Focus 580; Talk to Your Representative

Good morning and welcome to focus 580 this hour morning talk program My name's David in clad have you with us this morning we're also pleased to have here in studio Congressman Tim Johnson he represents the 15th District in Washington has been in Congress here representing this area now for a while before that was in the Illinois House for quite a long time and occasionally when we have the opportunity we like to invite him to come here in the studio so that constituents will have an opportunity to talk with him. I can certainly ask questions but the point here is that people who are listening can ask the questions as well and so if you like to talk with us and we already have a couple of people ready to go all you have to do is dial us up here in Champaign Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. That's for local folks. It would be a long distance call for you. Use the toll free line that's eight hundred to 2 2 9 4 5 5. The only thing we ask people to call in us just be brief as you can so that we can get in as many callers as we can. Thanks very much for Glad to be here David. I'll get right to it will not make these people wait. We have one from Champagne one from Urbana and champaign goes first one on one.

Hello hello. Yes yes. I just want to thank the congressman for his recent vote in support of the bill be on a lot of things. Hundred million dollars I believe and I believe there is another hundred million hanging around waiting to be voted on later and I hope to the world support that as well. I know that was not an easy vote for him and I think it does indicate that he is responsive to his constituents and we really appreciate both. Thank you for your call in. You're right there was a good deal of pressure from various sources to vote the other way. But not only from the standpoint of representing a superior broadcasting like we have here locally but off of from the standpoint of providing a unique service so to speak. My vote was one that I cast enthusiastically and if the additional money comes to the fore You can certainly kind of my support in favor of public broadcasting.

Thanks very much and I'm happy to hear that. Thank you Hala. Thanks for the call let's go to line number two this is someone in Urbana. Hello. Yes. Morning Representative Johnson and I. Last week's poll showed nearly 30 percent of Republicans willing to impeach George Bush have proven that he misled the American people on evidence leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Where do you stand and thanks for taking my call and showing up to listen. Well I obviously I'm not going to endorse impeachment the president. What we want to we want to determine like everyone else does whether the information that we were afforded and upon which we act is good information. I have no particular reason to suspect that anyone deliberately misled us. Certainly as we look back there are issues and aspects of our involvement in Iraq that caused me a great deal of question and I appreciate the color. I certainly am not one at this point to tick

off the impeachment the president. I do have a concern about bettering the. Let's say transmission of information from point A to Point B. Whether it be George Bush or Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon. So certainly something that caused me concern but I don't have any reason to believe at this point that George Bush has committed any impeachable offense. Let me ask you a couple of things about Iraq. In a speech last week the president said essentially some of the things that he has said in the past and one of the things that he's been very firm about is that he believes it's important that we're there and that we can't set any kind of a date for withdrawal for obvious reasons. However at the same time I think that a lot of people whether you support the war or not want to know that one of the questions they have in their mind is how much longer are we going to be there. I think the president did a certainly an adequate job of explaining his position. But I tend to agree with you and I think a lot of my

constituents and that is that while we may not do we may be overplaying our hand by specifying a date we do need I believe just simply for purposes of morale at home as well as overseas I have a chief of staff right now in the middle of the Sunni Triangle and has been for some time leaving a wife and a baby at home. There is a human side to this issue and I think there's got to be there's got to be an exit strategy of some form or another articulated you know on the horizon. Because if we don't have that I think people face the reality of simply living with one more day another 10 bodies human lives involved. And I it's easy to be very generic about it we're not generic these are human beings in Iraq and at home. And I'm not condemning the policy of the administration. I'm not trying to micromanage policy. And I am suggest suggesting that while the president may be right about a date certain that we do need to have a strategy by which American troops can withdraw and have a constitution in place have Iraq. And they seem to be well

on their way to establishing as best we can a democracy and some state stability in an area that's a breeding ground for instability around the world. Keeping in mind that is in some ways. The causative chain is not as discerning place we'd like. There is a relationship between peace and freedom and stability freedom from terror at home and around the world and are willing to strike at the core of it. And so I think there's always two sides to every coin and I think we've got a balance any approach with that in mind. What do you feel that you have heard from the White House and adequate kind of exit strategy would you like to hear more than you've heard so far. You know I haven't heard very much so far and I'd certainly like to hear more. What about I think that one of the things that sometimes confuses people at least causes controversy is that over time the administration has given different reasons for our being there and that a lot of people are not really sure. For you if I ask the question well why are we there.

What's your answer. I would have a difficult time answering that as well as I should be able to do to be perfectly frank with you I'm not going to mislead. In terms of my if you ask me if I were in charge of the Department of Defense and had access to their information may perhaps my answer would be different if at this point it is clear that the spread of democracy and the lessening of a breeding ground for terror has been facilitated by our presence there. Now whether that's sufficient to justify continued involvement to the extent that we are involved is another question. And I like the color unlike you and Mike I think a majority of the people in my district want to see an exit strategy. I want to see a clear delineation of why we continue to be there and I want to be able to have have those parameters met and have Americans at least at some reasonable time in the future on their way home and I think most people would agree though it would be very difficult and probably counterproductive to just simply cut and

run in tomorrow's wake. One more question I get on callers. Again the administration has said that they think that it's important for us to be there that there is good news and that the trend is positive and about a month or so ago in fact the vice president Mr. Cheney said that he thought the insurgency was in its last throes. And it wasn't long after that that we had representatives of the Pentagon General Abizaid and Secretary of Defense saying something rather different. Mr Rumsfeld said that well he was not being specific about Iraq but he said well you know insurgencies can go on a long time and I think he said something like you know four six eight 10 12 years so he was he was making it sound as if it would not be on expected if this insurgency could go on seven eight 10 years do you. What do you think when you hear citing. I don't think that sort of timetable is acceptable to the American people the American people are represented in the Congress by members of the House and Senate. I'm one of them. And involvement for a decade is not something that I look favorably

on. Let's go with some of the folks here will go to a caller in Matewan line 3. Good morning. Yes. I have to suffer going to be going to see meet at the bagel Fest this year. I hope so. I hope so that Manchin is looking forward to supporting it. We've had the bagel last year for many years and I think they've got the record for having the largest bagel bake. And the U.S. down here I'll let you do your question but in a more immediate sense I was down there just last weekend and was walking did a little walk around the YMCA and went by the Amtrak facilities and that depot needs a lot of work. We got a transportation bill that's pending we're hopeful that we get some money for your people. Well thank you we certainly appreciate it and that actually relates to part of my question is the fact that we spend millions of dollars on airports and we spend millions of dollars on highways. But the administration and some members of Congress have voted and do not support Amtrak. Can you maybe

explain the congressional thoughts that are negative against Amtrak and my second area of question as reference to medical accounts that federal employees have a medical service counts while they were employed. But when their salaries every time it reduced they no longer. Have those medical service accounts can you explain why. Yeah I know on the latter question I can't. I'm sure that my sentiment would be 100 percent and coincident with yours it would seem to me to be entirely reasonable that that would be something we could do. But I'm not familiar enough frankly with the issue to be give you a very intelligent answer other than to say that the sentiment you appear to be expressing is one that I agree with. I'm not going to begin to tell you why people would advocate for cuts in Amtrak because I'm not in favor of cuts for Amtrak. I am in favor of with a finite budget making sure that those unprofitable routes Florida in the West and other places aren't subsidized by routes that are profitable namely champagne mad tune Pontiac and Bloomington.

And I want to make sure Amtrak stays on the track so that we continue to support it with public dollars but also that we continue to make sure that we realize that some some lines are profitable and others aren't and those that aren't need not expect us to subsidize those that are that are not. So you don't feel that we don't spend more money on our highways and roads and airports and if the train system was. Cut back into good shape in the roads. We could have something some where you know I'm I'm a strong advocate for mass transportation and Amtrak specifically and I've consistently voted that way. I totally agree with you. OK thank you very kindly thinks this is something I actually did want to vote. Ask you about because I saw the idea that you voted against it was mis misleading. Yeah because it's not as that was not clear to me what Yeah I wish I wish that service that puts those voting rolls in the paper would be more clear. I have consistently voted in Congress and every single vote in support of Amtrak including that

that was an amendment to the underlying to an underlying bill by Corinne Brown from Florida and essentially what that amendment would have done had been done tremendous damage to our tram track services fill boomers are out here with nature now we're going to do an op ed on that. Would have would have done tremendous damage to our local roots because essentially it said those roots like Florida and others that aren't profitable that lose money we ought to subsidize them with routes like champagne or Chicago and met in Chicago that are profitable. And so I was a little chagrined that they weren't more specific in terms of how they voted we actually voted on a voice vote to restore the cuts in Amtrak and obviously I supported that have consistently supported Amtrak funding along the way. I wish they were. You know they're doing a good service by pointing out votes or doing a bad service by when they point out the total reverse of what what the vote actually was but you know I guess you know the rest of the reportage was fairly accurate. So basically you you support the idea of some government support as long as the service itself is making money.

Why support government I suppose. No I didn't go so far as to say that I support Amtrak funding even if the overall service is not making money because I don't think there's any way that Amtrak in the foreseeable future is ever going to be a profit making venture. So I'm not saying that profit profitability is a precondition to my support for Amtrak I support it anyway. All I'm saying is within the budget framework we have a certain number of dollars dedicated and if we have to prioritize within Amtrak itself between the champagne Chicago run and the Palm Beach Miami run. I'm opting for our services here that within the structure of things done what they can to be effective. OK. Our guest this morning here in focus 580 is Congressman Tim Johnson if you have questions you can give us a call we'll try to get as many as we can. 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 2 2 2 9 4 5 I will go next to or one number one someone in Urbana. Hello. Well I am a Democrat but I also feel great.

You indeed are doing a fairly decent job for the people of Illinois. And I don't quite understand all of the tit for tat. You know I'll support you on this if you'll support me on them. And I do feel bad because it's just part of our country in this part of Illinois. I did not vote as heavily for Bush or he would like that our services are being cut our funding federal funding. I understand that you do need to prioritize how your votes go. I don't so like to know though what the real problem of progress we're making on peace after Iraq I know that's a little presumptuous but if we continue the way we're going now we're going to have huge problems. What is the State Department. What is the finance. Partment going to

make peace possible. Now that's a good point and if we were there to bring a semblance of democracy and bring some degree of stability to the region and we have no strategy for what happens after we leave then we really spent dollars and lost lives for virtually nothing here in point is extremely well taken and even the most desperate excuse me up a new justices are justice for the Supreme Court itself. We gear up for a fight. We're not fighting in the United States quite yet but it should be a power to require operating. How is Bush working with the American people he said he would. When we keep electing him. Let me let me let me respond not respond but you know I have join your in the chorus here in two regards. First of all with respect to the

concern about trade offs and so forth I share your concern I don't like to see the deal making that goes on anymore than than you do. I will say however that in terms of this specific area with I'm trying to be as humble as I can be here we've been very effective about bringing federal dollars not only to this university for research but transportation dollars and otherwise so I don't believe we're being we're being singled out in this area in fact we've done more than our share for for the year in fact we have a thirty five million dollars currently in the transportation. I mean dollars a transportation budget for a variety of infrastructure needs here in central Illinois. You're absolutely right. When you tell you look at the blogs so to speak and see the continual chorus fight let's battle this let's do this and the same thing is true in Congress. I am the co-chair of the center aisle caucus. The center aisle caucus is co chaired by Representative Steve Israel a liberal Democrat from New York

and he and I now we have I think 25 or 30 members and our whole premis more than actually 30 40 members our co-chairs are former minority leader Bob Michel and former Speaker Tom Foley from Washington a Republican a Democrat and the whole premise is let's put aside the battles the fighting the internet not the internet scene but the warfare that goes on there. And let's work together constructively for solutions to issues and where we can agree. And there are certainly issues that Steve Israel and I may not agree on. Let's at least disagree agreeably. The caller is absolutely right how much discouragement can that provide for the American people or for the people the 15th District when they see 435 members of Congress acting like kindergarteners. It's just something that is simply not acceptable. And all I can do is just be a personal example. I'm not conducting myself that way. Your call is 100 percent right. Well can we do it. Some news from Washington about how we are

working together how we are trying to make the United States whole again. It seems to me this is July 4th weekend and we are fighting not only Iraq. We're fighting the Revolutionary War and we're fighting the Civil War all over again. And our democracy does not seem to be working well enough for us to be paying billions of dollars to export it. And I mean I can't dispute you are saying Phil Bloomer sitting here next to me he's our communications director and part of his job is to make sure that you all know what at least some of us are doing in Washington D.C. to try to bring some civility to the process. Well I've tried to talk to the News Gazette a couple times to tell them. Show us some truth tell us how we got to where we are so we can start thinking you know and if they don't they don't. Let's just force listen to well I can't speak for Bush I can speak for myself and I. Part of my answer is I listen to you. I pay into an area that we're we're trying to

achieve and have achieved a good deal if not unanimity at least some consensus is the recent decision of the Supreme Court. The below vs. city of New London case that has to do with eminent domain I think that's a good example of how we can work together as people of diversity on the political spectrum to try to bring some civility to dialogue and also address issues so I can't disagree with anything you said ma'am. OK well thank you for the go. Let us continue and we'll go next to Urbana and this is lie number two. Good morning. Hoping I could get the congressman to speak a little bit more about the Amtrak situation. I did want to thank you for your ongoing support for Amtrak and passenger rail service in the US. I know you were talking about profitable route versus unprofitable routes and am I am misunderstanding that the city of New Orleans route would be considered one of the unprofitable routes.

I don't believe that it would consider to be unprofitable. And then I get I want to be I want to be clear about this. I'm not suggesting that my support for Amtrak and it is strong in consistent is conditional upon its profitability I support it because I believe it's a necessary service and sometimes we have to pay a subsidy for necessary services and I don't believe in the foreseeable future that the Amtrak system is going to be able to be profitable quote unquote. But I do believe that within the Amtrak system some routes are more maybe profitable as the in artful words are more economically successful than others. And the city of New Orleans route as I understand it the one that goes through champagne and ran two and two in Charleston otherwise is one of the better routes in terms of its effectiveness not only for services. But also in terms of the dollars that that to go into and come out of it OK I would be very concerned to see that line set down because I know no one time will go.

Absolutely not. No I strongly strongly supportive of Amtrak generally and obviously even more strongly supportive of that particular line. And I had seen something recently where it was proposed that all routes that last 30 dollars per passenger or more would be eliminated and that would be basically all of the long distance trains from what I understand and I think that a lot of those long distance trains serve people going much shorter distances. I mean I've never taken the train all the way down to New Orleans but I've definitely taken it to Chicago and Arlo Guthrie to get any city to New Orleans. Yeah I don't want to hear me saying so here but it's. I have to be provincial to some extent and I'm realistic and I know that there are if we're if we're successful in fighting the cuts they're still only going to be a finite amount of dollars to go into Amtrak X amount whatever that might be.

I want to maximize a bet is still x amount and within the structure of dollars are there. I want to make sure that all the dollars that we can we obtain and secure for our local routes champagne mad tune rant to align as well as the line that goes centrally in my district from me to normal up through Pontiac and in that direction so I'm going to advocate for the system generally but I'm going to specifically advocate for the lines that serve our district. What do you see as a long term solution to the funding problem for Amtrak because every year they have to go back kind of begging for money never knowing after how much they're going to get. We don't have any sort of long term funding solution for Amtrak like we do for our highway system are for the air traffic control system for example. What do you see as the solution to that. I'm not sure there is one silver bullet Phil has pointed out to me a point with respect to fuel prices and necessity of passing an energy bill but obviously that's not going to strike entirely at the endor line.

I think the reality is that we have to regard Amtrak I think we have to establish a mindset that Amtrak rail passenger service is a public service that we want to do everything we can to maximize its effectiveness in terms of dollars to make it efficient. But that is not going to make money it's not a profit making venture. It's not it's not General Motors or you know. Or Chrysler and we have to understand it is going to be a subsidy and a price to be paid for the benefits and obviously the benefits are environmental their safety their convenience and their otherwise. And so I'm not sure in terms of the overall solution other than the solution has got to be that we're going to have to pay dollars to get what we what we want to get in terms of public service an Amtrak one of and I think we ought to just dismiss this notion that we're only going to support the service if it makes a dollar because as much as I want to do that's not going to happen. I agree completely with you. Thank you very much.

I think we're about at a midpoint here we're talking with Congressman Tim Johnson we will continue but first we must take one minute to do this. This is a test of the Emergency Alert System. This message was instituted by the Illinois Emergency Management Agency. This station is participating at a required monthly test of the Illinois Emergency Alert System. This system was developed to provide information to the public during emergencies. And this is Focus 580 HERE I AM 580 I'm David Inge. Thank God we don't have any emerged as we that we have no emergencies to tell you about this morning if you want to talk with our guest Congressman Tim Johnson represents the 15th Congressional District a lot of folks here in our listening area

in the 15th and every once in awhile when he's here in the district we ask him to come and take questions and that's what we're doing whatever's on your mind. 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. We'll go next to a caller in Homer line 3 L O. Good morning this is pointless and oh hi Paul how are you. Good. I was gone with regard to the Central American Free Trade Agreement. I guess I'd like to still refresh your sense inception of them after. The United States has lost eight hundred seventy nine thousand two hundred eighty American jobs of which 16 hundred Maytag workers here are now on the way. Wasser jobs when Maytag took manufacturing to Mexico I understand just this past week that the U.S. Senate passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement and soon the conquered Congress will be asked to vote on this.

The House and the house accuse me. The six countries that make up the caftan agreement have roughly the population of California and New Jersey and collectively have. And the economic output roughly equivalent to New Haven Connecticut. I don't think caf is going to be about free trade as much as we need trade for agricultural goods and so on. I believe kept us more about outsourcing more jobs and this nation can't handle that. We've lost too many already. You want to comment. Yes I mean your idea I mean I was listening to you and I'm happy to ok to listen I'm still in the process of internalizing all the information so I guess the best thing to I was in here in the Congress when Napster was approved Yes I know I am open minded about CAPTA that I

do think we have to look at each trade agreement in and of itself and not on the one of the unfortunate things about this you use these little acronyms and everybody just assumes this is naff to to. And the reality is that kept is something entirely different than Knapton fact many people in Central America in the Dominican Republic feel this is too one sided and that the only effect of it will be to benefit our our egg producers and otherwise and the only thing we're giving up is is a few tariffs with respect to sugar. Now I want to look at the agreement in full and make sure that that is in fact a correct assessment of what capped it is but I do think sometimes we tend to over generalize in these areas and just assume every free trade agreements the same and some are some aren't some aren't you know NAFTA's one thing in Morocco something else and I think we have to look at them at each in and of themselves under the president's trade promotion authority in our obligation to support or nonsupport it. OK well I guess.

You know given their collective the Six Nations are quite of economic output equal to New Haven Connecticut. How much of our goods and services are they going to be actually able to buy. I mean. So it was as I understand it I was on the plane the other day with Rob Portman the former congressman from Cincinnati who is our new trade negotiator. The impact to Illinois for example 15th District a corn grower soybean producers livestock producers would be substantial. Now I I want to ascertain for myself. Well I trust Mr. Portman I want to ascertain for myself what the real effect is and if it is in fact what you say and if the many of the problems that result from it are those that you described then I I obviously want to know that but I at this point I'm undecided but your information your input as well as everybody else is important here. OK I appreciate that. You know NAFTA's a 900 page agreement. I realize as you said there are not the same thing and that's accurate.

NAFTA's 900 page document. Why do we need 900 pages of verbiage to sell corn beans to anybody. Well I'm not I didn't I mean you know she had the treaty so I have you I have no idea. I know but just this another step in that same direction of course it's a precursor to the free trader of the Americas which would encompass all South America. Well the entire Western Hemisphere want except Cuba. Let's say it's a point well made. And they I I I'm hopeful that you'll think that my considerations with this are deliberative and you can help me write your call right here. OK. But if you expect me to tell you on the phone that I'm going to vote against after That's not going to happen I may I want to hear all the input both ways and at this point I'm we're a ways away from voting I met decided I must tell you that at this point that I'm leaning in support of of kept it in approving it because I believe that it's been the benefit

to American economy generally and specifically to the 15th District in our producers is substantial. But I can be persuaded to the contrary. OK well I don't want to mislead you I don't want to leave you with a conversation and have me just be a typical politician say yeah yeah yeah yeah and then do whatever I want I don't want to hear I want to hear you. But at this point if I had to vote today I'd vote in favor of it. OK you know I guess I would encourage you to you know just see I will. How much how much economic possibilities there are with these countries to actually trade with us. Well Paul you're you know I've respected your expertise and your your input for a long time and there is no difference here so I'll continue to listen buddy. Thank you much. Thanks for the go for just for a moment here and we'll get back to callers who want to have you talk a bit about energy legislation. Now the House and the Senate have each passed bills and now it goes to the point where the two differences continue to have. Having to write words out in conference and there are significant differences. Can you just talk a little bit about

what exactly are the most important differences as far as you're concerned in the two bills and how do you see this being worked out. One of the differences is that some of the add ons in one chamber or the other that are there are meant to benefit specific areas and specifically this is insufficient to have a vote against the bill but I don't like to see the provisions with respect to immunization for MTBE producers that were contained in the bill. That's frankly one of the holdups the Texas delegation believes for example that there they ought to be included I don't there are some differences with respect to the electrical grid systems and then some underlying philosophical differences that really are pretty pretty broad based. I think those are going to be resolved the underlying issue for me and being again fairly Provincial is the renewable fuels portion of it. Some of the energy energy conservation measures contain in it the wind power provisions with are extremely important but under publicized and and I believe

the general need to do even more in this energy bill to encourage. Energy conservation but we are at a conference committee stage. This is going to be an imperfect bill and I'm sure whatever the vote is that I'm going to leave plenty of people plenty to criticize me for. But I am 100 percent committed to vote in favor of an energy bill get an energy policy adopted the United States and have as many provisions contained within it that I support that I can. But one way or the other I'm not going to allow one or two or three issues to hold up approval of an extremely important bill. So when you think they'll be something for the president to sign I think it'll be by the August break. We have three weeks starting next week before the August break and I'm confident that both an energy and a transportation conference committee report will be and will be passed during that time that the president will be able act on our next caller here Abana 1:1. Hello.

Hi. Congressman Johnson you know you know better than than anyone I guess that there are awful lot of folks in the 15th district who are really worried about President Bush's proposal for private accounts in Social Security and benefit cutbacks and they're concerned about what's happening to our commitment to social security for the elderly and for people with disabilities and for their families. I wondered whether I think I've gotten kind of. Six messages on your position on this. WRAL reported a little while back from your office that you felt that privatization should not be that private accounts should not be part of the solution to Social Security and I and if that's true I think that's a that's a great position because in fact private accounts whatever challenges there are for sort of Security

private accounts will make the finances work worse. Yeah I'm not. But let me just clarify that before because I'm afraid if we get too long for long enough that the original question Ari. I think that's a correct assessment in that I believe the president has done at best a mediocre job and probably you know a C-minus job of explaining and frankly some of the opposition has done a C-minus job of responding to the reality and the reality is that the underlying sanctity of Social Security the underlying viability of so security is almost totally unrelated to personal accounts. Personal accounts are a different philosophical issue in there I suppose you have to chance to address that issue. But to even suggest that personal accounts are going to address the long run demographic problem of so security is not accurate. They don't they have nothing to do it or virtually nothing to do with it. I'm not suggesting I and I think I remain open minded on this issue both on the long term viability solutions as well as personal accounts. But I do think they need to be

considered in separate veins because they aren't related to one another. So in I don't believe they aggravate the problem because I think in the long run. You know if you if you pay less in the day you take less out in the long haul so in a strictly economic sense I believe they're essentially a wash but they're certainly ones that don't enhance the system. Yeah and I mean a huge yes. My concern would be that it's much worse than a wash because. In fact even the even the proposals of the Bush administration involve not only cutting back the funds you're going to have but also real cuts in benefits right. I mean I haven't no promises I haven't seen many specific proposals so far right. I know I know but they're not anybody yet. Well what I was wondering is if you would talk on a number of these issues about waiting for input on on both sides. But is it enough to say that it at this stage that in something that you'd consider over the next

six months that that private accounts are not part of the solution and that you would not want to cut Social Security benefits. I mean is that do I want to cut Social Security benefits no. And I'm not going to not going to support anything that eliminates the underlying commitment that we've made to seniors and others in our social security system. But the reality is that there are a lot more people of my age that are living a lot longer. There are a lot less people like my children and grandchildren that are born and pay into the system to support what was once a 20 to 1 ratio is now three to one soon soon be a two and a half to one ratio. I'm not in favor of cuts to address the issue but we do have to recognize that in some form or fashion whether it's increased taxes whether it's calculation of benefits whether it's an increase in retirement age or all the above that is not a

problem it's going to go away by just closing our eyes. Absolutely absolutely. And it's not a problem that's going to go away by private by private accounts. We're only the only relationship. In a public domain public private accounts to the problem of so security is not one of actuality but quote unquote pain. If if if you level out benefits and I'm not suggesting vacating for that but if you calculate them for example as some of the proposed done on the bases of prices rather than wages then at some point in the future when those benefits for future retirees I want to say level out don't increase to the extent that they are now and some people have argued that private accounts allow those same people to make more money on their investment which you know you I'm sure you have some question about we all want to look at that I suppose from the standpoint of somebodies mental health so to speak when they're receiving a leveled out benefit but have more coming into theirs to their

pocket through private accounts. The pain is not as apparent but certainly on the issue itself. They're not related to one another and I think that the opponents and proponents have been chasing. Phantom when they are when they're presuming that they're related I I'm not sure that private counts in them themselves are a bad idea I want to be I want to look at those see what see what the bills are I haven't seen any bills or hardly bills but they're certainly not related to the underlying Sankey of so security. But it does sound like I know there's a big there's a big rally planned for July 26. Third thing you've got to oppose private accounts. And but it does sound like there's still reason for people to mobilize to get in touch with you Yeah sure absolutely. No I want people to do that I hope and for have I think one thing we take a lot of pride in his office on making sure that we maintain the area of communication I want to hear from people. Thank you very much.

Thanks for the call. I guess one of the things on this that I thought that I had read was that there were there were a substantial number of Republicans in the House who were interested in seeing some version of private accounts go forward now. Now the president has invested a lot of time in promoting the idea. There doesn't seem to be a lot of public support for it among As far as you know among your fellow Republicans in Congress would there be enough interest so that you could move something that would be some version of the of the private accounts. It's hard to determine David. So if the if if the proposals were coupled in with the. Various other proposals with respect to pensions and otherwise and sometimes you get these bills that not only incurred personal accounts but 16 other concepts some of which support your always in the dilemma of you know how do you vote against something you're for and or say when you when you have a bill with a lot of writers on it. So I you know I again I've looked and I haven't seen very much specific there's been a few proposals been brought forth but I think we're a long ways away from from a solution.

Well given given how complicated it is given how difficult it is to put something like this together would you would you even expect anything significant to happen on this this year. I don't believe so although Roy Blunt was quoted the other day where the majority whip is saying that he's going to try to do something between the July 4th break in August and I find that very hard to believe in talking to my colleagues this is this is the third rail. Yeah. Well let's go to another caller here tonight I believe line for Hello. Good morning. Yes I do have comments and a question on a couple of items on the Social Security. I was very concerned that there are congressman from the south from service. Look upon Social Security as a dinosaur to be taken care of. Well I certainly don't agree with that. Well I don't and I certainly don't either. And having lost a son in law in the 40s from heart attack in the small child and

wife the benefits from the insurance part of it I look at so it really is also an insurance program and be rough if they lost some of those benefits. And I wonder if you might comment I have another question besides this one but my comment on raising contributions for people make over $90000 a year I don't think that's a part of the contribution now. And another question I assume that if you are if you're advocating for that I presume you would be in favor of also calculating people's benefit on those on those higher levels of contribution right now that goes along with it. That's true. And those those are details that should be worked out. But I understand that that was raised to $90000 I go a long way in helping the program. It would bar private accounts are concerned we got IRAs we got or in one case we don't need private accounts. Well those are three of four points. While I don't

necessarily oppose increasing the contribution income limit I also want to point out that contrary to what I had thought and apparently what you think that it is even it is a tiny drop in the bucket in terms of solution of the underlying viability of so security that buys an extra two or three years and that's all. So the increasing the limit from 90 to 200000 very appealing. There are certainly a lot to be said for it but it doesn't even come close to addressing the viability issue. I thought it did too but I've seen the statistics I've seen the I've seen the calculations economically and it is I don't see a drop in the bucket. It is not a major solver of the problem. Well it also I hear is it is going to be many many years before the program goes bankrupt if there is some controversy. Is there a question that I would like to bring up to another subject is this sense

as well. I have id.. I think if the program should go on and they might help people with all fibers all of the number of other things. I just want to comment on your opposition to them. I haven't the Post's stem cells part and I have not opposed. I don't know where you get that information I've not so I've not supported federal funding of certain aspects of stem cell research because I think we're acting in areas we're talking about federal dollars. But I certainly not I have not supported. I have not advocated eliminating stem cell research you or you want to be financed privately not entirely. I certainly believe that there are certain aspects of federal funding that make sense but I also think we've got to be very careful just like with Captain Knapp to make making sure that what we're investing your taxpayers dollars on are proven or at least partially proven areas. I'm

not in opposition to stem cell research I had a father died a B disagreeing father die of Parkinson's so I'm very sympathetic to addressing the issue. But I think using catchwords and assuming that that's going to solve all the problems when we're dealing with federal dollars that can be used perhaps more effectively in other areas is somewhat counterintuitive. Well it appears like. Experiments in research abroad is getting ahead of us where we're not we're not really doing much except on state levels. Fourth there are states that are pushing well adult stem cell research has been extremely effective and I think that's a good area where we can we can channel federal dollars in embryonic stem cell research is another issue. Well I'm glad to hear that you're feeling. I couldn't understand why he would be opposed to the it makes sense. Well you know I guess it's people like to put everything in black and white categories and they aren't. Well thank you very much. I hope you continue to your own

feelings on social security and not ruin it as an insurance program. I feel I was also you know my friends those securities I'm about three years away from myself and for myself and my children and grandchildren and people who are on it now I want to make sure that remains part of our part of our social services. Thank you for the call let's go on to champagne for the next one one. Hello hi. I hear a lot of talk about raising taxes why don't you look for other sources to tax like the end of it. You mean for Social Security. Well it's generally just just in general yeah yeah. Sir we want to I don't want to I'm not going to conduct a fishing expedition to figure out every way we could possibly raise money but I'm not one who's advocated tax increases that's for sure I hadn't thought much about the Internet one way or the other high. What do you propose we do tax internet services. Well sure you have federal and state level because a lot of states are going broke and I know you know I'm much involved with that but if the federal government is looking for other sources

of income to bring down the deficit or whatever that there's another source right there. Yeah yeah I mean I appreciate your call and I really I'm I'm not I'm not going to I'm not going to advocate creating a new tax on the Internet I think that system's working pretty well right now and in that regard I'd hate to I hate to introduce that into the equation the first time. All right let's go to line number two when this is someone in Urbana. Hello. You know I'd like to. Here are your thoughts on the upcoming Supreme Court nomination I recognize it's in the hands of the Senate. But since you are a member of this wonderful what is called Center Isle group Iraq officer. Yes. I thought your voice of reason might be helpful in the upcoming conversation which threatens to be quite you know just incredible. It has a potential to be a world war three and I just I really think you're right. I hope that voices of reason and balance

come to the fore in this debate. It's it has the potential to be one of the most I would say traumatic but one of the most agonizing debates in American history and that serves no one. Well I would agree and you know from what over the years I've heard President Bush talk about he has talked about for example Roe v. Wade as a litmus test and looking at specific issues as as factors that will help him sway his his mind and that's really very discouraging. Sandra O'Connor having been billed as a centrist is it's an interesting way to characterize her because of course on the bench when you have to make a vote you don't vote in the center you either vote for or against something. But I guess her centrist reputation comes from the fact that she sometimes voted with the progressive and some. But yeah she did it and it would really be interesting to try and find somebody like that who is basically independent and who takes on each issue on the merits of itself rather than in a polemical agenda as many of Bush's nominees potential nominees seem to

have with our president. I would have no litmus test. Yeah I really. You got to understand that. And you do that members it's just Cheri have to consider each case it comes before I'm not in a you know you know Litmus Test arena but in terms of some kind of responsible approach to the law you know they're not trying to be popular trying to do what what the law dictates That's right. So you know if Bush winds up nominating or talking about nominating somebody who's really on the extreme right is just going to be an area log. Well though you're not in the Senate I'm one have the privilege of voting for this it would be interesting privilege it occurs from your centrist caucus position perhaps to add some reason. I restate your I think Stephen are going to discuss that and we have a May in a next next couple weeks although sometimes people in the Senate and other people resent the interference where we don't where we get involved in issues that we don't have to vote on so it's kind of a dilemma that you have a problem. OK thank you.

All right thank you well I think at that point we're going to finish up with thanks to the callers and also thanks to our guest Tim Johnson. He's representative in Congress from the 15th district a lot of our listeners in the district and when we have the opportunity we like to have him here to take questions. Thanks very much David I appreciate it hope you and Celeste have a nice trip to the Northeast this year. Thank you.