is second-to-none. We need to make college more affordable and K-12 classrooms more successful.

- Reducing the deficit and restoring fiscal responsibility to ensure our nation is prepared to meet future challenges.

- Moving towards more balanced trade relations, particularly with countries that own large shares of our debt, such as China and South Korea. It’s hard to have an effective trade policy when countries to which we owe vast amounts of money also have the inside track on trade.

- Investing in our internet “superhighway” so we keep up with the bandwidth currently available in other countries, such as South Korea and Japan.

Q: Immigration: What are your priorities in any immigration reform legislation?

A: Our nation has been struggling with immigration for centuries. My priorities are:

- Working with neighboring nations on root causes. Exceptional opportunities in another country – or intolerable conditions at home – drive people to leave their families, risk arrest and go where they know no one and have nothing. We must help eliminate intolerable situations in neighboring nations.

- Strengthening border security. There is no substitute for preventing illegal immigration before it happens. High quality, high-tech options have become available to us in recent years.

- Cracking down on American companies that exploit undocumented workers. The law should be applied equally to all – to employers and workers alike. American workers are denied the opportunity to earn fair wages because businesses illegally hire undocumented immigrants who will work for much less.

- Seeking solutions that are both humane and workable. Traditional U.S. immigration policy values the unification of families, the admission of immigrants with needed skills, the protection of refugees, and the diversity of admissions by country of origin. It’s not this foundation that’s the problem; it’s our system of enforcement that’s broken,

Q: Economy: What role, if any, should the federal government play in protecting homeowners against bank foreclosures?

A: It’s important for economic and family stability that as many people as possible keep their homes. We need to address both the personal and business ramifications of the boom-and-bust cycle we’re in and want to avoid in the future. We need to provide incentives for lenders to work with owners to put people on payment plans that work for them, which may mean freezing rates at their original level or writing down debt so that people aren’t responsible for more than their houses are currently worth. These things are in lenders’ interest long-term, also. It’s equally important we institute and enforce appropriate but not reactionary regulations to prevent future irresponsible lending.

Q: Federal Shield Law: Do you support the enactment of a strong federal shield law to protect journalists‚ confidential sources and unpublished materials? Why or why not?

A: I support a federal shield law. Journalists have a special responsibility to remain independent and keep the public informed about stories that sometimes, unfortunately, people in power don’t like seeing in print. Too bad. That’s why the media is referred to as the “Fourth Estate.”