Case you've been out of the country there is a lively race underway here in Minnesota to determine who will succeed Minnesota senator Dave durenberger going to the polls with just a month to go before the election the race between Republican Rod grams and Democrat and wynia is virtual Dead Heat this week. We're going to spend an hour with each of the candidates try to get a better idea of where they stand on the issues Congressman Rod grams is here today and when you'll be here on Friday and are some things coming by appreciate it, but after noon Gary, it's a pleasure to be here. Thank you. What do you see as the I know there are lots of reasons you could give here but what it what is the one reason if you had to pick one why people should vote for you rather than an wynia, I think if you look at the issue of taxes just I think we're looking at our budget how we're going to get our fiscal house in order and who is going to be out there fighting hardest for the taxpayer and protect their dollars in a make sure that the dollars that we do spend in taxes are spent wisely. I think I've had a record in Congress are working very hard to keep taxes under control to keep spending under control and also to be accountable forDollars and I think on the other hand my opponent is a long record while her 10-year in the legislature is being willing to spend more and more dollars and more and more programs and expanding the government at every level in order to have the government do for you what you should be doing for yourself. So I think that the big issue is going to come down who is going to fight the hardest and protect the taxpayers starting to Norman Ornstein earlier in the program and and he said to in a way it's kind of unfortunate that that's neither you nor win again in his view was representative of the moderate element the center of of the of the political spectrum and wait for that criticism before during with you think that's valid that both of you are kind of representing extremes here. And if the person in the middle really doesn't have anybody representing them agree with him and his way to the extreme on the left hand side. I'll agree with that because that's her record in but if you would have asked I think average minnesotans a year ago is Rod grams far to the right? I think they would have said no because I'm talking about the same issues today.I was talking about a year ago that I was talking about two years ago and even three years ago in our campaign and that is it goes back to we have to balance our budget. We got to get a hold on taxes. We got to cut spending to balance our budget cuz we can't continue to pass huge deficit under our children every year. They should be responsible for the things that we are doing today. And those are the issues I've talked about then and now those are the issues I'm still talking about in my main focus has been the introduction of my family first bill on my offer to spend to bring our fiscal house in order. So those are the issues that considered I was considered them then to be mainstream representing a broad-spectrum in because fiscal issues. I don't believe our liberal or conservative. I think those are average Minnesota issues and they are concerned about it. Cuz when you take a dollar out of your wallet and spend it on taxes you want to make sure you get your dollars worth and that's why I think I do represent the broad base in the broad spectrum of Minnesota voters when he is running a pretty tough can't add right now criticizing your bullets on theBobby is Bill's the with the bills that would have restricted lobbyists activities band gifts to Congressman in the rest. Do you favor any kind of restrictions in that area will definitely I didn't go to Washington to vote for bad legislation. And that's what I thought. This was parts of the bill were good. But again, they throwing poison pills to make it something that you can vote for net is the restrictions in the gag orders that you would put on average individuals are restricting their ability or their opportunity to come out and talk with your Congressman. If we want to talk about any could have been a one-paragraph bill that says let's ban all gifts all meals and all travels with lobbyists out of in the first one to sign up for that because I think if there is abuse were Americans believe that there is any abuse or where you could buy voter be influence. Those are the areas that would be included in that would take care of 99% of the problem. Why don't we address that problem and come out with a very simple Bill and say let's ban all meals all gifts and I'll travel and I would do it. In fact when you refer to the ad, I don't smoke cigars. And in fact, I don't even like champagne. So I mean that's not what I'm out in Washington to do and that is to vote for bad legislation and I sure would not vote for a bill in the middle. This type of a campaign that I thought that I have to vote in principle. I know it was going to be a controversial issue. But because of a reason that I thought it was a bad Bill and I hope the constituents who are listening understand that you got a hold up to a principal and if I would compromise for a political reason because it would have been so easy to politically vote for this bill, even though you thought it was bad just so you wouldn't catch any heat back home. I thought that I had to stand up for what I believe is right or wrong and I hope the voters realize that in a case like this if you're standing for principal and not willing to compromise for the sake of politics that they can trust me on another important vote that I won't compromise for the sake of politics because what would be the next tough question? Will it be on Healthcare? Will it be on a crime bill? Will it be on something I'd like education and if I would compromise then I think they would be something they should be concerned about so ideal and principles and policy and I'll leave the politics to people I can when you get to the bait, I guess today is Rod grams. 6 District congressman who is running for the US Senate. He is the Republican in the race and good opportunity today for you to get your questions in for Rod grams Sean's on the line from Apple Valley. Go ahead with your first question, please you just spoke of principles and I was wondering at the Republican convention you stood with Alan quest in partnership in and pretty much agreed with his principal today to you denounce the quest agenda that you ran on in the primary or do you still support this agenda? And could you please answer directly? Not Pam fastest tap dancer on the question. I never endorsed to quit agenda. I've run on a ride grams agenda an agenda that I think is good for minnesotans. And that is I just go back again to the same thing that I've talked about for 2 and 1/2 years or 3 years and that is we got to get our fiscal house in order. So that's the agenda that I ran on. That's the agenda I ran on for the endorsement. That's the agenda I ran on for the primary and that is the agenda that I'm going to be running on yet into the general election about social issues. You think there's there's a need to change their the nation's laws in terms of abortion for to know. I I I just think that everybody knows where I stand on the issue on the pro-life candidates and I have the exceptions of rape incest in life of the mother but beyond that I just think that this is something best left a private individuals to to look at him. I'm out here trying to work very hard on the issues that I think affect everybody and that is how do we make sure that we provide good education for our children? How do we provide adequate Healthcare and accessibility for all minnesotans and all Americans? How are we going to reduce the tax burden and put more money back in the pockets of individuals so they can have discretionary spending as they see fit. Those are the issues that I think are very important and that I'm working on in Congress to try change oil. Should we change that? Should we make a little easier for four people to have prayer in schools public schools why I think there are opportunities. I mean if there's a student sitting in the back of the room and ready to take a test, there's nothing that says he can't say it. Allen prayer, I don't want to see mandatory times and I don't want to see schools have banned it all together again. I think that's left for the individual to to make that decision a cabbage on the line from Coon Rapids. Go ahead sir. Back to 2nd amendments and I guess the problem that I have with that. I just want to know how you could qualify that is that the second amendment was for state militias that individuals in the 1938 Supreme Court ruled that way and I want it. I just need to confirm where you're coming from on that. Well again, I don't back away from the issue that I am a strong support of the Second Amendment rights and that is the right to bear arms in this country, but it happened to be a part of this crime bill and I thought that was a clean all bad part of the bill. I mean, I hate to have a crime Bill held hostage at to such a situation, but did I just vote completely because of the doubt second amendment rights were the band on on the weapons that were in spelled out? No, I thought there was many things in that bill were bad and that was nearly 7 billion dollars in what I considered unnecessary spending and you can swap some of the easy ones by saying that I don't think Minnesota taxpayers want to come to the plate and spend an extra 10 million dollars of their hard-earned money to build a facility down in Lamarque, Texas for the German Brooks to be able to put his name on a building called the Jack Brooks judicial Center it that has nothing to do with stopping crime or making their streets safer other neighborhood safer how this was just a pork barrel project for one member of Congress that was slipped in in the middle of the night without other countries knowing but until they came to the floor. Those are the things that I think we're bad. Did I vote for a crime Bill? Yes. I did I voted for a bill called the Brewster Hunter bill, which was a substitute offered a head of the bill that passed in mr. Brewster is a Democrat from Oklahoma Duncan Hunter from California Republican. It was a bipartisan effort that looked at keeping in the parts of the bill that we're going to really make a difference or really were going to attack crime and that was the parts that I supported in it trimmed out some of it wasteful spending on expanding welfare and social programs for prisoners and other programs that it duplicated so many things that are already in the fiscal 95 your budget and this was just adding on more spending for more programs and it does not get at the heart of crime and Back those things only covered about 40 pages of the entire crime bill that we thought we were that were important in the rest was all other type program. So I support I think we needed to come out with a crime bill I voted for a tough crime bill. It wasn't the one that passed and so I think people should look at the fact that we want to get tough on crime. We want to make our streets safer, but we don't want to waste our dollars. We got to get our bang for a buck because if we start borrowing more and more dollars, I am happiness again on to our children. We want to make sure that we have legislation good legislation that is very productive and the best cost that we can get. If you are elected to the Senate, would you like to see some changes in existing gun laws? Perhaps a repeal of some like a Brady Bill things like that or changes in any of the gun laws? Well right now, I mean the loss that we have out there we have about 20,000 laws dealing with guns. And what I'm saying is what we have to do instead of any more guns less band the cream. Let's get tough on Those who commit crimes using guns and that if we start standing up and saying that if you do the crime, you're going to do the time. In fact and our bill does crime bill that I supported had the truth and sentencing which men you have to spend 85% of your time for the sentence before you head parole the three strikes and you're out provision. It had a strong measures in there for stocking provisions on women violence against women Provisions child pronography. Those are all things that I would support the end. If if you break the law you got to do the time. There's got to be sure and Swift punishment and you know prevention programs many of them work well, but there are many many programs out there. They were just throwing dollars after and we have done this for 30 years and it has to reduce the crime rate. I think there's other ways. We've got to look at it and think we should repeal some of the existing gun laws, but I work right now to repeal it. I think we're that's counterproductive to start talking about that. I think what we have to look at his words are problem is with the crime. My mother used to tell me that there's only two ways to relieve News crime in there that would be the fear of God in the fear of punishment. They hand out if you're going to have retribution for something you do while but right now there aren't many who respect our judicial system in our judicial system has gotten to be a revolving door with your hire her arrest somebody bring him in and I let him out the back door or that they don't serve their time in prison for the violent crimes and as my opponent and when you did that when she had an opportunity to allow judges to impose even stiffer sentences on criminals who committed violent crimes in these are repeat offenders she voted against that day and I think that we got to make sure that if you do the crime if you're going to do the time, there's got to be punishment connected with it. And if we don't enforce the laws we have what good does it do to add more and more lost to the books if we're not going to enforce them here from another station for Rod grams. I'm running into a lot of people who seem to be undecided in this race and they have complained already at 4th. And when he is in most of the advertising that it seems like the advertising this campaign is not going to be very substantial what they told me. They said they're interested in your campaign. But I hope you'll have ads are pretty factual and they're particularly confused about the singer single-payer system of Health Care. Why do people think the sounds good and had when he makes it sound good. I wonder how does your position on Healthcare differ from a man when he has a single-payer system. Well, first of all, our ads will be factual and we hope they get to the Crux of the matter and that is really to draw contrast and comparison between and Winnie and myself and that is what is my record been on things like taxes and government spending compared to what and when his record has been and who is going to be out in Washington voting to increase your taxes compared to I was going to be in washing her. I will be in Washington to protect the taxpayer on Single Payer. I think there's a big difference single pair means that you're going to let the government In and take control of the healthcare system in this country and other words turn it into another bureaucracy. We're going to tear down the best healthcare system in the world and rebuild it into the Shadows with the likes of the post office. I don't think there's any American that believes that the government can take this system and run it more efficiently and provide better service than the private sector can the government and the huge bureaucracy has never been able to do that the plan that I supported the consumer Choice Health Security Act of 1993, which supports Market forces consumer choice that allows consumers to be the Shoppers and better care and watch dogs have their dollars. I put competition into the system. We do have that you could stand back and look at the American health-care system. It is the best in the world. It has problems and it needs reform and it needs some changes but it doesn't mean we have to throw out the best system in the world. Let's make those changes. Let's do the reforms that are needed such as insurance reforms antitrust laws. I'll let streamline Administration and billing let's put the doctor bills and copay. It's in there and it's medical savings accounts and IRAs to get the consumer more involved so that they have more control over their dollars and where they are spent but the important thing is that they would have the choice to spend those dollars as they would like. If we go to a single-payer system, you're going to have the government telling you who you can see when you can see them what the cost is who is going to get paid and the government would also set fee schedules and also begin to set wage schedule for the providers and the doctors that do the services. So my biggest objection is that I don't want the government to run healthcare for me. There are many things the government can do to be involved in to be to be a player and to assist in helping this country maintain the highest quality of Healthcare in the world, but not to take over that system and on the other hand, we want government assistance, but we want to make sure it stays in the private sector and let the individuals and Market forces. Give us the best quality of care at the lowest possible price. Bob is on the line for Minneapolis with a question for Converse in grams. Government spending and reducing the deficit you vote for the 11 billion dollars supercollider and a 30 billion dollar space station. And there's no way that you can show that these projects whatever produce anything of value to justify their give order for 500 million dollar increase in Star Wars funding for 1994 you call for a 60 billion dollars more military spending than 1.3 $20 that the president wants to spend on the military or five years your family first program calls for a $500 tax deduction for All Families regardless of income and you support a capital gains tax cuts for the wealthy of it obviously had dozens of the deficit. So that seems to be no way that you can Advocate the kind of spending program to do in cut the deficit. So my question is why shouldn't we believe that you're just another cynical hypocritical politicians serving the interests of corporate America? Well, I think you got to look at my voting record. And all right. Let me go through some of these things and you've asked the host of questions Bob and I'd like to address all of them when you talk about the space station in the super collider is being pork barrel projects. I mean if you put this in relationship Say to a business and you know, if a business wants to remain competitive and in the Forefront of competition that needs to spend money on research and development to make sure that they are giving the best product at the best price to their customers. If they fail to do that, they will fall by the wayside and become a has-been company or even go out of business. This country should invest in things Abraham Lincoln always said it best when he said if it could the government should only do for people what they can't do for themselves and investing in high-tech policies and projects like this which individuals or corporations cannot do go back to 1961 when President Kennedy said that we were going to put a man on the Moon by the end of this decade. He is energized in the entire country put a focus on what we had to do and we did it and it's something that we were very proud of and for every dollar we spend we've gotten $10 back and returns. So if we are going to remain as the number one country in the world if we are going to control the latest technology if we are going to make sure that our children have the best jobs in the near future then we have Make an investment and right now that investment happened to be directed at the super collider which could have produced the next generation of medical drugs, which could have produced things that could have made that nuclear energy for instance instead of 250,000 your Half-Life a down to a six-year Half-Life. I mean the medical technology we gain from NASA when it comes to ovarian and breast cancer and many other things that those are Sciences could be applied and we could have the next major breakthrough in fighting and defeating cancer leukemia and other things these are the things that we have to do and look at and by the way there is ahead run project or a Hadrian project that's being developed in Switzerland. It's a super collider. It's on a smaller scale but this country has already invested over three million dollars in the last year now to do studies and whether the United States should be investing billions of dollars into the hate from project. If we didn't think that a super collider was worth keeping jobs and technology in this country. Why is this liberal Congress now looking at investing billions of American dollars in a project? Switzerland that's going to produce jobs there and keep technology there. I think we've got to look at that. But I think that there's things that this country should invest in that's on its on a list of priorities that I believe are very important for our future and not just for today, but we got to look at for tomorrow when you talk about military spending 60 billion dollars at the 5 Verse 6 billion dollar increase over the president's plans per year. I think we're getting a dangerously low levels in our military. When we look at now the problems that are even in Haiti and the problems that are beginning to Bubble over again in in the Middle East. I think we've got to make sure that we have a strong military that can respond to these. I'm not talking about going out and spending another three hundred billion dollars over the next year. What we want to do is maintain an adequate military the family first bill and the capital gains all fell into that and I say that we can go out and according to my bill, which has been scored by the Congressional budget office and the Office of Management and budget has been saving 31 billion dollars a year. In its entirety over the next five years and it calls for a hundred and twenty billion dollars in tax cuts in Minnesota alone. That would put five hundred million dollars a year back into the pockets of Minnesota resident to spend as they see fit it provides business and economic incentives to the tune of forty billion dollars to help provide more jobs cuz we need a strong economy. And then also we need to look at our spending problems and we are spending way too much. It's not that we're being taxed to little we're spending too much. We got to get a handle on how much this government spends and my family first bill has been scored and looked at and examine it would save money and would balance the budget within 7 years and it's a good approach. It's a sound approach and we can pay for the projects such as that if of the space station another's if we're willing to make that investment in the United States future. How do you respond to people who say well gee that sounds pretty good on the face of it in this contract. The Republicans have come up with sounds pretty good fact is though we did. This road before back in the 80s. We watched it the national debt go from less than a trillion dollars 2 3 4 trillion dollars same same principles involved cut taxes and raise defense spending a little bit and the other the old trickle-down business Wells might sound like about what we have to do is we can't continue to tax and tax and tax our residence and ask them to spend more and more of the hard-earned dollars right now. We spent over fifty percent of every dollar you make over $0.50 goes to the state federal or local governments in the form of taxes. I think that people can make better decisions for themselves what we need to do the what we got was the tax cuts in 1981, but then there was tax increases that went along with that at the same time in the next year, but we could we didn't get the spending cuts. It were promised. In fact, the Congress promise II 1981 the President Reagan death for every $2 in for every dollar in tax cuts. We would get $2 in spending cuts. We never got the spending cuts. Well for every dollar earned tax increases when they went to increase the taxes, what we have to do is we have to cut taxes we have to hold the line on that but we have to cut spending at the same time Congress controls the purse strings Congress initiate spending measures Congress passes spending measures and when we have the tax cuts in 19 during the 1981 and in 1981 to 1991 doubled the revenues to the federal treasury Congress spent $2 and fifty-nine for every $2 brought in what we have to do is get a hold on the spending in this country are plan specifically the family first plant does that and in fact balances the budget in 7 years, so there are ways that we can do it. We have to be able to make these tough choices today because if we don't these choices are going to be a lot harder to make five years from now if we continue doing the status quo doing nothing and continue expanding our spending the president's budget expand spending over 350 billion dollars week. Continue on that path, but the devil is going down. Well, the devil said you can argue that and look at a lot of numbers and he's stalking the deficit of about 170 billion dollars. And if that's true, why did we have three hundred and twenty-eight billion dollars to the deficit this last year or two. Our national debt is because we're am asking that deficit by borrowing from trust funds and in fact will have borrowed about a hundred and seventy billion dollars. This does not get recorded a deficit that will be from Social Security Highway trust funds and others and and that's a bookkeeping gimmicks. The depth of the deficit has gone down a little bit because of increased taxes and also the benefactor of lower interest rates and short-term borrowing if you add all these back in if you look at a couple of basic things unemployment is higher today or not on the plane with my interest rates are higher today when the president took office and also our economic growth is slower today than when the president took office two years ago. This does not purport to be a strong economic package that is going to move us forward the back to the phone. So Mike is on the line for Princeton with that question for Rod Graham. Alright by Mike Preston I got about three questions. Alright briefly though, cuz you want to get some other people $5,000 that lobbyists can contribute to the senators or congressmen campaign fund was that dinner before the conference committee to What's the EMILY's List kept out of was that eliminated stuff out of this bill in the conference committee? And do you happen to know how much that died and when he was getting family foot and 3 my understanding is is in it. I think it's 13ft of the bill. Can you read this bill? I'm guessing this is one of your supporters here. I'm not sure but Mike let me tell you about the $5,000 contributions. First of all, that's under campaign Finance. We're talking mainly about the concerns over gifts meals and travel and I think those are the major concerns Americans have and if we could eliminate that that would be fine because lobbyists have a job to do and that is to come out inform you or to tell you what their clients want or if what is important on this bill or unimportant or whatever that is that they have a job to do but their job is not to be necessarily taking any Congressman on a trip providing meals are gift so we don't need that and I would like to see that taken out and also I would vote very quickly to eliminate all gifts meals and travel under that type of provision the $5,000 Pac contributions that has been in law since 1974. And by the way, that was led by the Democratic reforms that came out of Watergate the new Congress that came in was a lot of freshmen Democrats came in or That you're in the Congress and they put together a very good campaign log book at that time and all that was part of it at that time. And what we need to do is clean up a lot of the soft money and abuse is again, but basically there are reforms that could again be touched on the campaign but that was part of the 5000 EMILY's List. I don't know how much and when he's going to get out of that. I know I won't get any money from it EMILY's List, but it was not touched or talked about even in this campaign reform law or also in the lobby is Bill so that has been excluded from that and on the listing you said on 13c just quickly that is a thing that you have to start filling out so many forms and things that if you're going to be a citizen lobbyists that you have to go out and you're going to have to tell the government who you are where you're from, who do you represent? Who are you going to talk to? What are you going to talk about? You got to keep a long list of all the money you spend the travel that you have and everything else and there was a 10% cut off that you don't have to start reporting until you reached at 10% but they don't stay in there. What is constituted as it a phone call for time. What is 10% 10% of what time your time or whatever so there's a Ambiguities in that bill that put a lot of individuals at risk. I say one thing that's a good example is Mike Espy in the problem that he's running into right now with lobbyists again Congress under this built Exempted itself from this Lobby Reform Bill in other words, Michael S be the worst that can happen to him. Is he brought up on ethics before the Ethics Committee and have his hand slapped. But if you're an average citizen that went to Lobby out in Washington and made a mistake and didn't report something you could face a fine of ten thousand to $200,000. Now, why do we put such a great just fine on our citizens who want to go out and talk to their Congressman? We should not put those roadblocks up in front of that's free speech and group such as planned parenthood American civil liberties Union and many others came out strongly against this bill saying that it does impede or it doesn't put restrictions or regular gag orders on individuals and their opportunity to come out and talk with your Congressman. That's what I voted against in this bill. I've never wanted in fact, I think I told a story Breakfast of a lobbyist two weeks ago in Washington from Honeywell and individual Come on talk to me. I paid for the breakfast. It's a time when you can get work done and information and as I said before when you look at these ads, I don't smoke and I don't even like champagne. I guess today is Rod grams who is running for the US Senate and and Ned's on the lineup in South Minneapolis to answer. Hello, Dad, and I've had trouble paying my taxes in the past. And when that happens I go to the bank and under those circumstances, the bank isn't required to give me a loan and I get a loan and I pay my taxes. Now. My question is what moral principle as he spoke of earlier. Was he supporting when he chose not to pay his taxes? And I may have a follow-up question. Are you talking to me about what my when I missed the tax payment then there was a $424 tax bill on a on a lot now. I'll just explain this quickly and I don't mean to make excuses because it was a missed tax payment that I made but I'll put this in context that I have paid all my other tax bills over that say put in 5 years contacts. I paid about 60 $65,000 in property taxes. This was a lot that I purchased from an individual. I assumed a closing that the taxes have been paid and they hadn't been in like I say you can make excuses but it was an error on my part that I did examine the closing payments close enough to make sure that the taxes have been paid and as you know County governments do not inform you if your late on your mate tax the first half and if you miss your October second-half tax, you don't get a notice but what you do is have the beginning of the next year. You'll get a notice from the county that says your delinquent on your taxes. So I did get a $424. Bill on a lot that I purchased people will say that it's on my home. It was never on my home. It was on a bear lot that I have purchased and when I got the notice, I was tagged with about $97 in penalties and interest which I paid and I didn't break any laws. It was a mistake and I have rectified that the very quickly and then I paid the tax. So I hope nobody else goes through the same thing and but so it's just a mistake and an error but it's been corrected. Okay, let's go back to the phone. So we got a caller on the line from Duluth Randy a real interesting to leave to get to use and I think this year it should really be a big issue and that's the filibuster and I was really used a whole lot this year and should you Republicans gain control? What's going to be wrong with the Democrats just using it to the hilt and then when you get 5 out, then you got the present waiting to slap you with the veto. What do you feel about the filibuster? Well as I've always said that The filibusters the news for you know, many many many years and I has been a tool that has worked well and I can't say that it's never been abused or it hasn't been abused. It probably has a certain instances and if you look back over history, I think it would might even out that the Democrats have used it as many times as Republicans have used it. I will the Democrats use it 1995 if Republicans to take control. I think you could bet on it. Then. It's a good checks and balances all it calls for if you're going to filibuster is it's a supermajority needs to agree on any certain issue before it can pass and I'm a strong supporter of things such as raising taxes or anyting else should take at least a supermajority to do that. So do I oppose a filibuster know I think you can take bad legislation and make it better. It can make people move from one ideology or closer to a compromise and many issues of what you're going to do is going to get a good bill out of something that that is happening. So I think a filibuster has been used effectively in the past even senator Paul wellstone is fat soft it to use the filibuster. In the past and so will the Democrats use it I think they will have the Republicans used it they have has it been abused. It probably has been his have been used in many cases to the to improve legislation in and make bills better for the American people. I think it has so I think it's something that's going to be around for a while and Winnie I know has led to a couple of comments saying that she would eliminate the filibuster but she's also said But if it's there all use it, so I think that's kind of a sitting on the fence thing. I just think that the filibuster is just another legislative tool that can be used to maybe take bad legislation to make it better about the idea though that it's just the mere threat of a filibuster tends to encourage these little pork Provisions. Well gee if you back off from this will will will give you that the school down in your District. I hate those pork barrel projects and I hate that type of negotiations and you'll talk to people that'll say what's been going on since Washington was in town. 200 years ago and it might be true. But I think that's what's got us into the problem that were in today by the threat of a filibuster just means you have to make sure you get 60 votes to break that can vote for cloture and I just want good legislation to come out and I want to make sure that the American taxpayers the ones that are protected end the filibuster in some cases helps protect them at that respect. I would I would support it. Do you think that especially in the Senate the Republicans want a tad too far here at the end of the session note to the point where moving beyond principled Ops in opposition if you will two things bills, every two didn't like an opposed to a kind of we're not going to let anything get by because we don't want Clinton to get any credit. There's been those political charges, but the the Administration has had a lot of time and the liberal leadership for the House and Senate have had ample time to bring these bills to the floor months ago if they wanted me to full open debate in consideration, but they chose to bring bills to the floor in the last couple of weeks major pieces of legislation. That really should have more time for consider a CNN debate and to oppose things because you're not sure what's in it and haven't had time to study at haven't had time for full and open debate to take the case to the American people think this was a bad time of the section to bring in those bills out and I think in the long run, it's going to be it's best to take some of these important measures and bring it back next year and in the 104th Congress were they can get serious and open debate that I don't think it was just raw partisan obstructionism at least in some instance and people if they feel that they've not had a chance to vote on a bill they're going to call following other sides will do the same. So I just think that we have to look at who the taxpayers are and does this benefit Minnesota. Does this help the taxpayer? Those should be our guidelines, and I hopefully that's who has been served back to the phone. So, let's see Bill is on the line from St.Paul. Thank you. Been a provision of the crime Bill specifically. I wonder if you feel that people like Guy baker or constitutionally guaranteed access to assault weapons. Well, 99.9% of the people in America who own a gun or use a gun for sporting or hunting are law-abiding citizens. And when you start putting more and more restrictions, you are penalizing the Law Abiding Citizen and not Those who commit the crimes and like I said in our crime Bill, we had a provision in there that said if you use the gun in the commission of a crime that you would one get a stiffer penalty and second that you would not be allowed in the future to purchase such a gun but to go out and put the other penalties on there and make people guilty before their proven innocent is a backward approach to this and now that you know, which Guy baker in his record. He should not be allowed to purchase a gun in the future and I think we have to make sure that we get tough on those people who use guns in the commission of a crime to make sure that if they do that they serve tougher penalties that we make sure that they spend more time and be in The Slammer keep them off the streets where they cannot commit more crimes against citizens. And but to say that the passing things like the Brady Bill are going to make the street safer even Charles Schumer who is a strong supporter of more gun restrictions has set on the floor that this is not going to reduce crime, but it's the first good step while the first good step to what putting more restrictions on an individual's constitutional rights. We want to get tough on crime and not to penalize that the average law-abiding citizen, I guess today is US Senate candidate Rod grams. And by the way, and when it will be here on Friday so good chance this week here at midday to get a reading on where are the candidates stand on the various issues Joe is up next to the question calling from Saint Paul to do in part with mr. Baker the alleged cop-killer from Saint Paul and that's the attorney and about a month-and-a-half ago. I heard a statement from Mr. Grams and I'm hoping that when misquoting and where Said that Mr. Baker doesn't deserve a jury trial and should just be executed and I find that very disconcerting. I find that in a very troubling if someone wants to become a senator which state that someone doesn't deserve a jury trial and she just be executed and I would just like him to explain that thank you. Okay, it was kind of taken out of context in this was a comment. I made during the town meeting that I was having on the campaign Trail up in Brainerd hand. But when I said the guy Baker shouldn't have a trial. I didn't say that. In fact in the next breath. I said, I don't mean that he shouldn't have a trial. I said every American has a right to a fair trial to prove his innocence and he should be have every opportunity to the appeals process to make sure that Justice is carried out or that no one, you know, any technicalities have been abused but what I also says, we should not abused our judicial system if you take Jeffrey Dahmer is an example of Milwaukee a man, who came Into the courtroom pleading guilty to killing 17 18 19 young men and yet the city of Milwaukee has spent three and a half million dollars in that first year in legal maneuvering and that's what I said is a bad thing when we got John Wayne Gacy in them in Illinois are convicted of murdering 40-plus young men that he's been 14 and 1/2 years and dozens of appeals that cost millions of dollars in frivolous type suit, I say everybody is entitled to a fair trial everybody is entitled to a rational and reasonable appeals process, but when we let them abuse the system and spoil these type of frivolous suits and make a mockery of justice is what I was talking about. So do I want Guy baker to have a fair trial? Yes, I do. Do I want him access to the appeals process? Yes, I do. I think of that somebody who is shot a police officer or committed a violent and heinous crime. Do I support the death penalty? Yes, Minnesota doesn't have it. But what I supported yes, because I think that if we can talk For the policeman in our streets that type of support from the community that we put their lives on the line every day to protect our safety and we do not support them. I think that's a mistake as well. We have to become more concerned with victims rights those people who are the victims of crime and to then not coddle the criminal sort of speak not to offer them education while they're in prison not to be giving them air-conditioned rooms not to have them one prisoner to a cell to have a color TVs. These are things that Americans are objecting to and so I hope that explains a little bit about where I stand back to the phone. So I think our next caller from Apple Valley. Is that right? You talk about family first and could you give us a little background personal background on your family your wife and children and how you put your family first place so we know a little bit more about you as a as I'm family person. Okay. I'll tell you a little bit about my my background. I was born and raised on the dairy farm up and Isanti County about 40 miles north of downtown Minneapolis. My wife was born and raised on a small farm just about three miles north of me. I come from a family of 9 my wife from a family of 16. We've been married for 28 years. We have four children. I have three grandchildren. And so I don't know if that's so, you know the background of my family and I don't know what else on their information that mean. They all live close to me yet. And my two older daughters are are married and it's nothing to have 30 or 35 people stop at my father-in-law's or over to my mother's place in that we are still a close plant family. I mean most of my brothers and sisters are we all live within 30 miles of where we were born and died in my wife's family. 14 out of the 16 still live within 60 miles of home. So it is very important to us and we spend a lot of time you know it family. The Gatherings and things like that so Family First attacks planned one of the criticisms I've heard about it is that it really benefits. Well, it doesn't benefit people at the episode lowest income levels because they get the tax credit they have to pay taxes to begin with and and a lot of these people just don't make enough money and left a big beneficiaries would be people at the highest income levels. Cuz obviously they they pay the most in taxes. What do you plan to do for the people at the bottom of the scale to give them a break while they're already receiving? I mean that this is a plan that is put in to help the average middle-class American who is Ben ass over the last 30 years to Bear the show or shoulder The increased taxes that have come from Washington. And this was in it just a small portion really if you look at our deductions today in our tax forms or $2,350 per dependent, but if they were to keep him place within face Pace with inflation over the last us a 40 years that deduction should be nearly $9,000 not $2,350. There's been so many families that have been discriminated against to our tax laws and everything else. But this is just aim to help and by the way more than 90% of the benefits in the family first build go to those families making between 20 and $60,000 a year because those are the ones we're paying the bulk of the taxes out when you get there an income below that I mean, there are many programs for those people already in existence the Earned Income Tax Credit the child dependency care deductions. There are many many other programs that are already in place that help those families that need that help. What we wanted to also do is provide some tax relief for those families making between 20 and $60,000 a year to put some of that money back in their pockets in the Minnesota alone. It's about five hundred million dollars a year that that would be left here in Minnesota for for parents to spend as they saw fit families of the first level of government, you know, the Department of Health and Human Services all wrapped into one they can make better decisions on now food clothing shelter education. Rather than a bureaucrat sitting behind a desk in Washington. I would rather put that in the hands of a parent to make the decision about putting a cap on the program at the higher levels the cap on it now is I think the cap is at like $200,000. But again there is a cut off but again 97% that the benefits in this package goes directly and targeted to those families making between 20 and $60,000 a year. Those are the families that are really feeling the pinch of the higher taxes and need some tax relief in this would really provide some of that tax relief back to the phones add ons on the line from Hastings. Thanks for taking my call. I done I really like what you're saying about taxes. King and I like that you're talking about some I feel really strongly about safe legal abortions and I'm wondering if you're playing on and acting any legislation to restrict current abortion laws or if you best leave that b as it is and up to the individual to decide on a thank-you. Well, there's nothing on my agenda that is going to be trying to do that Don. And in fact, you know, I think it's best if the government would stay out of some of those decisions again, I think what we have to do is give Family Support try to to build up that the social economic programs that we are going to to to help these families that are facing such a questions and problems and their lives and if if we can improve the lives of individuals their education's and also giving them other funeral Alternatives of what they can do is is the best way to get done to address this problem back to the phone. So, let's see Mark is on the line from Eden Prairie. Telemark Call dollars an hour. They have a little leeway on the employer on what they want and I was wondering is a little too simplistic for something like that can be put into effect that we as a text as employers say well. Is there any way that I can be a little different each each member of Congress depending on what they can negotiate. Is that what you're talking about Mark. I've never voted for a pay raise in Congress. And I think Congress should not be allowed to vote on its own benefit packages. I think that's you know, putting the fox Into The Henhouse and I've never voted on a pay raise for myself and So I can see your your concern in your point there. I'll talk about in winning a little bit. If you look over her 13 years for when your talk about pay raises and pension plans. I know that according to my research that she voted 19 times to raise either her pay or to improve her pensions. And in fact in the last week that she was in the state legislature how she took two votes that made her pensions better knowing that she was going to retire she voted on a bill that was going to raise her benefits and a pension and she also voted on an amendment that was going to take the cap off of the number of years served. So she will get increased benefits for every year that she's in the public sector. So there is a direct conflict of somebody being able to vote for their own pay raise or to improve their pensions as they're ready to leave office. And I think that's something that shouldn't be allowed to happen we have time for at least one caller one more records on the line from dassel. Hello Kurt. And my wife works and it's hard to make it with three kids what current minimum wage those minimum wage prices that are out there right now or never meant for a family to live off them. If you look at who are the employees of minimum wage are usually maybe someone looking for a second job a young high-school student or somebody wanting a job. To make some extra money after school or on weekends. And so if we raise those minimum wages, you're going to eliminate some of the job. So I'm not talk to many people in the restaurant business and many people in small manufacturing the to hire these people and they just can't afford to pay any more and if they do there be fewer jobs, so in fact right now I was talking to a number of them and I can tell you if in fact like for a number of McDonald operators who are saying they're not offering minimum wage, they're offering like a dollar a dollar and a half above minimum wage because they can't get in. Buddy, or there is such a competition in the job market. So I would rather see the market to dictate the price. And right now at McDonald's has been like five and a half or more or Burger King brothers and many businesses that are having to offer even higher wages in order to attract these people. So I think in many respects out the market is helping to improve and increase those wages rather than the government setting out some restrictions or were or things on those. I think I would rather see the market be able to continue to work that way Robert you get the last question for cars from grams. Go ahead. Hello, Robert. Yes. Explain that for me. Yes. I'm a strong supporter of producing or capital gains because capital gains is what it's talks about his work taxing the capital. I'm not out there trying to protect the dollar in the pockets of any Rich individual. They're going to better protect their money than I can. What I'm looking at is how do we provide the capital to invest into our businesses that are going to produce the jobs that we need and if you look at some of the most successful economies if you want to look at Japan and Germany, Japan has something like a 5% capital gains tax Germany has a 0% capital gains tax. The United States has 28% in capital gains. Our bill would call for that to be reduced to 15% To make sure that there if we would do that, you would find a flow of capital dollars that would start moving around it would begin new Investments that would produce new jobs to help people and it would strengthen our economy. So what capital gains and you can bet that many many of those capital gains dollars are held by individuals like you and I that make less than $50,000 a year people who can't sell their homes or or a farm family who are looking at a farm that they've had from the family for 30 years and now find that the capital gains is going to eat up over half of their profits. That's not fair. And then when you look at businesses who want to to sell parts of their businesses or whatever to invest in others you're adding that restriction on it. So I think by reducing the capital gains tax, you would free up capital in this country that would mean we'd have an investment in more jobs. And that's what I support very briefly. We're just about out of time here, but I don't want to get you get you at the say something here about Haiti like what we're doing there. I think we're doing a good job. But I don't think I never supported the invasion of Haiti. So I think the occupation is wrong as well. I voted for Michaels Amendment on the floor this past week that one of the president to outline the goals and that another word say when if we made a successful conclusion of why were there and then to set a timetable to bring our troops home that was defeated wouldn't instead. We passing another amendment that just patted the president on the back and said that the bring the troops home when you can I think that that we're now in a police action and I don't think there's a reason there's not a national security. There's not an economic reason to protect our economy. There's no security interest there that the United States should put our soldiers are men and women into Harm's Way in Haiti and 10 seconds. Do you think we're doing a new sports presents action response to Iraq, but right now I think we do have to have a strong and firm resolve that we cannot allow us to Dom Hussein to again cross the border and T28. Thank you, sir. Thank you for coming by Rod grams is running for the Senate. He is the Republican candidate and thanks to all of you who been listening through the hours specially those of you who call with your questions and comments. Really appreciate it.