The US Senate is back at work on it's a regular business having finally finished the impeachment trial and today on midday or focusing on what Minnesota's senators are hoping to accomplish this year during the first hour of the program if you were with us, you know that we spoke with Democrat Paul wellstone this are we've been joined by Republican Rod grams of joins us on the phone from Washington, and we'd sure love to have you join our conversation as well talk in what's under your grams. If you have a question, give us a call. 651-227-6000. Call in number now, not the pledge line ready to call in number. 651-227-6000. Side the Twin Cities 1-800. +242-282-865-1227 6001 800-242-2828 Center. Thanks so much for joining us this afternoon. My pleasure to be here. First of all need to ask you how you feeling. You had a course the heart valve surgery back in December. That sounded pretty nasty.Again, but that know everything is going well and in the recovery has been almost textbook. I haven't had any problems or complications and die. We were really back to work within 2 and 1/2 weeks and it was great kind of get back on the job. I think that does a lot for the recuperation process, but you know, there's still a lot of things we can't do for a couple of months, but right now I'm feeling great and everything is going fine. So I appreciate the they asking what is the atmosphere in the Senate now, it has the anger or what we thought would be Anger from that hole impeachment businesses that pretty well dissipated everybody back on good terms and I think during the whole trial we were on pretty good terms. I mean this was a job that the constitution, you know required us to do in to carry out and I think both sides were looking for the best way to try to do this and so I don't know if there was a lot of anger or hostilities between the two but now that we get back into our regular day-to-day routine. And by the way. We did an awful lot during that trial we were meeting in committee hearings at 8 in the morning until noon. So a lotLegislative work is getting done. Probably even quicker than in the year where we didn't have this type of trial so that we've been doing a lot of work and I mean in Banking Committee were marking up a major Financial modernization bill this morning several bills have come out of armed services. They education bill is on the floor right now at Flex. So there's a lot of things that have going on in spite of the trial but I think we're going to get back into the routine. Now we're going to be honestly debating differences of opinion, you know, we all have a similar goals whether it's you know on on taxes or budget reform or social security or crop insurance or health care education me a different ideas of how to accomplish this and you know, so we're going to get back I think of the daily routine of Ernest and honest debates and that's and that's what's good. I know you have several concerned Center, but if you had to pick one, I would think top priority is at 10% across-the-board income tax cut you've been talking about right tax relief I think to me is is parallon and I always say that Jerry because you know,Everything starts with the budget what you can do and what you can't do in and how you can let the government grow or keep it under control and in check but it all starts of course with the pocketbook. And if we allow these dollars in the Surplus that is coming to Washington to stay here government is going to spend it. No doubt about it. I'm even Sherman greens been in a recent here and I asked him that very question and he said that the propensity would be for Congress to spend it. So he says we should do a couple of things with it reduced the debt and give tax relief spending. He said it's the worst of all Alternatives and if the president even in this bunch of that he has now this along with spending about a third of the Surplus last year. They also have dibs on spending about 40% of the Surplus for this year already and we haven't even moved into debate on anyting else. So that's why I say it's so important. That's why I cross the board tax relief and the idea is to make sure that we don't leave this Surplus land washing them just like in Minnesota to cry out in Minnesota is give it back. It's aPlus it's an overcharged and government should not say while now that we got your money. How can we spend it? They should send it back and that's why the other 10% is so important cuz everything again starts basically with the dollars Federal Reserve board Greenspan did say that he he's a little skeptical about these projections or at least pointed out that the projections have been so wrong in the past that it might be a little difficult to count necessarily on this big Surplus actually developing when it'd be better for the Congress Epley to say while we're if the money comes in and that's fine. We'll worry about it when it arrives but in the meanwhile, let's not be cutting taxes or or spending a lot of money on any new programs or anything of the sort. Let's just collect it and see what happens. Well again when I can see what happened so you don't get what happens if they spend it. That's why you know, I'm I'm saying that you'll give back the surpluses to come in if the surpluses don't materialize you don't refund that that you don't have those.Tax relief measures that unless we're going to go and do what we need to do and that is you know, trying to find other ways of saving money within the structure of government. But up until this point, we're not going to dip into anything else for not going to be cutting programs. All right. Now in order to give this tax relief, we're only talking about excess dollars that are coming to Washington and that you know, if I could sit here and if everybody else could and it like even mentioned chairman Greenspan and said with real confident it will just put the money aside and then give it back as the years go on. We would be in a more than willing to do that. But here it's just such a Temptation. It just burns through the holes in the pockets of Spenders here and they just say we've got to do this and and there's already talk now about busting the budget caps, you know, we said caps in 1990 there was going to put us on a course to balancing the budget those caps are broken the 93 new caps for put on our spending limit. They were broken in 9797. We put new caps on and now just two years later. We're talking about breaking those caps again, and that's only because there'sFunny projected as Surplus and people see it and say well the lawn I won't allow us to spend so we got to break the caps in order to do it. So I agree with you, you know, we can't give back money that's not there. But at the same time as the surpluses are are coming in and the projections are for even more next year. So we got at least two years we could get surpluses and then look in the out years beyond that, but anything short of that I think would be just too much temptation to grow government at 8th and larger from Washington. And if you have a question for Senator Graham, here's the number to call 651-227-6006 51227 6000 outside the Twin Cities. 1-800. +242-282-865-1227 6001. 802-422-8284, Minneapolis, Gary.Oh, yes. I was wondering why the all of the Congress seems to be talking about the Surplus when I've heard if you remove the Social Security transactions that there is no Surplus. All right, then the caller is true. I mean right now we we have about a six billion dollar deficit if we don't call counter Social Security but there are two streams of surplus is coming into Washington the menu for the president say we need to set aside 62% of the Surplus or Social Security and he's right because that's what you know, what is expected out of about the 2.7 trillion Surplus is over the next 10 years about 62% of that is projected to come from Social Security the FICA tax the payroll tax. The other 38% is coming from over charges in income taxes. So what we're talking about here is not taking any money from Social Security at all. And I think everybody in Washington has agreed to that fact that that needs to be set aside and somehow put in a lock box to guarantee. It's going to be there for Social Security not putting in the trust fund and let it be borrowed away again is all the other money has in the Social Security trust fund what we're talking about here is excess. Surplus tax dollars that have come from the other side the other part of the stream of surpluses and that's from the income tax and that is what should be rebated in the in the Surplus. We're not again not going to touch Social Security and our plans don't call for that but our plans do say not all the Surplus is Social Security and that 38% that's estimated to come from over charges and income taxed. That's the Surplus were talking about for tax relief center. What about using that to extra 38% that to pay off a part at least to start paying off the national debt, which has grown so astronomically in the last 20 30 years and there are parts of the in the plan that could do that as well Gary and there are amendments pending to do that. And in fact, we now Lord of Colorado has the bill to pay its down pays it down in 30 years to 0, which I think we really should do I put an emphasis on and do but also tax relief is kind of an investment in the economy. It's the shot in the arm when you look back in history in this why I support it to ask Only John Kennedy cut taxes in 1961 many of those in the business and corporate areas and It produced a 20% growth in revenues. So another words even though we cut taxes revenues to Washington actually increased in 1981 under the Ronald Reagan tax cut plan. We reduced taxes across the board but revenues to Washington came in at 25% higher than the than without it. So it's always kind of an investment, you know, a lot of people to be like in advertising Gary know it's kind of hard to spend those advertising dollars it when you see The Return of more business coming in in more Revenue than the advertising is worth it and that's what we're saying. We need to make this investment. We need to be able to invest in jobs and businesses to produce him grow this economy. And that's where the tax cuts are so important. So I do believe we need to make a commitment to pain down the debt, but if we're going to continue to enjoy these record-breaking years of prosperity and economic growth, we have to maintain that and Part of that is tax relief about the Reagan years was it would have worked I think are Republicans conservatives argue with a work except for the all the the spending that went on in conjunction at the same time that the taxes were being cut and I are on our way and up with this huge huge deficit and I'm wondering Center. I know you're so concerned about about Washington spending spending spending. If we do get a tax cut a nice big cross the board tax cut. I would think the pressure from our spending would still be there and when we be running the danger of Of frittering away the Surplus. I'm getting back into deficit spending again. And that's why they give the Caps were put on the budget. So we don't do that or at least puts a real throttle on it during the Reagan years since we've doubled more than double the revenues to Washington in 1981 was about five hundred billion and by the end of the decade it was 1.1 trillion. So if you know, we doubled revenues in eight years, but yet we more than increase that in spending and that's what we can't let happen here. I mean everybody agrees that we're on a path that keeps the surpluses there or colds of government spending down. Even Tom daschle the majority leader from South Dakota was asked recently this week, but he support to lifting the Caps are breaking the caps and he said absolutely not so I'm hoping that's you know from the Democratic side in the Democratic leader is saying that he thinks we should leave within the Caps. I sure hope that Republicans will continue to press is hard for this as well and that the administration will honor this because you know the president sign this deal two years ago. And up the cats were lifted to adjust for even higher spending under those and so now I think we need to live with that if we were in a deficit. Right now Gary. Nobody would be talking about breaking the Caps. It's just that the money is there now the Surplus is there it's such a Temptation and that's why everybody is saying all of a sudden that we need to spend more support their the president's proposed to increase in defense spending that's certainly one area that let he wants to increase we've already passed the bill off the floor of the Senate that I would do more than that, but a lot of the president's increases and spending for the Pentagon and if we just had a secretary of defense Cohen and had a colonel Shelton from The Joint Chiefs of Staff in on a recent budget hearing and a lot of what the president you know, he's saying he's increasing the spending for the military, but he gets the money from the military actually reducing spending another areas. So he's trying to take from one pocket and put in the other he's saying alright, you know like fuel adjustments or You know differences in currency because you know, when we deal around the world, you know, sometimes we make money on, you know, exchanging currency. Sometimes we don't but you know, they're figuring in what we're going to make money on that that we're going to have inflation is going to come down fuel adjusted basis will save those for the dopplers. Basically the present to do more than you're going to do a job and have the resources to do it in evidently the president agreed. It was reflected in this budget Aaron your question for Senator Grassley. PediaSure, for example my wife and I were being hit with a $1,500 tax tax burden this year and we would held everything possible if we filed separately and got a divorce. Our tax burden would be eight between seven and eight hundred dollars, right? I guess. I'm wondering what with the Surplus is that anything that's going to be taken care of. Right? And that's a good example of some of the inequities and unfairness in this current whole out of the system that we have and even the president about a year ago in a news conference was asked about the marriage penalty and he said it was unfair but he said the problem is we can't live without that money. So in other words he was willing to tax Americans even though it was unfair in these instances in the average couple by the way pays about 1,500 in the marriage penalty some more and some less but the average per couple is about $1,500 in when we're talking about my 10% across-the-board what we're talking about over 10 years is about 850 million billion dollars And there's also competing tax relief measures in there. One is the marriage penalty which is about 30 billion a year that is taken unfairly from couples in this country. So can that be figured in and how would that be done others that taxes on disability benefits that the many of us believe should be removed the taxes that have been imposed on Social Security benefits never before in history until about 10 years ago. They were taxed and then the president's budget 93 off that the 85% tax. So there are many competing tax issues out there. And I think what we need to do is keep going in the direction of the dollar amount is so important and whatever programs went out. I'm supporting about five or six of them all hoping that we're going to reach a dollar amount. That means that has meaningful tax relief not token that something where people are told they're getting a little bit of tax relief but something that makes a difference to the average worker in Minnesota sell. There are many things in the marriage penalty is one of those that we are supporting as well. Hanzo June joins us from Bloomington with a question. Do I place I would like to point out that what seems to be a surplus to me really isn't a surplus when the needs of our citizens are not being met and I'd like to use an example the need for affordable housing the federal government used to be involved in subsidizing new housing starts. And in the four of us are affordable housing in the last number of years. They haven't been involved in that and in the Twin Cities area affordable housing is at a crisis level. If the Twin Cities can't afford affordable housing employers will not be able to maintain stable work forces and housing will be a drag on economic growth. So I would like you to address this and I'll hang up and listen to your response program in our federal budget that has a reduction in spending and how is he has one of those that is also being increase this year. So out on a federal level in conjunction, you know, it's trying to leverage dollars on the on the local level as well. We are investing today more in affordable housing public housing housing vouchers section eight dollars senior housing excetera. We are spending more today than we've ever spent. So no have we ever let up, but how much is enough and and where are resources going to come from in order to do this? So we are spending more money. There is never been a parole back in any of the dollars are budgets would have done that. But Gary also to say that we can use the Surplus to do this. Basically says because you've overpaid we are going to take control of your money. What I'm saying is that if Washington things they need to spend this much more. The first thing that you do is give the Surplus back then they better have the guts of the backbone to say we're going to raise your taxes even more so we don't have this Surplus but that we do have money to spend another project then that's a different story. But I mean if you want to raise more taxes than let him go out and argue for it I wouldn't argue for it. But if that's those who want to spend this money but Surplus money, I mean it's like if you overpay at the counter in a cafe, if you give a $10 bill and have a $7 meal ticket you expect to get $3 back. You don't expect the cashier to say. Well, I think we can spend it better on other things that we need. I mean that's basically wrong and we need to change that but I mean if if there's other needs and people better say well, let's support tax increases, but I don't I mean I'm not say that but I mean, that's the way if they wanted in. Suspending is the only way we could support it. We have heard a fair amount about June's concern here that you know that there just isn't enough housing available for welfare increasingly large numbers of people actually going to say for poor people but really it's apparently extends well into the lower middle class and into the middle class at this point. Is there a is there anything more than done especially spending more money, but is there something different that the federal government ought to be doing to try to help deal with that problem, but I think a lot of it is because the needs are rising faster than what even the government has been able to support and Gary when I go out and I'll State Minnesota tell you the problem is even worse than small towns because you know what they have new housing stock there and especially with the income levels of people living out in rule of parts of Minnesota, you know just don't have the wherewithal to be able to do this in rely more on either subsidized or low income housing and it's getting worse, but I'll even go back and I was a home builder out for a number of years and I've seen lumber prices go up. Matically in the last 10 years that increases the cost of a home by about 20% than you had on all the other cost but a lot of it is because of mandates the government is putting on on, you know, Industries not allowing that the timber Harvest to go through. So a lot of things that the government is doing is artificially driving the market up. So for a lot of these first time home buyers who could maybe be looking at $100,000 home today you add in all these government regulations and you know, things have caused price increases and we're talkin 140 and how many thousands of young couples is that take out so that mean the government I mean again Society willing to pay for all of this and if it is that means housing is going to go up and cost and if housing goes up, it means more people aren't going to afford it and that leaves us in this provincial in Reno this Catch-22 cycle and people got to remember that every time the government does something it increases the costs and if we're willing as a society to pay for that, that's fine and we all want clean up everyone clean water. There's no doubt about it, but we got to make sure that we can do it in a timely and an affordable Manner and not put out a lot of things out there that we can't afford and we've made great strides over the last 20 years. I mean the voice so you don't have rivers that are burning anymore. We got clear skies. I mean great Water Supplies Etc, and we need to continue to march in that direction. But to impose even higher and more restrictive things that cost billions of dollars those cost have to go somewhere and they usually end up Gary in products that you and I and average minnesotans by while you're at your interest in kind of the plight of a small person and that's a part of what I'd like to speak to a particularly small business people mom-and-pop operations have a poor record of viability. I'm more than half of them seem to go out of business after a couple years according to a study by the Aspen Institute. What I'm curious about is whether you might say A program that provides some Technical Training and assistance to these kinds of people who may not have very much about things like accounting marketing or the things that help a business succeed and in the process prevent the sort of financial ruin that occurs when people when people have to go out of business in a lot of people don't realize how much a many Americans invest in trying to be that entrepreneur in to get their business started in you know, you always hear about the success stories. Some people say always look at all the money they're making and look at that. They don't look at behind that there's probably in a like you say 50 or 75% of the businesses that have failed and people have lost in all those Investments and a lot of it is caused by Udo over-regulation high taxes. We are debating something in their butt and Banking Committee this morning dealing with CRA that imposes a lot of paperwork and expenses on very small banks at the end. Communities of like 500 people and what we're going to do is drive some of these Banks out of business. Is that what we want or can we find some way to reduce those regulations to ease that we're also putting out a bill called a pension bill that's going to help small businesses be able to open pension accounts for their workers. Again, everybody wants to the you don't have Secure Retirement, but some of times the cost of starting those accounts are so high that money don't we want to release some of that you talk about the tech training? I think we do have something I can't remember the details that isn't part of our job training bill this year that deals with that type of training for people. No advertising and accounting excetera and is also a lot of things in the private sector. I can't remember the name, but they're dealing with a lot of seniors who are retired and are willing to come back and do they might have been small business people themselves or have their own companies or were you know members of Corporations or whatever and I offer a lot of their assistance to people who are starting or working their own businesses. So yes, there is a lot of help out there and what we should do as you know, encourage cuz small business is the backbone of the country and we need to make sure that they have the tools to have to flourish in at least one more call around here before I wrap a bottle kit. Good morning, Senator, or good afternoon as a recall has really strong feelings about lying under oath you be taking or or support with the tobacco industry which has the lawsuits in Minnesota against the tobacco industry shows. They've been lying to Congress under all three years. I don't pick out one over the other. I mean if you're lying under oath, you should have faced those type of consequences and if somebody wants to bring up those charges, I think they would have to face the consequences. But I mean we can't make excuses for one and say well somebody else did it and that's why it was awfully hard to say. Well most people agreed the president lied under oath, but now there was no consequences and what is that going to do and you know future trials or people's mindset when they know they're called or something, but no matter what area it is if you're asked to testify on Under the you know, the consequences of perjury are the new face that responsibility if you do Lion portrayer yourself, and I don't care if it's tobacco executive or if it's a businessman or if it's average citizen or if it's the president of the United States. I think we all have to be accountable in those situations before we know we keep hearing that you're so vulnerable are up for re-election. Next year. You are seeking re-election. Right all we've had every intention to do so, we have been formally announce scary but yes, I mean or intentional but you know vulnerability. I mean people like to spin it that way and if it makes him feel good and I'm very, you know, glad that a lot of my you know, opponents or Democratic opponents are concerned about my vulnerability. I said, I hope they're there in 2002 helped support me if they're worried about whether I'm going to run derby successful, but you know, this is our election cycle and you know, everything starts, but you know for the last four We tried to concentrate more. I'm doing the work that the people of Minnesota sent me here to do in that is dealing with policy issues and spend as much time as we could on the campaign trailer doing any fundraising we're going to be forced into that now, so yes, we don't have a lot of money on hand. It's under $200,000. But you know, we've got a long time before November. We've got a lot of work to do and that's going to include the politics and everything else. But we tried to spend more time doing our job and saying there's plenty of time for politics in 1999 or is in the year 2000 Datsun we're going to concentrate but again if if I've got a lot of my opponents out there saying I'm vulnerable I am glad they're concerned about me and I take that as a compliment third-party challenge too or just just a Democrat, you know, we've had a third-party challenge in 92 and again in 94 and both my races and you know after the success of the governor race with Jesse Ventura winning, I think that almost assures we're going to have a viable candidate. Reform Party ticket as well. So now we're expecting at least a three-way race and that with the tax party met before but and I'd like to get their support for me, but I expect they were going to have some good candidates, but it'll be a very interesting race and we don't take this lightly and like I said that you know any candidate that's going to run against me is going to have to work 20 hours a day or more to even stay even with us. We know what we have to do. Nobody is outworked Us in 94. Nobody allowed workers in the year 2017 is from Washington DC as we focused day on what the Senate is up to course the first hour we heard from Center Paul wellstone Minnesota senior Democrat Senator, and this our Republican senator Ron grams.