Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

SPEAKER 1: Well, six weeks from now, Minnesota voters will get a chance to decide who makes the first cut, namely, which candidates will appear on the November election ballot. And this year, there are lots of decisions for voters to make. Both the DFL and IR parties have major contests for both governor and the US Senate.

So to help make the decision-making process a little easier, we've invited all of the major candidates to stop by for an hour to give you a chance to find out more about them, who they are, where they stand on the issues. Our guest today is former Minnesota House Majority Leader, former state human services commissioner, and former University of Minnesota regent, Ann Wynia.

She won the party's endorsement at the state convention in June, and now, faces Ramsey County attorney, Tom Foley, in the September primary. Thanks for coming in.

ANN WYNIA: It's nice to be here.

SPEAKER 1: While we're waiting for the callers to get lined up, a couple of quick questions for you. First of all, any reaction to the Star Tribune CCO Minnesota pollout over the weekend showing you and Foley pretty much tied?

ANN WYNIA: Well, actually, in a strange way, I took that poll as good news because in the polls that the Star Tribune had been running, all the previous polls had always shown that Foley had much higher name identification and actually was leading me. And so I look at that poll, and I see that the movement and the momentum has frankly all been to my benefit. And I'm encouraged that we're on track, and in the next six weeks, we're going to continue to make a lot of progress.

SPEAKER 1: The big issue at this point is getting DFL voters to support you, as opposed to Tom Foley in September. Why should they vote for you instead of Foley?

ANN WYNIA: Well, I think the same reasons, actually, that I would say to any Minnesotan. That I've basically demonstrated by my record that I have a history of getting things done, that I've offered, in many cases, real solutions to the problems that Minnesotans have been worried about, healthcare for their kids, welfare reform. And I'd continue to do the same kind of thing as a member of the United States Senate.

So that's why I would ask Minnesotans, as well as all those DFLers who are just planning to vote in the primary come September 13, to vote for me.

SPEAKER 1: Now, some of the candidates running this year, John Marty comes to mind, for example, have been emphasizing small donations, lots of small donations. And I know you've been very successful in raising money. The criticism, though, from some is that you've been getting all your money from the big special interests. True or false?

ANN WYNIA: Well, that's false. Actually, if you look at the money that we have raised thus far, $6 out of every $7 that we have raised has come from individual contributors. And 80% of the folks who have contributed to my campaign have all given under $200. I don't recall the average contribution size. I think it's about $130 dollars per person.

We have a very widespread set of grassroots supporters who have helped me raise this money. And we know, unfortunately, because of the fact that US Senate campaigns, unlike campaigns that are regulated by state law here in Minnesota, such as the governor's office, have no spending limits at all. And that's one of the things I've been talking about, is the fact that we need to reform our whole federal campaign spending laws in many respects, like some of the leadership has already shown here in Minnesota.

SPEAKER 1: I'm going to get to the callers here in just a second. One last question, though, for you before we do that. Can you give us a sense-- sometimes, it's a lot easier for people to focus on who a person is, what they stand for, by comparing them with somebody that's perhaps better known. How would you compare yourself on the issues with Paul Wellstone?

ANN WYNIA: Well, I think some of the main differences between myself and Paul have probably a lot to do with our personal style. And I admire, for example, many of the things that Paul has done with his ethics reform and the kind of leadership that he has shown on healthcare. But I think I have a track record.

Actually, I served in the Minnesota House of Representatives for seven terms before Paul was ever elected to the United States Senate. So I have a long record of service that goes back nearly 20 years. And I think that one of the things that really distinguished my service in the legislature and that I feel proud about is that I was a person who was a good consensus builder.

And I've often said, you don't get to be elected the-- you don't get elected the Majority Leader, and you certainly don't get re-elected the Majority Leader in the Minnesota House of Representatives, which I was, unless you've demonstrated that you can work with people from all different points of view, liberal, conservative, rural, urban, suburban. And one of the things that I think I've been proudest of is my record as a public official, has been the history of working with people from many, many different points of view, trying to figure out where the areas of common agreement that we could really move forward with some real solutions to some of the problems, and then forging a legislative package that was successful in doing that.

And I think it's that approach that has really distinguished my service. And I've had a variety of opportunities, both as a legislator and then as someone who was responsible for actually implementing legislation, that I think have given me some very diverse perspectives and would be useful in the United States Senate.

SPEAKER 1: First caller is on the line from Schroeder, Minnesota. Kelly, go ahead.

JULIE: Hi. This is Julie from Schroeder.

SPEAKER 1: Oh, Julie. OK.

JULIE: There's a lot of discussion, both at the national and the state level about welfare reform. And I know Ann Wynia was commissioner of human services for a while. I'd be interested in some of her thoughts and ideas on welfare reform. And I'll hang up and listen to the answer.

SPEAKER 1: OK.

ANN WYNIA: Well, thank you, Julie. And it's nice to know that we got listeners up on the North Shore. As you indicate, I spent a great deal of my time when I was at the Department of Human Services working on welfare reform. And I'm proud of the Minnesota family investment plan that was developed while I was there.

And in fact, that's a plan that has since garnered some bipartisan support. And I've been pleased to see that it's one of those things that I did that has continued to live with support from Democrats and Republicans alike in state government. The basic tenet of the family investment plan was that people ought to be better off working than not working.

And what's wrong with our public assistance system today is that that's not the way it's constructed. People oftentimes find that if they want to take a job, they will be worse off than if they just stayed on public assistance. I think that's exactly the wrong way. So the family investment plan did a number of things.

First, it said, we're going to provide an incentive so that people who take a job are going to be able to actually keep part of what they earn without having a dollar for dollar deduction from their benefits. We'll provide an incentive, and we'll taper off the public assistance benefits as they earn more, but they'll be able to work their way off of public assistance.

We'll also say the children are going to be able to continue having access to healthcare, and that there will be some monies available for child care if that's needed in order for that person to be working. So the basic approach of the family investment plan is that, welfare reform should focus on getting people into the workforce, getting them to take a job, regardless of what kind of a job it might be.

And unfortunately, in some communities in Minnesota, there aren't a lot of really good-paying jobs and full-time jobs that are going to be available. But the basic principle behind welfare reform, I'm convinced, is one that says, let's get people into any employment. Let's give them the opportunity to work and contribute to their family's income. And very importantly, let's give their children an opportunity to grow up in a home where they see an adult working and providing a good role model of self-sufficiency.

SPEAKER 1: Do you support the President's proposal, two years for training and job search and the like, and then if welfare recipients aren't working after two years, they get their benefits cut off?

ANN WYNIA: The approach that the family investment plan takes is that people have a responsibility to basically enter into a contract and set up, within a two-year time frame, the progress that they're going to make towards self-sufficiency. If they don't keep that contract, there is a penalty. It's a reduction in their benefits.

But I think the problem that I see in the proposal that you simply give people two years and then you cut off the benefits is, one, I think you ought to be much more proactive up front, not wait for the two years. And secondly, I think that ultimately, the cost of such a proposal, in terms of society's responsibility to those children, is going to be far, far greater. And so I would really prefer to place the emphasis on the incentives.

SPEAKER 1: Do you think that women who are on welfare with a child, if they have an additional child while they're on welfare, should they get additional money for that second child?

ANN WYNIA: We've got some interesting experiments that are going on in a number of states right now that are testing whether or not that particular approach will reduce the number of children that are going to be born in families that are on public assistance. I'd like to wait and see the results of those experiments.

I agree with the idea that, especially, we want to discourage births to unmarried mothers, and we want to discourage births to young women, children themselves. And currently, I think one of the benefits of our federal system is that we have states experimenting with several different ways to do that. I'd like to see the results of those experiments before I would ever endorse something that would be as drastic as that.

SPEAKER 1: So back to the phones. And now, we're going to hear from Kelly, who is not calling from Schroeder at all, but rather from Edina. Hi.

KELLY: Good afternoon, Ann.

ANN WYNIA: Hi, Kelly.

KELLY: As a Minnesota voter, I'm very excited to see you in the position of having an opportunity to be our Senator. And as a woman in the Senate, I would like to be reassured that you would vote down any healthcare bill that does not include abortion services as a standard part of the package.

ANN WYNIA: Well, Kelly, one of the things that I have said, as I have talked about healthcare, is that I think that one of the components that needs to be part of healthcare reform is a comprehensive package of benefits, and that includes many different things, but it certainly includes reproductive health services for women and for men.

And it includes also things like prescription drugs and longterm care. And I think there's a real high expectation on the part of, particularly many women, that they do not want to see healthcare reform result in their receiving a lesser package of benefits than they currently receive. And for the majority of people who have healthcare right now, full reproductive healthcare services are certainly part of that, and I want to see that.

SPEAKER 1: Would you support this compromise that's been talked about, which would allow insurers to act on their conscience if they had moral problems with insuring abortion?

ANN WYNIA: One of the challenges sometimes is knowing when you have to compromise, and right now, I really do think that choice should be with the individual whose healthcare is at stake here. And that's currently the position that I'm supporting.

SPEAKER 1: Sarah from Maple Grove, your question for Anne Wynia?

SARAH: Yes.

SPEAKER 1: Go ahead.

SARAH: OK, I was wondering if you have or will accept donations, endorsement, or campaign help from an organization that's made its choice on you based wholly or partially on race, religion, or gender.

ANN WYNIA: Well, I have a hunch that what maybe Sarah is getting at is there are some organizations that have been very straightforward in their sense that they really do feel that we need to have more women in the United States Senate. And I guess I would say that I share that perception that we need a United States Congress that is more diverse, that includes more women, that includes more people of color, and that is, frankly, much more reflective of the American Public than is currently the case.

Currently, I think over 60% of all the members of the United States Senate happen to be attorneys. They're well-represented. I'm not an attorney. I'm not a man. And I definitely would fall into a category that doesn't currently have a lot of representation in terms of formal presence in the United States Senate. And I think creating a diverse Senate is a very valid objective.

Having said that, I want to be real clear. I've never asked anybody to vote for me, to support me simply because I'm a woman. I think my record is one that demonstrates that I, as an individual, have been able to be effective as a legislator. I have strong experience also as a person who's had to actually administer laws in this state. And I also have some experience in the private sector as a member of a bank board that I think has given me a much fuller perspective.

It's that combination of experiences that I think qualify me to serve in the United States Senate. And happily, I think that there are lots of women, lots of people of color, who are also similarly qualified, and I hope that increasingly, our Congress will become more diverse.

SPEAKER 1: Back to the phones. Another listener is on the line. Troy from Minneapolis.

TROY: Hi, Ann.

ANN WYNIA: Hi, Troy.

TROY: Hi. Do you favor Bruce Bentley's call to make Voyageurs National Park a complete, protected wilderness area? Yes or no?

ANN WYNIA: Well, the whole issue with regard to Voyageurs has raised, I think, a number of local issues. And I know that particularly for many of the people who live up in Northern Minnesota and who have a great concern about some of the recreational outlets there, that there is a concern that there be some opportunity for some local perspectives in the development of that management plan.

And I have agreed to sit down and talk with them and see what we can do to ensure that there's going to be an opportunity for those local recreational interests to also continue to enjoy that area.

SPEAKER 1: So still kind of making up your mind on it?

ANN WYNIA: Yes.

SPEAKER 1: OK. Bob from Minneapolis, your question for Ann Wynia. Sir, go ahead.

BOB: Yeah, as you know, Ms. Wynia, President Clinton plans military spending of $1.3 trillion over five years, which is more than President Nixon spent on the military 20 years ago in the midst of the Cold War. Congress right now is on the verge of passing a military budget of $263.3 billion.

Now, it seems to me there's some obvious problems with military spending at this level, which I hope you recognize, one, it will consume half of the government's discretionary funds. It will squander billions on Cold War weapons systems, such as the Seawolf submarine. And it will drain funds needed for critical domestic programs. And obviously, it's going to contribute heavily to federal deficits.

So my questions are, do you support President Clinton's level of military spending? And if so, why? Or do you advocate cutting the military budget and if so, by how much? In other words, what cuts to military spending do you call for?

SPEAKER 1: OK.

ANN WYNIA: Well, your question is a good one. And I want to be very clear about this, though, because I do think that the United States Senate, the Congress, but especially the Senate, because of the role that they are given in foreign policy, has some special responsibility in this area. And I do-- I guess I do have to-- I want to be very straightforward. I believe that the defense of this country is one of the responsibilities of our government.

The challenge is to make sure that we spend our defense dollars wisely. And I want to ensure that when we are making decisions about weapons systems, submarines, new fighter planes, et cetera, that those are the decisions that are being made because they are perceived to be needed in terms of the defense of this country, not just to send pork barrel dollars to some particular legislative district and not just, frankly, to save jobs.

I think if our concern is jobs, that we would be better off spending those monies on some of the conversion efforts to have those workers employed in areas that would be doing something to restore the infrastructure in this country. The area, frankly, of the military budget that I would express the greatest concern about is, in terms of the total amount, a relatively small amount.

It's about the $15 billion that is there for the research and the development of the next stage of weapons. Now, the caller referred to the Seawolf submarine and whether or not I would support a cut there. And the answer to that is yes, I would. But I think an even greater concern should be the fact that we are now spending hundreds of millions of dollars to develop the next generation, even beyond Seawolf, the Centurion submarine.

And we know how these kinds of expenditures grow. You start small, and after you get $1 billion or so invested, then the argument is, well, you can't cut now because we've already spent the money. And so I think we ought to be taking a really hard look now at those particular research and development budgets and asking the hard question of whether or not we truly believe in terms of the challenges that we're going to face in the international system, in light of the changes that have occurred in the Soviet Union, and in light of some of the opportunities, perhaps, for new technology to replace some of the things like the submarines and the aircraft carriers, whether or not those are really the major expenditures that are going to enhance the security of this country.

I'm not convinced they are, and that's the area where I would like to start taking a look and making some cuts.

SPEAKER 1: I was reading, over the weekend, there's apparently quite a bit of concern now, certainly, at the Pentagon, about the amount of money and time and energy that is being set aside for humanitarian missions. Not that any one of them is a problem, or maybe two or three may not be a problem and may, in fact, be a good use of resources.

But apparently, there's a concern that that's about all that the military is being used for these days. They're not getting their training time in. Their money that is meant for training and equipment and the rest is being used up for humanitarian missions. And that what we're going to end up with is a force that could be very good at delivering food, but isn't very good at what it's supposed to be doing.

ANN WYNIA: The international arena has changed so dramatically in the last five years, and we are still adapting to the changed kind of expectations of what the American role is going to be. And we see that, even as we just-- as we're also currently, with all the hindsight, looking back at the events in Rwanda and asking whether or not we should have intervened earlier and whether or not we could have been successful if we had.

And I think it's going to be a period here of some tough adjustment as we figure out what's the US role and then make the changes in the allocation of our dollars and our resources to be consistent with what that's going to be.

SPEAKER 1: Jeff from Roseville is on the line with a question. Hello.

JEFF: Hi, Anne. I guess this is pretty much on the same vein as what you were just talking about. I know that some time ago, Senator Dole said that-- he expressed some disapproval for a possible military invasion of Haiti by US troops because he didn't see any threat to our interests. So it seems like we'd be going in there pretty much on a human rights issue.

And I wanted to know about your thoughts on that. And further, I wanted to know more about what you thought about what kind of a role human rights should play in our foreign policy.

ANN WYNIA: Well, actually, I think that human rights do play a role in our foreign policy. And I think we look particularly at that situation in Haiti, where we had a democratically-elected president who was deposed by a group, essentially, of military thugs. And I think it's appropriate that the United States exercise its influence to try to restore a democratically-elected government in a country that's very close to ours, in which we have historically taken a high degree of interest, and where we are currently experiencing a number of refugees from, at least attempted refugees.

And the boycott that we employed earlier does not appear to have been successful. That's why I very strongly support some of the enhanced kinds of efforts that have been made to place a greater burden on the elites in that country in terms of the price that's being paid for the refusal to restore Democratic government.

I think the freeze on the travel, basically denying them the opportunity to, I don't know, jump in an American Airlines plane and fly to the United States and go shopping in New York, is the kind of thing, frankly, that we should have done from the beginning. I think the freezing of their assets in this country and asking other countries who share our perspective to similarly freeze those assets puts the pressure where it should be put, on the people with money and power in Haiti.

And I hope that that is going to finally be successful. And obviously, just over the last 24 hours, we have seen the United Nations adopt a position in favor of a possible intervention. I'm glad that we've got that kind of UN support for whatever action the United States might take. But I've said all along that I'm not going to support any kind of military intervention until I'm really confident that the plan is there and the commitment is there to be successful, and then to also have devised how we're going to exit once we have restored Democratic government.

SPEAKER 1: Do you think that those conditions are in place yet? Do you think the administration has a plan that you would be comfortable with?

ANN WYNIA: Well, I'm currently not yet sufficiently convinced of that and would like to have a chance to see some more information before I would say that I'm confident that we've reached that stage and that we should go ahead and militarily intervene.

SPEAKER 1: Second part of his question had to do with the importance of human rights and in terms of where that sits on the continuum of things to weigh should, for example, the president have extended MFN for China, which has clearly been criticized for its human rights record. That seemed to be one of those areas where two contending and competing interests butted head to head.

ANN WYNIA: And one of the hardest challenges as I talked with people about the MFN issue for China was the disagreement among people who share an absolute commitment to human rights. And the question becomes of, how do you best obtain that objective? Is it by severing those kinds of trade relationships with China? Or is it by continuing to engage in that kind of relationship, use those opportunities to infuse American Democratic ideas into that population, continue the kind of interaction that it affords you?

And I think one of the hardest choices sometimes-- and not when you're deciding what your goal is. I think everybody-- I hope most people, anyway, agree with the support for human rights. The hard question sometimes is, how do you achieve it? And I ultimately decided that I thought that we were more likely to achieve it if we continued to maintain a relationship with China.

We did not have the same situation in regard to China that we had, for example, with regard to South Africa, where we had basically overwhelming support by all the nations of the world to try to exert the pressure there and force compliance. The situation with China is one that, frankly, had the United States voted to sever any of its trade relationships. I don't think that it would have resulted as much in the pursuit of human rights as we may be able to do by continuing a relationship and continuing to put the pressure on.

SPEAKER 1: Our guest today is Ann Wynia, who is seeking the DFL party's nomination for the US Senate. We have a caller from Cold Spring on the line. Hello.

SPEAKER 2: Hello, Ms. Wynia. Do you support more or less government support for agriculture?

ANN WYNIA: Well, I think one of the things we are witnessing this summer, which is real troubling, is that we see that farmers in Minnesota, after several very bad summers, are actually turning out a pretty good crop, it looks like. And the thing that I have heard overwhelmingly from farmers is their anger, their frustration, and their despair that now, the prices are going down, and they are not even going to be able to cover, in some cases, the cost of production.

And one of the things that I feel very strongly that we need to do, in terms of agriculture policy in this country, is understand that unless we get a fair price for farmers, we are going to see the continued de-population of our rural communities, and that is going to impose a tremendous cost on our society. I think federal support for a fair price for farm products is consistent with our commitment to rural communities and trying to ensure that they're going to be viable and afford people a good place to live and raise a family.

We're not going to be able, however, to simply doing it purely by how we set the target price for farm products. I think we've also got to be much more strategic in terms of our support for the diversification of rural communities using farm products that are grown in that community's area, but doing more of the processing and the marketing in the community so that we can actually add some jobs in the agricultural sector close to where the crops are grown.

SPEAKER 1: Back to the phones. Mark from Rochester is on the line with a question. Hello.

MARK: Yes, good afternoon.

ANN WYNIA: Hi, Mark.

MARK: How are you doing today?

ANN WYNIA: Just great.

MARK: Good. Question and possibly a comment on radioactive waste production and storage. I guess on the local level in Minnesota, many of us in the environmental community are particularly disturbed at the action of the legislature, allowing NSP to store high-level radioactive waste, not only on the banks of the river, but next to a Native American community that doesn't want it.

And many of us, quite frankly, feel betrayed by the DFL leadership, Irv Anderson and Roger Moe, in putting this deal together. But because you may be moving into the federal arena and because the federal government has taken a responsibility for high-level radioactive waste storage, I'd like to have your thoughts, one, on the idea of a permanent national waste repository, particularly if Yucca Mountain doesn't happen, and they start looking at Northern Minnesota again.

And then secondly, and maybe more importantly, what your feelings are on the continued production of radioactive waste in light of the problems it's causing us. And then lastly, a suggestion in the form of a comment, if you may get to the Senate, many of us would be interested in seeing some legislation that would possibly prohibit hazardous waste and radioactive waste storage on the banks and within floodplains of our major riverways in the country. To many of us, that only makes sense. But I'll hang up and listen. And thank you.

SPEAKER 1: OK, first of all, what are the prospects, as far as you can tell, of an actual permanent waste disposal facility, a federal disposal facility which the federal government has been promising for years and years?

ANN WYNIA: The current attention, of course, is centered on Yucca Mountain out in Nevada. And not surprisingly, that has generated controversy in that state. I think it is important, however, that the federal government kind of face up to the responsibility that it created for itself when it promoted the development of nuclear energy as a safe, alternative source of energy back in the 1950s.

And the safest possible disposal of nuclear waste is a responsibility that the federal government took for itself, and it has failed to do. And I support the efforts to try to develop a central national depository for nuclear waste. I think the current situation, where you see states like Minnesota increasingly facing these problems, where they've run out of the on-plant storage capacity, is becoming increasingly common.

And what we're going to see is a proliferation of sites all around the United States that are not going to meet the standards that I think we should expect of this waste. And I think the federal government needs to get on with it, and I'm hopeful that they're going to be successful in doing that.

SPEAKER 1: If they decide somewhere along the line that Yucca Mountain just isn't going to work, and they turn around and say, well, gee, we can put it up in Northern Minnesota. It'd be a good place to put it. And that would solve everybody else's problem. Would you support that?

ANN WYNIA: Well, let me just say that, that is not going to be a position that I'm just going to embrace enthusiastically. Absolutely not.

[LAUGHTER]

That's not my idea for Northern Minnesota.

SPEAKER 1: So we need a national site, but not here?

ANN WYNIA: Well, I think what we can expect is that it is appropriate that everybody, obviously, would think we need someplace. But I don't think-- well, I believe that my responsibility as a United States Senator is to basically represent the state of Minnesota and make sure that if anybody is talking about doing that in Minnesota, that we're going to ask all the questions and do everything that we can to avoid somebody putting it here just because it's a politically easy place to put it. Absolutely not.

SPEAKER 1: OK. And very briefly here, his other concern, would you support some kind of legislation which would put a limit, I suppose, on continued production of nuclear waste around the country?

ANN WYNIA: I think the focus really does need to be on measures to encourage alternative sources of energy. And, at least one of the good things, I think, that we can look at as a result of the Prairie Island Legislation that passed this past year, is the development of a wind power source for electrical energy here in Minnesota.

And that is where I think the focus should be put, is to develop those alternatives and to reduce our reliance on nuclear power.

SPEAKER 1: But not any immediate shutdown of all nuclear plants?

ANN WYNIA: Well, I've actually said that I would have-- had I been in the legislature, and I wasn't, but had I been in the legislature, I would not have voted for the dry cask storage on Prairie Island.

SPEAKER 1: And finally, federal legislation which would prohibit any kind of hazardous waste or nuclear waste stored on floodplains, would you support that?

ANN WYNIA: Well, I think actually, as part of the-- there's a number of environmental bills that are likely to be coming up in the next year that are going to deal with protecting our water, our groundwater, as well as our lakes and rivers and streams. And absolutely, the idea of putting hazardous waste storage facilities in ways that directly threaten our waterways, it strikes me as that's not a sensible place to be disposing of it.

SPEAKER 1: Back to the phones. And Jean is on the line with a question from Saint Paul. Hello.

JEAN: Hi, Ann.

ANN WYNIA: Hi.

JEAN: Ann, I consider myself to be a mainstream voter, and I'm really concerned by the kinds of conservative issues that are being touted by the endorsed Republican candidates, both Quist and Grams. And while I'm not really an ultrafeminist, I really resent the kind of second class status that the Republican right-wing candidates are giving to women. Ann, would you comment, please?

ANN WYNIA: Well, the Republicans are having so much fun fighting with one another that, actually, for all of us in the DFL party, this has been kind of a fun year to watch. But I guess I would say that I think it's important in our society that we affirm the opportunity for all people, men and women and little boys and little girls, to be fully participating members.

And that one of the things, frankly, that I would have hoped that Congressman Grams would have done would have been to at least repudiate some of the ideas from the gubernatorial candidate, Allen Quist, that somehow, there was this genetic predisposition that women were not competent to participate fully in making government decisions. And I hope, at some point, he'll at least do that.

SPEAKER 1: Back to the phones, another question for Ann Wynia, this time from Eileen. Hello.

EILEEN: Hello, Ann. My question concerns the gridlock in Congress. That's one of the most frustrating things to me. Now, I know you were Majority Leader in the Minnesota House, and you were very successful at getting things done there. I know that took a lot of consensus building, bringing people together. You talked briefly earlier in the program about that.

My question to you is, will these skills readily translate to the US senate? And just how do you work to end the gridlock? What's your prescription? I'd like to hear that. Thank you.

SPEAKER 1: OK.

ANN WYNIA: Well, Eileen, I think those skills do translate. And that having had the experience of working in a legislative body to forge a consensus to pass legislation would be extremely valuable. But I think that's not sufficient. I think we also need to change the rules by which the United States Congress, and specifically the Senate, does its business.

One of the things that was part of the rules in the Minnesota House of Representatives, for example, was a kind of a limit on how long people were going to talk and an expectation that when we took a bill up one day, we would complete action on it that day. Unfortunately, what we have seen in the United States Senate, and it has become increasingly common, so that now, I believe there's an average of 15 filibusters every year in the United States Senate.

And those are usually brought out on some of the most important and controversial legislation, so that somebody who doesn't like it sees this as just a good way to kill it. And I think, frankly, that we need to get rid of the filibuster. It has outlived its usefulness, and it ought to be possible for the majority of the members of the United States Senate to complete work and actually pass legislation to respond to people's concerns in this country.

SPEAKER 1: And you think the minority would be protected in that instance?

ANN WYNIA: I think the minority certainly could be afforded the right to speak. And if you want to put a reasonable limit on it, make sure that every member of the minority has an hour to speak so that their viewpoint is heard, that's fine. I certainly don't want to deprive the minority of the right to have their voice heard. But I think ultimately, there's got to come a time when you take a vote and let majority rule. That's a basic principle of Democratic government.

And currently, what we are seeing in the United States Senate is that it is minority rule. And you see that sometimes. For example, Senator Dole has threatened that if he doesn't get the healthcare reform that he wants, that he's just going to filibuster everybody else's bill. I think that's wrong.

Sometimes, we see, in fact, that the filibuster is used as a tool to get pork barrel projects into appropriations bills. Senator D'Amato, for example, once trying to get a major expenditure of public dollars that was going to directly benefit New York, simply said he was just going to keep talking until they finally put it in, and he was successful. I think that's tragic. I don't think that's the way to make decisions.

And I think certainly allowing the minority to have their say, but ultimately, at least letting the whole body take a vote and the majority rule, is consistent with Democratic government.

SPEAKER 1: Our guest today is Ann Wynia, who is seeking the DFL nomination for the US Senate. She will be appearing on the September primary ballot. Brad from Burnsville is on the line with a question. Hi.

BRAD: Hi, Ann.

ANN WYNIA: Hi, Brad.

BRAD: OK, I see where President Clinton has called for taking away the constitutional rights of those living in subsidized federal housing. Do you support his call for warrantless searches at federal low-income housing?

ANN WYNIA: Well, the issue that you refer to is one that I've never read the specific legislation, but I have had a chance to at least read a little bit about that and the concerns that many people have who live, particularly in some of the federal housing, the federally subsidized housing, some of our major cities.

And I don't know, frankly, that Minnesota has been cited as one of the cases of this, but where people are genuinely concerned about their safety and their children's safety and their desire to have some kind of a system, much like you have a security system, frankly, at an airport, to ensure that people who are entering the project aren't coming in armed and constituting a threat to others. Seems to me you've already got a balance off, to some extent, the interest of those people to protect themselves and their children.

And I guess in the same way that I don't view a checkpoint at an airport to be an intrusion on personal liberty, it doesn't seem to me unreasonable to have a similar kind of system at some of these housing projects so that the residents can also feel that once they're inside, they're protected, they're safe.

SPEAKER 1: Department of Housing and Urban Development has also been moving more toward scattered site subsidized housing, essentially getting away from the big projects and spreading people across a Metropolitan area. Do you think that communities, suburban communities, for example, should be required to accept a certain number of low-income residents each year?

ANN WYNIA: I think that it is important that we disperse our low-income housing and that we require communities, particularly if they want to receive other kinds of state or federal monies for some other kind of purposes, that they would also share in that responsibility for providing housing for people of various incomes. One of the things that we see very frequently here in the Twin Cities area is increasingly much of the job growth and development is occurring outside the center cities.

And unless people are going to be able to live in communities where they're going to have transportation and access to those jobs, it's going to be much, much more difficult to fully integrate people into our economy.

SPEAKER 1: Back to the phones. Mary Ellen from West Saint Paul is on the line with a question. Hello.

MARY ELLEN: Hi, Ann.

ANN WYNIA: Hi, Mary Ellen.

MARY ELLEN: I have another healthcare question, and I was happy to hear that you support prescription drugs and longterm care in a comprehensive package. But I had heard or read recently that your primary opponent, Foley, doesn't support healthcare reform for all. What's your stand on universal coverage? I'll hang up and listen.

ANN WYNIA: Well, I've enumerated several different principles that I think should be part of any healthcare reform in this country. And the first, which we've already talked about, is the comprehensive package of benefits. And sometimes, I think the best way to sum that up is to say that the package of benefits ought to be one that would be applied to the members of Congress, as well as to all the American public, and we could be confident, then, that it would be a good comprehensive package of benefits.

I also support universal coverage and reiterated, in fact, a week or so ago when it looked as though maybe some folks might be wavering in that, that I wanted the president and I wanted all the members of the Minnesota delegation to hang in there and support universal coverage.

SPEAKER 1: And was at 100%, 99%, 95%? We keep hearing these numbers bandied about. What are we talking about?

ANN WYNIA: When I talk about universal, I mean everybody.

SPEAKER 1: 100%?

ANN WYNIA: 100%.

SPEAKER 1: OK.

ANN WYNIA: I think the problem is that if you don't include everybody, that what you end up with is that the folks who are not covered are ultimately going to make it much more difficult for you to control costs because you're going to continue to have the cost shifting in your healthcare system. And devising a way that is going to cover everyone is important in terms of finally accomplishing real healthcare reform in this country.

It's also part of the whole cost containment features that need to be present, and that's another element that I would include in any kind of healthcare reform. Let me just mention a couple of other things, though, since this caller asked. I think that the level of co-pays and deductibles that should be part of the program should be reasonable.

I'm not opposed to co-pays and deductibles, but I just don't want them set at such a high level that it essentially freezes out people from being able to access needed care. And I'd also like to see states have the option to implement a single-payer plan. That's a states choice. I think that gives us the best opportunity to demonstrate the real administrative cost savings that could be accomplished if we let some states that want to do that go ahead and give it a try.

SPEAKER 1: All right. Jim from Bloomington, your question for Ann Wynia, please.

JIM: Would you favor or would you vote for a means test for receipt of social security benefits?

ANN WYNIA: Well, I don't support a means test for receipt of social security benefits.

JIM: Thank you.

SPEAKER 1: OK, any kind of changes you think are going to be necessary in the social security program, particularly in terms of trying to get a grip on the deficit?

ANN WYNIA: Well, I think if we look at that whole big area of entitlements, and I think one of the callers earlier talked about how much was-- how little of the federal budget was actually in what they call the discretionary budget. I think close to 80% over on the entitlement side. And I think we have to be willing to look at that side of the budget if we're really going to get our spending under control.

And actually, if you look at where the spending increases, though, have been the greatest, they all come in the healthcare sector, where you see that what the federal government spends on healthcare has increased at nearly 16% to 17% a year for the last couple of decades, compared to the remainder of the federal budget, where those increases have been more in the vicinity of 6% a year, on average.

So controlling healthcare and being willing to take a look at how we do that through a combination of means, both just reducing the cost of care, putting broadly into the whole package how we're going to pay for it, and the contributions that employers and individuals make, all of that's an important piece in terms of controlling the cost of entitlements in our system.

SPEAKER 1: For younger people, say, in their 20s, could you look them in the eye today and say, well, just support that social security system, you will be supporting 25 workers or whatever it is down the road here, but everything will be fine?

ANN WYNIA: Well, actually, if you look at the projections in terms of the soundness for the social security system and the Medicare system, it's the Medicare system that is going to pose us the greatest challenge. I think before the end of this century, we're going to have to see Congress revisit the whole issue of Medicare.

Now, part of that may ultimately, of course, become absorbed in part of this broader discussion of health care reform. But if you simply look at what happens if, for example, those who want to kill healthcare reform are successful in killing healthcare reform, I think it's inevitable, at some time before the end of this century, that Congress is going to have to revisit the Medicare program and reconcile what the expenditures and the revenues are on that.

SPEAKER 1: We have time for at least one more caller. And Jean from Albert Lea gets the next question. Hi.

JEAN: Yeah, hi. We're a farm family in Southern Minnesota, and I've just heard briefly about your healthcare visit that you've been having. And I've had my radio off, so I haven't heard all of it. But healthcare is absolutely vital, and universal coverage is paramount, in my opinion.

We had our own policy, and we were paying close to $6,000, and we just could not afford it anymore. So I took a job in town, not specifically for the income, but because I was able to buy healthcare at a cheaper rate, which cost me over $3,000 a year.

What I really wanted to know was, how does Ann critique the single-payer program that for instance, Paul Wellstone, is proposing? There doesn't seem to be much talk about it, and I really wonder how she feels about that.

SPEAKER 1: OK.

ANN WYNIA: OK. Well, one of the things that I think I've learned from my experience running the state's medical assistance program was just how much money we spent on paperwork and administrative overhead as we were fighting with other health insurers over who was going to be responsible for the bill of a particular individual. We have so many different payers in our healthcare system, and every single one of them attempts to shift off to somebody else the cost of a particular expensive client because it's the easiest way to save money.

But we all know that ultimately, that's not really saving money in the healthcare system. It's actually contributing to the cost because of all the attorneys and the claims analysts, that you have to pay to fight with one another over who's paying for the bills. That's one of the reasons that I have said that I support a single-payer system and very much want to see states have the opportunity to demonstrate the workability of such a system and how it could really help cut that nearly $0.25 out of every dollar right now that's being spent on healthcare that is going to, basically, administrative overhead.

I think it also would give us an opportunity to gauge consumer satisfaction, as well as the quality of healthcare in such a system.

SPEAKER 1: Unfortunately, we're just about out of time, and this is too complex a question to ask at this point, but I have to ask it anyway. Now, you're supporting or certainly want to take a look at the single-payer plan. How does that differ from Medicare, which we were just talking about is spinning out of control?

ANN WYNIA: Well, Medicare is not a single payer. In fact, one of the problems that you see right now in the Medicare system is that it does not cover things, for example, like prescription drugs, and it does not cover most longterm care. And so our Medicare system, frankly, doesn't have the incentive to try to keep seniors healthy, keep seniors in their home, where they might be able to consume less dollars, because that's not necessarily going to help the Medicare program's bottom line.

What we really need is the kind of comprehensive, holistic look at a person's healthcare needs with a single payer that knows that they are ultimately responsible, and so they need to work with that individual and those providers to figure out, what is the best way to keep that person healthy and out of the most expensive forms of care? But currently, the multiplicity of responsibilities that is shared, even for a senior in this country, between Medicare and whoever they might have purchased a supplemental policy from, and the medical assistance system, contributes to an enormous amount of cost-shifting and not that kind of holistic let's-keep-them-healthy perspective.

SPEAKER 1: Here's a really unfair question. 15 seconds or so, do you think the Fed is doing a good job on the interest rate front, or have they pushed up those rates too high?

ANN WYNIA: Oh, listen, we don't want to get those interest rates too high. That might damage our economy.

[LAUGHTER]

SPEAKER 1: All right, thanks so much for coming in.

ANN WYNIA: Thank you.

SPEAKER 1: Appreciate it.