Focus 580; Open Line with TIM JOHNSON

Good morning welcome to focus 580. This is our telephone talk program. My name's David. Glad to have you with us this morning on the show today we'll have another conversation with a candidate for office in our part of the state in the run up to the primaries and also to the general election we try as much as we can to have candidates on the program to give you the opportunity to talk with them. REPORTER It's good to talk with them all the time. But the idea of these programs is to give some citizen and voter access to candidates and that's why we do them. The guest today is Tim Johnson he is a Republican candidate who is running for Congress in the 15th Congressional District Now this is an open seat as some months ago Tom Ewing decided that he was going to retire. So we have two candidates here a Republican Democrat his opponent in this race is Mike killer. He was here on the program a couple weeks ago. And we're glad to have Tim Johnson here to give you the same opportunity to talk with the candidate he has for a number of years now since 1906 been a member of the Illinois House of Representatives. And in the house he has served as deputy

majority leader. He's also been a floor spokesman for the House Republicans and has been a member of the House Republican leadership team. Also before that before being elected to the State House he served on the Urbana city council for a number of years he also was between 1900 and 96. The Republican county chairman for champagne County. So he has been involved in politics in our area for quite a long time. He's a graduate of the University of Illinois. He went to both undergraduate school here and got his law degree here and he also makes his living as an attorney in Urbana. We're glad to have him here and if you would like to call in and talk you're certainly welcome to do that the number here in Champaign Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. We also do have that toll free line so that means no matter where you're listening if it would be a long distance call for you use that number and that is 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5 and again if you match the numbers with the letters on the phone you get w i l l 3 3

3 w. while toll free 800 1:58. Well thanks very much Dave I'm glad to be here this is. It's been a little while now. This is always one of the best forums of of any year in particular an election year is your station and your reach and the depth that this should people bring to me. There you go. Well again I hope so we'll get some calls from people. Well I can ask some questions in the meantime. Let's talk about Social Security and Medicare. Since these are subjects that certainly on the presidential level have been much discussed there is some people have voiced concern about the future of Social Security. Whether or not the system will continue to stay solvent and whether or not we should make some changes in the way the Social Security operates including the possibility of giving individuals the opportunity to take some of the money that now just goes into the system. And make some decisions for themselves on investing that do you think that we should be changing the way that Social Security is structured.

Well clearly contrary to what some of said the system is partially broken it needs to be fixed. Estimates range as to the year when the system will start operating in the red but under current circumstances it will within the next couple decades. And estimates range anywhere from two decades to four as to when it will be defunct. But clearly and we make unless we make a change that will happen. It is essential David that sunny trite that we keep the commitment that we made to individuals who paid into the system for all or part of a lifetime to have a secure retirement. That system is jeopardized that system is under siege but it is my feeling among other things that both Medicare and Social Security need to be taken off budget with the budget surplus that now exist. We need to put and I hate to use that word but it is that we want a better word Bosso security in Medicare in a lockbox take it off take it off budget and assure that that's our first priority to keep those commitments. It is all my Also

my position that there should be a voluntary option on the part of current. Pay into the system to dedicate a portion of their savings into personal savings accounts that are pre-approved and safe and that will ultimately mean that the system will be sounder and that those individuals receive a greater return on their investment. And that's good for everybody. I think I think that some people are concerned about is that if we're worried about the soundness of the system aren't we taking a risk by taking some of the money that would go into the system to pay benefits out and giving it to people in a sense giving it to people and say Here you can invest this on your own. Well first of all. Part of the benefit of this program is to assure the underlying strength of the system and that's done by allowing individual annuitants to be able to receive a greater return on their investment and therefore less pressure on the system generally but an integral

part of the proposal that Governor Bush has made that Speaker Hastert has made would be paying back into the treasury the large amounts of money that have been borrowed from the so surety trust fund to be able to more then cover. Those amounts of money that people obviously put into personal savings accounts. And it seems to me that the overall system is protected. Individuals are protected and that a system that is absolutely essential. To a Humane Society and want to keep its promises will be secure. Now that said when we talk about Medicare you raise Medicare too and we have honest philosophical disagreements. One of the points that my opponent has made one of the planks of his platform and I certainly respect his right to make these proposals but I strongly disagree. Is that the age for Medicare in his judgment should be lowered to 55. I'm almost 55 I shouldn't be able to receive

Medicare. The ultimate effect of lowering that age to 55. You know why not lower to 45 or 35 or 25. It would be to seriously undermine the financial actuarial stability of the Medicare and Social Security system. And so that's simply an area that we have a major disagreement on. And while I strongly support measures to shore up the system to cut waste to provide alternatives to make sure that the Medicare so security system work that we extend Medicare to cover prescription medication that expansion of the benefits of the sort that he's talking about namely lowering the Medicare age to 55 just doesn't make financial sense. It seems that I think in some people's minds doing that low lowering the age at which will provide Medicare to people and looking at providing greater health coverage for children is a way of in small bites getting to the point that some people would like to see as and that is universal health care.

Well my point was a staffer for Congressman Russo Congressman Marty Russo for two or three years Congressman Russo was the author of Hillary Clinton's universal health care proposal. I happen to believe that that is not a direction that serves the general public and it certainly doesn't serve individuals within our society. It provides a huge cost to the taxpayers and it provides a poor quality medical service. And I don't believe that we ought to incrementally Hales toward head towards an universal health care system. At the same time I believe there are a number of gaps David that need to be filled in terms of at the state level our chips program the federal program various funding for all the timers for Parkinson's for cancer. With respect to prescription medication our agenda for healthy America that would cover or cover prescription medication for those within the Medicare system. I believe those are sound programs

that involve both the public and the private sector that will work well. But I think the radical changes that Mr. Russo proposed some decades ago or that some individuals proposed today simply don't make sense. I just like to remind people maybe you tune in last little bit here our guest in this first hour of focus 580 is Tim Johnson he's a Republican candidate for Congress in Illinois 15th District and he's here not just to talk with me but also to talk with you and if you have questions there's a particular issue that concerns you whatever's most important to you call in and talk with him about. And when I leave here between here an impi where I'm going to take a swim I'm stopping at Cafe express a Royale on campus so if a boy is to see me and they don't want to call in to stop you know I'll stop in there so it right we can probably buy a coffee but I won't do that. Say hello. How 3 0 3 3 3 3 W I L L toll free 800 1:58 W while those are the numbers. Well maybe we should talk a bit about prescription drug coverage it's something that both Republicans and Democrats are talking about but they have

different approaches. What how how would you see this working. Well mine David is a My proposal is such as a variation both from the Gore in the Bush proposal. I would extend prescription medication to all individuals without cost to live within a hundred thirty five percent of the poverty level for one hundred thirty five two hundred fifty percent of the poverty level we have a graded scale that provides a very very low cost. I would provide a $6000 ceiling for anyone beyond which their cost can never extend which along with these other things provides the incentive for the private sector. Given the lack of the possibility of catastrophic loss to be involved to make a cost efficient delivery of services for people overhead of 50 percent the poverty level where we provide then them the option of a either a higher premium which would be obviously result a lower deductible or a lower premium and a higher deductible

and the option of. Combining that in tandem with a private co-insurance program that would provide to deliver those services that are that are necessary and really address I think a pretty Foursquare way the cost spiralling cost of prescription medication. And there's no question as I go from Kankakee to Paris and champaign to Bloomington that the spiraling cost of prescription medication is a big issue. And I would just say parent that Equally I know this doesn't address directly that issue that there are some who believe that if this Justice Department has the capacity and the will to pursue Bill Gates for real or alleged violations of antitrust laws and that perhaps that same examination ought to be directed to the big pharmaceutical companies to some allege anyway or involved in tying agreements or anti trust violations or otherwise. Well that indeed gets to the issue that I thought I might raise with you just when we talk about the cost of drugs some people have indeed said that perhaps the government ought to. If not intervene at least ought to look at the issue of

pricing and I guess as I think as I think of you as pretty much a guy who believes in a limited role of government and it surprises me to hear you say well maybe that's something that we ought to be thinking about. Well I guess David my my concept of limited government goes back to that Teddy Roosevelt approach and that is that a free true free market system a treif true enterprise system can't work if you have monopolistic practices. That's not free enterprise. That's just a transfer transferred form of corporate socialism of its own sort. And so I would suggest that it's entirely in keeping with a limited government approach. To say that when you have. Time agreements when you have an I trust violations when you have competitive combinations that that works very contrary exactly contrary to the system of free enterprise that I think has worked well for this country for decades.

Just ask one more question about the prescription drug program that you outlined. What's it going to cost. Do you think we don't have exact estimates on the cost. We know that our cost is the cost of this program is substantially less than the Gore proposal and that at least is as little as or less than the Bush proposal. But we haven't been able because of the lack of government statistics to get you exact figures but it's certainly within the range of affordability. You talk about the fact that you would like to see more money go into research on things like cancer and Alzheimer's disease and so forth. I think that some people believe at least that there's a great need to prescribe to provide long term care. And that it's unfortunate that people would have to get to the point where they would have to spend all of their assets and then rely on public assistance at the end of their life to take care of their needs particularly if we're talking about is

it is Custos ideal care. Do you think that there is any possibility that we might get to the point that there would be an expanded coverage under Medicare for long term care. There's been those proposals in fact I think one of the proposals at least parallels that was one that was made by former Speaker Newt Gingrich. And there is there have been those proposals and I agree with the underlying assumption that it's an issue that we need to address. And I think that this next Congress in the following Congresses will have the opportunity to look at it at more length and determine what parameters a long term care program should encompass. The I think when you look at those lists of subjects they go out they talk to voters and they say what's most important to you one of the things that seems to be near the top of everybody's list education. What can be done to strengthen public education. And what if any the role of the federal government should be. I think people do believe that schools are and should be locally governed institutions. Certainly Republicans talk about that a good deal.

But certainly Mr. Bush also has talked about a federal role in education and I wonder how it is one. Reconciles those two notions when you say you know we have locally elected school boards they are local institutions yet there are some kind of federal government role. What what is that role. I don't mean to be evasive about the question is well put but I think it's hard to answer that question without making some reference to the role of the state government in the whole ingredient. And it's also probably impossible to answer completely talking about higher education so give me a little leash here and show you that this we've begun to finally turn the corner after many years of decreasing percentage of state dollars going into education we finally begin to turn the corner we're still not adequately funding education. I supported and broke with my party several years ago in supporting the education package would have essentially shifted the funding from real estate to an income tax the means by which we fund schools I still strongly support that. I have been a strong committee to elementary

and secondary and higher education I suppose that's one of the reasons why I have been endorsed by the National Education Association the Illinois Education Association and I believe that the federal government can play a role in higher educational level through obviously in a major way through grants to this institution Dyess you and others hugely important to the future of this community University of Illinois. Federal dollars are critical. There are many federal dollars coming in here as there are as there are state dollars other than tuitions sources and so forth. Pell Grants and then special needs with respect to elementary and secondary level special education needs various disability grants and others filling in the gaps and I think that's appropriate that that be done. But I do agree with Governor Bush when I say that when I say or as he says that the decision is how best to use those dollars is not reached in a one size fits all mentality but rather in the you know one 16 or unit seven schools in terms of their determinations how dollars ought to be spent.

Let me just say one last thing about education before we go on. I've represented this community for 28 years including my years in the city council 24 years in the general assembly and together with Stan Weaver and with Virgil white coffee with Helen Satterthwaite with Rick Winkle with laurel processing. We have been absolutely dedicated to disk university and its role as a preeminent national institution across the board. In my opinion we've got one of the finest institutions of higher education in the world right here. But as we go into this new millennium and we go into the bio technological revolution as we deal with an unlimited landscape of New. Technological advances we've got to assure that this university is on the cutting edge and I make no apologies about going to Washington and having one of my primary missions to assure that ISU and the University of Illinois receive every dollar that we can get

in terms of research and otherwise to make sure that higher education which is with agriculture the backbone of this district is supported to the hilt. And I would suggest to you that if we don't do that successfully if we don't have somebody here advocating successfully for the future of higher education in central Illinois then the socio economic system that we've learned to live with and love could be something very different than what we expect to have today. Just to talk a little bit specifically about elementary secondary education. You know I didn't mean to digress I don't know. That's fine. That's one. I think that I hear from some people this concern that government and I guess they're talking about the federal government is somehow intruding on the way schools are run and given though given the fact that as weak knowledge that schools are governed by local and local folks locally elected and given the fact that the federal

government as far as elementary secondary education goes doesn't provide a lot of money. I guess my question is all right to those people who say that government is too intrusive. What exactly does that mean do you. Do you think that there are ways in which the federal government is too involved in telling schools elementary secondary schools what to do. There are areas where the Department of Education as well as the State Board of Education through grants from Springfield imposes mandates on units of local government specifically school districts without dollars attached. And I think that in those particular areas in other areas of micromanaging the gamut of issues I think that's an appropriate federal role. On the other hand I think we can look back to the 1960s when Governor Wallace stood on the courthouse steps and attempted to prevent African-Americans from entering institutions of higher education or other

than their quote own schools in Alabama. And I think when local control. Denigrates to a level of violating clear Constitutional mandates and rights. There are those areas where the federal or state government need to be involved. But for the most part on an everyday basis and on a micro-management basis I don't believe that the federal government has or should have it approach much of a role in terms of how to run the Blue Ridge a school district or the Ridgeview school district. These days I think when it comes to public education and again I think about what happens on elementary and secondary levels. Accountability is the is one of the big words that everybody talks about and states I think have tried to respond to that desire. Certainly Illinois and Indiana have and I'm sure other states have as well by instituting standardized testing. You test in certain subjects at various times along the child's career to to be able

to say to parents and to the public here's how we're doing. Is there some need for doing that on the national level. I'm not sure that there's a need. I think there's a need for it. Establishing the basic proposition that students who graduate from institutions of education in the United States ought to have certain learned skills. There ought to be a certain level of accountability. But the problem is well I voted for Chicago school reform and other reform measures at the state level. One size within the state let alone within the nation does not fit all. The other problem is David and I have had countless numbers of administrators and teachers and for that matter parents and students who have come to me and said These tests are OK but they change every year. We stablish a testing system that disrupts our holes where their whole workday for three days and then the next year is completely different and the

consistency in terms of administrative bodies is. Implementation of what's a good concept as it has not been there and so I believe accountability ought to exist. I believe that there ought to be requisite requirements for schools and terms of the product that they produce. But I think it can be better produced on a case by case or at least district by district level with certain basic governing parameters. Then some kind of a national or state one size fits all approach. We're about midway through here. We have a caller. We'll get right to. And again I'd like to introduce Again our guest for the show we're talking with Tim Johnson. He has since 1906 served in the Illinois House of Representatives he's a Republican and now is running for Congress in the 15th District here in state his opponent is Mike Kelleher he was here on this program a couple of weeks ago and we wanted to have you get the same opportunity to hear from Tim Johnson and ask questions. You can do that very

easily by calling us the number here in Champaign Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 we also have toll free line good anywhere that you can hear us and that is 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. I might add day that the hot tea that's just been provided me by your station is the best I've had. Yeah I really appreciate it. Well we'll see if we can get your leave my as my drink of choice work on his collar talk within urban and it's line number one. Hello. Hello. Yes. I want to go back to the source. Purity issue if I may. I wonder what the candidate would think of the idea of raising or eliminating the cap on the amount of earnings that are taxed for Social Security which I believe is around $60000 or so now. This could have the effect of as well as making the system more secure than relying on a stock market that's been going up and down a lot lately possibly making the system more fair so that working people who are under that

amount don't have to pay twice as much or 10 times as much as people have. In percentage terms of their income. So Zakaria's people earn a lot more. Are you suggesting that the rate of tax or rate of so Security taxes I am sure what you're suggesting that the limit I think. I believe that only the first $60000 or so of one's earnings are taxed for Social Security right now. I mean once you have a slow Security age you know I'm talking to I searching for retraining and I see what you're saying that that same limitation does not apply to Medicare by the way. No I'm talking about just so sick right. So there have been ideas to raise that amount or eliminate the cap so that. Say a hundred and twenty thousand dollars would be taxed for Social Security or all of one's income no matter how much you want. Well that's certainly a proposal. Rates I want to what. Yeah I know that's a good question. I mean that's certainly been a proposal that's been made. The underlying assumption since the 1930s is so security is a

retirement program and not a tax. And there are some who have suggested in fact one of my professors in law school who suggested let's just discard the concept that this is a retirement program is treated as a tax and act accordingly. And it would seem to me that if we head towards the increasing the income limits at which so security applies beyond where it is now we are going a long ways towards calling it a tax. I'd be glad to look at that issue but I guess my first inclination is to say that with respect to the to the payments made into the system it works well the way it exists now. I'm not. No one has specifically asked me that. That's a very good question. That certainly goes to some of the actuarial under my underpinnings of the system. But I guess I'm inclined to believe that while we shouldn't extend benefits neither should we extend taxes beyond where they are now. Thank you. Thank you for the call. Other questions are welcome. 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5.

One of the things is that you have advocated and I think certainly other Republicans have as well is the elimination of inheritance tax. Look at it it's a state tax that we live in a the only way it is in deed. By my misstatement in deed the estate tax and the concern particularly I think focuses here on small business people and farmers because in fact the number of states that qualify in this country are relatively small and sometime soon I guess it's next year I believe that it will it will get to the point where you could have an estate of a million dollars and not pay any tax at all. So here we're talking about in some sense some special cases. What why. Why eliminate the estate tax completely rather than say do something like simply raise the point at which we're going to say below this level. We won't expect any tax and that's certainly one proposal.

I would suggest however that first of all my point I agree on this he's in favor of abolition of the death tax altogether. Four hundred acres is not a lot of acres to own 400 acres at three thousand dollars an acre. And of course that's a pretty good price for farmland and that's good farmland. But nonetheless that's one point two million dollars that's well an exit well in excess of the current exemption in a good many cases would provide at the 55 percent rate that that son or daughter or combination thereof would have to sell a part portion of the farmland that's been known in their family for generations to be able to pay the estate tax. Same way with the person who owns a royal donut over in Danville a couple of royal donut shop shops the business maybe worth a couple million dollars is not you can't you know going to go out and sell it because you had to make a living doing that when you pass away and leave it to your children to run have been run in the business with you for generations. You've got to pay a pretty high tax now. Sure. So one proposal would be to increase the the level at which the taxes kicks in.

But I would suggest that on balance it probably is a better approach to to abolish the tax altogether. That's something. One of the few things actually that my point and I have agreed on but I understand the point and it certainly would be in the absence of complete abolition one compromise that people have proposed. We have somebody on a car phone so we'll not make them wait we'll get right to them. It's a line for Hello. Yes. Thank you for taking my call. I'm really I'm a farmer and I'm really glad to hear your address in the inheritance tax. Both you and your opponent. I think that one of the problems is most of us live poor die rich because in our errors just because we can't afford high powered attorneys and can't get around it like people with 50 60 million can. But my question is concerning the the national debt reduction

if we the Social Security trust out of the equation we still have a pretty big deficit I mean a pretty big surplus. Yeah oh yeah. They're in that but. But our problem is. You know what we're talking about the budget I really don't like Governor Bush's idea that we give you no tax cuts to everybody. I prefer to pay down the national debt. Can you address what you're saying. I agree and this is one area where Governor Bush and I don't agree. I'm Tim Johnson running for Congress not George Bush's surrogate. I support Governor Bush but I have my own proposals as I do with prescription medication. You're a farmer. Yes I am. And and that's the problem. My business like our government does depending on Social Security to bail the whole system out. I'm broke tomorrow.

You're right. Let me let me address strictly the question you ask rather than generally with respect to agriculture I've been indorsed by all the farm organizations in the state have already had a commitment from the speaker that 0.38 committee I've served on the Ag Committee more oil farming operation agriculture is hugely important me I don't have to tell you that I think I know your voice and we know each other anyway so with respect to the national debt the national debt and the budget surplus. Here's my approach. First thing you do with what is now a substantial budget surplus is to set aside Medicare and so security in a lockbox. The next thing we got to do as you correctly point out in this is an area where my opponent nice substantially disagree is I believe some are in the neighborhood of 90 percent of the balance. After you set aside Medicare and its progeny and so security first ought to be used to pay down the national debt so we're not continuing to mortgage our children and grandchildren future with the balance. I think either a big or extreme. I don't know how many I don't want to use his his his own proclivity to exaggerate but the dozens and dozens of new proposals these program new spending

programs. I think we ought to avoid that extreme and at the same time I think we ought to avoid the extreme that has been expressed by some on the other side that would provide an endless number of new tax cuts because Was today's surplus could be tomorrow's deficit. And once we lock ourselves into a situation of creating 60 new programs or 60 new tax cuts then we're locked in. And then when there is I hope there's not a downturn in the economy. We face a potential deficit. We don't we're not able to pay our national debt. And we face a generally fiscally untenable situation. And so I think your approach is absolutely 100 percent on point and 100 percent coincident with mine. Well I hope other people hear that. Can I make one more point David. Sure. Recently you were endorsed by the plant. Graph today by the Tribune. Well this is I do have a bone of contention with the editorial with the paragraph they they endorse They can endorse whoever they want. But the problem I see with that endorsement was that it was almost backhanded.

They said that the reason people should vote for you is that you can bring more clout from if we have a Republican majority in Dennis Hastert in that. And that was basically the only reason I really believe you vote for the person who does the best job for our district I don't care who he is. Well I'm independent in that regard I just I don't think that we should tie in that the only reason we vote for a candidate is because if the election goes in other parts of the nation as weak as they think it goes we should hope for that one candidate. I'd rather vote for the man. And I am I really want to get off the phone. Let me let me let me just let me just address before you either get off or early you listen to this that I obviously am gratified by the endorsement of the pantograph in the in the Tribune. But I will say that in their endorsement not only did they did they talk about the Hastert issue they also talked

about my position on issues. And they also talked about the fact that I had 24 years experience in government and I put my opponent has none. And that was part of the basis for their endorsement. So while they did mention the the issue of my ability to deal with Hastert which I don't think is irrelevant given the fact that he's from Illinois and has some sensitivity to the 15th District in fact is going to be here Sunday on my behalf. But the endorsement was based on a number of things today by the way. Being a farmer today's endorsement by The Chicago Tribune focused largely on my sensitivity to my commitment to agricultural issues and in particular free trade issues PNTR and otherwise. So while I don't disagree that person ought to vote for a person as a person I believe that the pantograph it was one that extended a little just beyond what the caller said. Well I'll let you go but I do. It's agreed that I vote for the man regardless of what I think. I think the person represents our district is much more important than the periphery.

I agree and I am hopeful that your vote if I receive it will be based on the fact that you think I have a position on the issues and the experience and qualifications to do the job. Well thank you very much. Thank you for the call. We're here at the point where we have about 12 or 13 or 14 minutes left and our guest is Tim Johnson he's a Republican candidate for Congress in the 15th District in Illinois and if you have questions give us a call 333 W. wild toll free 800 1:58 W while I will give you not an advertisement but a simple statement that after I swim my lanes I'm going to be over at the quad the south end of the quad from little afternoon until 12:15 12:30 for to talk to students and faculty and others. And I would welcome anybody to be there including those who are my opponents I'd love to hear from my opponents as well as my supporters. Since we just heard from somebody who was involved in farming let me ask you about the freedom to farm. It seemed that certainly for a long long time one of the things you heard from farmers was that the government was just too too much involved in agriculture and if the government would just get out

we would be much better off. Some years ago there was this package of legislation that was enacted that was called known as Freedom to Farm which seemed to do what people in agriculture had been asking for for a long time. Then we had a downturn in the farm economy. Farmers haven't been facing some very tough times and some people have now said maybe Freedom to Farm was not the right approach and have suggested well maybe indeed the government should get more involved in agriculture at least to the extent that it's there to provide some support for farmers. When you hit when you get these down ticks What do you think about Freedom to Farm and does it need to be revisited. Can I not only address that but maybe expand a little bit to talk about agriculture generally because a good question freedom in far past in 1906 any farmer would tell you it's a great concept. You know let the market dictate the bottom line is it hasn't worked as well in a manner that we expected it would. Some people fall into the safety net. It has become

clear that without a government. Involvement many farmers who haven't and some have to go out of business. So when we revisit that in 20 0 2 and that's when Freedom to Farm such sunsets. Tom Ewing has made this very clear to me at Madigan before him although he was directly involved in freedom far it's going to be probably the most complex issue we face in my first term the General Assembly. While I believe in the fundamental concepts of freedom to farm I believe there are clearly some nuances if not some major segments of that concept that need to be revisited revised and reformulate should government be involved or not involved in agriculture. Yes. Should it. There's areas where it shouldn't be involved. I would have supported and this is an area of contrast between my point and I respectful disagreement. I would have supported permanent normalized trade relations with China. I support the same extension of. Trading rights to China Vietnam and so forth I believe that

the best way to deal with human rights abuses across the diplomatic through diplomatic means and through other means through trade negotiations. But I believe free trade is part of the answer to our problems with respect to agriculture. And so government doesn't need to be involved and it shouldn't provide to trade sanctions and embargoes where they have in the past. I think they can be involved and should be involved on the income side of the ledger with respect to renewable energy sources such as bio diesel in particular ethanol. I think one of the things the government needs to do for example is to ban MTBE pantograph asked me in their editorial session what would be the first bill I put in and I guess there's a number on my list but high on my list would be legislation parallel to the Ewing bill to ban MTBE which is a water polluting substance that competes with ethanol and is generally not good for either the environment or our national energy program to the extent we have one. And so with given the fact that only 1 percent of all the motor fuel sold the United States is ethanol programs to enhance the use

of ethanol as part of our energy program. At the same time benefiting farmers I think is a critical arena. Federal and state government intervention just touching on the energy issue. There is an issue certainly that has come up in the presidential campaign particularly this question of dependence. With that we have on oil a lot of it imported and that's where we get into questions of what should we be doing more exploration in the United States should we drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and and so forth. And I think that the people who argue against that say well that's all well and good but we really ought to be thinking in much longer term and doing what we can to reduce our dependence on oil no matter where it comes from. Should the government be somehow involved in promoting alternative sources of energy Energy Conservation efficiency all that that sort of that sort of stuff in addition to. Continuing to look for oil on

US territory. Absolutely yes yes yes and in regard to all those questions I think we've got it. First of all we've got to have David a national energy probe policy. We have no national energy policy for somebody to ask Bill Clinton what our national energy policy was he'd say well it's whatever I decide it's going to be next week. We have no policy. I would suggest that the revenue arena particularly state sales taxes federal taxes on motor fuel are something we need to be visited. Rick Winkle and I stand we were involved in the abolition of the temporary abolition Anyway the sales tax on motor fuel at a state level and I think that's important. I think we need to look as we suggested a little bit ago with respect to other arenas that big oil and possible tying agreements and trust regulations violations there. But we also need to be sensitive to encouraging the use of alternative clean renewable fuels and that obviously involves ethanol so forth. We also need to be very sensitive to conservation. And the

environment as it fits into our national energy policy. I believe we've got to explore every potential for reducing dependence on foreign oil but at the same time as I said in an interview and GLT long ago over the weekend while I support examining for example the Alaskan arena and looking to see what potential there is for extracting oil that can be sold here. Driving prices down we've also got to be sensitive at the same time to what the environmental effects are may be doing that. That's our last frontier and we don't want to lose it. So I'm not trying to get the most we're best of both worlds but I am suggesting that there is no simple solution. And it's one that needs to be needs to be made with education which is a point that I want to make across the board. The University of Illinois. It is a center of research in diverse areas that are mind boggling. Not the least of which is biotech. Not the least of which

is engineering not the least of which is is the environment quote unquote. And many of these issues that we deal with whether they're genetically modified organisms whether they're environmental impacts or otherwise can be addressed best addressed with full knowledge. And if we don't have an educated either citizenry or an educated government with respect to these various areas then we are going to go into negotiations in going go into making policy with one hand tied behind our back. So this university and for that matter other institutions as well can serve with appropriate federal dollars for research as the flag ship or the flag ships. Throughout this area of providing the technological and research basis for the new millennium. Here's another caller in her Bana line one. Hello. Hi. I was wondering why I hear that. You have produced children who were conceived during and were born outside marriage.

I find it news because it reports about Mr. Clinton. Thank you thank you but I'm here from multiple sources including people who claim to be friends of yours. This is the case can you talk about. I don't I don't that's. I have no idea what the caller's talking about that's just that's just I don't know what the callers calling in about but that's an insulting question to receive on the air. Well I'm not going to say I'm not going respond to that or any other questions with regard to that kind of area. I'm sorry that there's a child of yours who see who are supporting through the University of Illinois. That's ridiculous. And I know that you have no children that I'm receiving any scholarships in the University of Illinois now filled in and out right institutions about to ask those sorts of questions on this sort of forum or any other forum is absolutely not that you are that you are paying child support and putting the child through University of Illinois. I have no idea ma'am what you're alluding to we see I certainly have a daughter at the University of Illinois that I'm providing lives at my home and goes to

University of Illinois I have one son who was at ISU. One said it was in a variety of others but those of questions are so inappropriate that it's insulting to you and the listeners and to me you know. I think that if we're going to help the present to the president to one standard that we should also ask other candidates that we should have the same standards and we should. People should talk about how they're you know and you can you can continue to talk about the man by giving you the answer that I can give you. I'd also like to know why you have been so insulting to gays and lesbians who've come to protest your stands or anti-gay stance legislatively. I have been insulting to gays or lesbians. Well you mock them when they went and protested when you were speaking in the rural town south of here. That is absolutely untrue ma'am. Well that's what it says and you've apparently decided that this is going to be a forum for conducting some kind of a personal attack on me based on either total untruths or distortions. And unfortunately I'm not going to play into the

process of answering your questions I have not insulted gays or lesbians here or anybody else. I happen not to not to support the inclusion of sexual orientation into our Civil Rights Act. But apparently a number of my colleagues agree or that would have been the law in Illinois already. And so I have not been insulting or mocking to anyone of that orientation whatsoever. Well as I was reported the news well may have been reported I don't think it was I'd like to see the reportage as well as anything else you want to provide me. But this call is obviously one that I guess we have to subject ourselves to as public servants and as candidates. But it is offensive to me and I think would be offensive to anybody calling you produce one person who comes in that says that I mocked gays or lesbians anywhere and I'll apologize to you. OK I want to ask one more question before we find ourselves out of time. Your opponent has been very critical of you on the issue of guns and laws about gun ownership regulation and so forth. Let me

ask you let me ask the question this way In what way do you think that it's appropriate for the government to regulate gun ownership. A number of areas I helped develop and sponsor the instant background check system in Illinois that we have now in place. I was a supporter and perhaps a sponsor of the 15 and 20 life bill that enhanced penalties for people who used the gun in the course of the commission of a crime. I support federal law that provides for instant background check across the board from dealers at gun shows or elsewhere. I Support Project X which provides for an expansion of benefits not benefits but payments to U.S. attorneys offices and ATF and so forth with respect to enforcement of existing laws. I I support a number of measures that would crack down on gun violence. That said I don't support the abolition of the Second Amendment. There's certainly been some proposals have been made throughout this

process that that would chip away at or abolish the Second Amendment I certainly don't support those measures. Well we will leave it at that and say thanks very much. Thank you everyone to be here I enjoyed it Tim Johnson Republican candidate for Congress in Illinois 15th District.