The Exchange; Interview with John McCain

From New Hampshire Public Radio I'm Laura Conaway and this is the exchange. Senator John McCain a Republican from Arizona and a presidential candidate is our guest today. McCain is hard to define politically. He's often called a maverick. His schedule one week this may shows how hard it is to label him. On May 24th McCain was honored at the Kennedy Library in Boston with Democrat Russ Feingold for their work together on campaign finance reform. Just two days later he was with Nancy Reagan accepting the conservative of the century award. McCain often says Ronald Reagan is one of his heroes. McCain himself has been called a hero. He was a Navy fighter pilot in Vietnam when he was shot down captured and spent nearly six years as a prisoner of war. McCain was beaten and tortured and for two years he was in solitary confinement. He finally returned to the U.S. in 1973 and got involved in politics. McCain's represented the state of Arizona in Congress since 1982. First in the house and then in the Senate

as is Senator McCain most often votes as a conservative Republican. The American Conservative Union rates him in 95 out of a possible 100 but McCain is best known for his departures from the party line. He agreed with Democrats on his two biggest issues campaign finance reform and tobacco legislation angering Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. But whether those positions will anger or delight Republican voters will be seen in the presidential campaign ahead. McCain is focusing heavily on the New Hampshire and California primaries this week he's on a five day bus tour of the Granite State. He started in Dixville Notch this Monday. Senator McCain is in our studios today and we'd like you to join us. We exchange phone numbers 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7. If you're in Concord join us at 2 2 4 8 9 8 9. And Senator McCain welcome to the exchange. Welcome to New Hampshire. Thank you very much Laura it's good to be with you. I'm a New Hampshire voter. Why should I vote for you. I think you should examine my credentials and my experience. But most

importantly you should pay attention. We are going to end this program and my vision for the future of the country. I hope that my previous legislative and life experiences would qualify me for your consideration. I believe we need to reform government. I think we need to reform the campaign finance system. I think we need a strong national defense and a coherent national security policy. When you say reform government that's something a lot of people say. Could you explain that a little bit more. Well we need to reform the military we need to restructure it to meet the post-Cold War challenges which we are not prepared to do. Now we need to reform education to meet the requirements of the information technology revolution that we're going through. We need to reform the tax code which is now 44000 page chamber of horrors for the average citizen. I didn't realize it was quite that long. 44000 pages didn't reform government to be in tune with this information technology that is fast developing with such breathtaking speed and impact.

We have our institutions of government are geared to oversight. The industrial revolution now the largest part of our economy next year will be commerce and we have to get. I spend. I'm chairman of the Commerce Committee I spend about 90 percent of my time on telecommunications issues because one they're fascinating to their impact on the future the economy of this country and the future basically of how we live. Senator McCain the word maverick is almost always attached to your name. I prefer I prefer a patriot a great American. How does it feel to be labeled a maverick. Well I as I say I prefer other other names. But I think that in some ways it probably fits me because I am very clear and my vision of what my principles and what my vision of America is about and sometimes that causes me to take on the leaders of my own party or even

disagree with my own constituents from time to time. So I think that it's probably been a bit overstated. As you mentioned I have a 95 percent conservative rating. I'm proud to be a conservative Republican and I've never advertised myself as anything else. But I also believe in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt that I am a reformer as well. And right now we're badly in need of reform. Do you think your experience as a prisoner of war in Vietnam shaped the senator that you eventually became. I think that any experience such as one that I and my friends went through were more defining. But I my principles my ideals my goals my values had already been formed before I became a prisoner. I'm sure I'm a better person for the experience because I was able to discover both my strengths and my weaknesses and I hope that it gave me a better insight and knowledge into human frailties. And frankly

I fell in love with America. I always appreciated America but I fell in love with America when I was deprived of her company for six years. Yes. You said that that hardship and was a terrible hardship. Being in a prisoner of war for five and a half years it taught you about your strengths and weaknesses. What were those strengths and weaknesses that you discovered there. I think my strengths were that I had this the intestinal fortitude to resist an offer of early relief release by the Vietnamese which for which I am forever grateful because it was instilled in me the man the absolute importance of honorable conduct. I think the weaknesses are that I did not hold out as long as I had hoped that I could. Under intense physical pressure and I did not measure up to the standards that were set by

some of the men who I had the privilege of serving with who were my personal heroes. I was the great privilege I had in my life was to serve in the company of heroes. I was privileged to observe a thousand acts of courage and compassion and love and I will always treasure those memories. Some people think it was all a horrible experience I will treasure the memories of my comrades and their performance and their credible importance to me in helping me in times when I needed it. You've been called a hero yourself now that the real heroes. Laura as you know are the names that are on the Vietnam War memorial monument down on the Mall. Those those are the heroes of the Vietnam War. You're known Senator McCain for being blunt for saying what do you think for Sometimes sticking your foot in your mouth. On several occasions. Do you think that facing death as you did makes you more blunt. Because after that you know who cares. I think it probably causes me to be a little more candid. But I was

always guilty of foot in mouth disease all my life. I really attribute it to anything beneficially except maybe not being particularly intelligent from time to time. You're listening to the exchange on New Hampshire Public Radio. I'm Laura Conroy our guest today Arizona Senator John McCain a Republican presidential candidate. McCain's campaign is focusing heavily on the New Hampshire and California primaries. He's been in the Granite State all week on a bus tour called Straight Talk Express. McCain is probably best known for his work on campaign finance reform and anti-tobacco legislation. And we'll talk about those issues. And we'd like to hear from you. 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 in Concord 2 2 4 8 9 8 9. What's on your mind that you think should be on the mind of the next president as well. Again they exchanged numbers 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 in Concord 2 2 4 8 9 8 9 and Senator McCain let's talk about campaign finance reform first because you've been saying on the campaign trail that until we take care of that

all other issues we'll have to just stand aside. What's wrong with the current system. Well I'm not sure that there would have to stand aside. Laura but we can have fundamental reform of education of the military of so many other aspects of government as long as the special interests rule this. I mentioned earlier the tax code is 44000 pages long. We just passed a tax cut bill which makes it several hundred pages longer because we carved out special benefits for special interests. In 1986 we didn't have soft money in American politics. That was the last time we reduced the size of the tax code and cleaned it up so now we make it more complicated. I believe that if you really want to reform education you've got to get education out of the grip of the teachers unions. I think if you want to reform the military you've got to get the military defense procurement out of the grip of the major defense contractors. I believe if you want to reform schmoes you've got to get the

Democrats out of the grip of the trial lawyers and the Republicans out of the grip of the money of the insurance companies. Every time I see legislation passed that is of great significance. I see the inordinate influence of the special interests so if you really want to reform these institutions you have to remove or largely eliminate the influence of these huge big money contributors who control the legislative process. And I know because I worked there. And someone once said that everybody has a special interest to a certain point and everybody should be. So how do you how do you define what's a bad special interest influence in the process. It's not it's not bad or good influence. Perhaps some huge money giver may be a good influence on the process. But when anybody who gives huge amounts of money hundreds of thousands of dollars then they buy access which has influence which then diminishes the ability of average citizens to be heard in the 1998 election. And the secretaries of state did a

study a few months ago. The 18 to 26 year old vote was the lowest in history the lowest turnout in history. They did focus groups with these young people. They said they wouldn't seek public office. They saw no reason to vote because we didn't reflect their hopes and dreams and aspirations and they believe that were corrupt and they're right. Recently there was a Pew Research poll that showed that 69 percent of Americans between 18 and 35 feel disconnected from government. Reason given special interest. Look the cynicism is becoming alienation and participation in voting much less having young Americans run for public office is dramatically diminishing. So how have you financed your own campaigns. According to the McCain-Feingold provisions $1000 limit on contributions over the last election I adhere to the McCain-Feingold bill and so did he.

And I've got to tell you Senator Feingold who's a liberal Democrat who I seldom agree with when soft money attack ads came into his campaign and the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee was run to counter. He said stay out. We should say soft money by the way isn't money raised by parties that are going to get huge amounts of money. Look in 1907 thanks to the efforts of Teddy Roosevelt one of my personal heroes we outlawed corporate contributions to American political campaigns. In 1947 we outlawed union contributions to American political campaigns in 1974. We cleaned it up again. When I first ran for the House in 1982 there was no such thing as soft money. And I've seen a change in the way that government works as I've seen dramatically increase. A fellow named Schwartz who's a head of L'Oreal gave eight hundred thousand or a million depending on who you talk to. The Clinton Gore campaign. There was then a transfer of technology to China which included increase the accuracy of their missiles. This is serious stuff. This is very serious business. Senator Fred Thompson

who is a supporter of mine who was traveling with me in New Hampshire will tell you there is a connection between Chinese money that came into this country in the last election and the lack of pursuit of allegations of breaches of national security. This is serious business and it is now legal in America for the Chinese army own corporation that has a subsidiary in the United States of America to give unlimited amounts of money to American political campaigns. That's wrong. So there's a big difference between soft money and what's called PAC money political action money and the PAC money at least is restricted to five and ten thousand dollars you get some money from shares but that's you know it's five and ten thousand dollars we're talking about six figures. There's now a new category for the Republican National Committee and that's the million dollar giver. It's lurched out of control. Do you think that it will ever change. We hear from callers all the time who say the fox is guarding the henhouse. This is never going to change.

It will change when I and Russ Feingold and others will make the connection to the American people that every time there's a tax bill it carves out a special deal for a special interest they pay. Every time there's a pork barrel appropriations on an on an appropriations bill they pay identified four and a half billion dollars worth of pork barrel wasteful spending. And the last defense appropriations bill they're paying for it. That's where we have to make the connection and clearly we've gone through cycles in American history. I mentioned 1097 and Theodore Roosevelt and I think we will succeed this time but incumbents have to be convinced that their incumbency is at risk if we're going to see him support. Let's go to the phones. Thanks again 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 is the exchange 800 number the Concord number 2 2 4 8 9 8 9. You're listening to the exchange on New Hampshire Public Radio and our guest today is Arizona Senator John McCain. He's a Republican presidential candidate. Our first call is from Concord. Hi Richard you're up first. Go ahead.

Good morning good morning Senator. Hi Richard it's McCain. MCCAIN I'm sorry. That's quite all right Richard. I'm trying to raise my name I.D. thank you really. I just want to thank you for the service that you've given the American people over the years. And I hope that you are able to continue with as president. I would like to ask the question of all 74. Was that you voted for public financing. Well federal candidates want to limit spending and take no private donations. A model similar to what passed last year in Arizona when you support this kind of reform. Why or why not. I strongly prefer the McCain-Feingold bill which does not have public financing associated with it because I have a philosophical problem with using tax dollars to support candidates who don't share my philosophy. But it is a lot better than the present system. I just

recently announced my support of a ballot initiative in California that's backed by Ron ons who are so well known reformer out there not because I thought it was perfect. But right now in California there are no limits to any campaign contribution. So I would prefer it to nothing Richard. But I think that I would much prefer the McCain-Feingold version because of my dislike of public financing which may mean an increase in taxes but I thank you for your very kind comments Richard it's a good question. Public financing has been a part of some campaign finance reforms. Thanks. Thank you. Well our next call is from Jackson Jefferies on the air. Good morning Jeffrey. Yes good morning this is Jeffrey Peters chairman of the people which advocates campaign finance reform and Senator McCain. I appreciate you having stood up for that issue in the past and I want to find out this coming fall. You perhaps will face the same dilemma as you did

last year where Senator Mitch McConnell filibustered the McCain-Feingold bill to death and I wonder if you will be willing to stand up and filibuster his pet projects or those of the leadership in order to get a vote on this measure since last time you had 53 votes for it. But that wasn't counted. Thank you Jeffrey. Thank you for your efforts at campaign finance reform and I hope to have the opportunity working with you and your organization to make the people of New Hampshire and the people of this country aware of how badly we need reform. What we did in the last month and a half ago was that Russ Feingold and I threatened to shut down the Senate unless we had a chance to have votes and debate on the bill. The leadership agreed that we would be allowed in October for a week to have amendments and votes on amendments. That's first

time we have had that opportunity. Strangely enough once that the Republican leadership agreed with it Senator Levin the Democrat from Michigan objected and so did Tom Daschle the Democrat leader alleging that only McCain-Feingold would be sufficient. Obviously that's not the way the legislative process works. I believe that we by having a week and by debate and amendments will pass the House by the way I'm very confident this month month of September that we can attain some momentum. But it's not going to be easy. As you know no I can't filibuster all of his projects and I can't tie up the Senate forever. It's just something that can't be done and is not done. But what we did do was tie up the Senate so that we would have a week of amending and votes. And I think that that's our chance a significant chance to make progress. But McConnell was going to filibuster you in the past. Isn't this issue important enough to you for you to filibuster him and the Republican leadership if

they want to vote on it. Well first of all Jeffrey it is the Democrats that oppose the unanimous consent agreement when when the Republican leadership allowed us to have amendments and votes even if Senator McConnell wanted to do it or not. So let's let's be fair here. The second thing is any political observer will tell you that it is impossible to tie up the Senate forever. It is not possible to do that. But what we did was we threatened to tie up the Senate for an extended period of time so that we could get amendments and votes. If he if there's any inclination in mind do you think that I don't care about this issue or care enough about this issue. I think that you know my record very well and I thank you for your comments Jeffrey. Jeffrey thanks a lot. Thank you. All right bye bye. 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 in Concord 2 2 4 8 9 8 9. You're listening to the Exchange in New Hampshire Public Radio I guess today Arizona Senator John McCain Republican presidential candidate. Our next caller is from Durham it's Fred. Hi Fred you're up next.

Good morning. Morning Senator Fred I want to just make a brief statement first I'm probably and stop me if I get to Verby. Oh you know what I will Fred. Well I'm a registered Democrat and from that stance I want to tell you that your position on issues is your positions on issues is probably the most as you know in my opinion the most straightforward of the candidates from either party. And I would be very I don't vote a straight ticket anyhow and I'm certainly interested in supporting you in this election. But I realize that you do have to get the Republican nomination in there and you have a problem. So getting to the point I want to talk about your position on Roe vs the repeal of Roe versus Wade and I'm sure you're aware of yesterday's

editorial in The Wall Street Journal in praise of Washington correct. Well I think in general Fred you're right. There have been several editorials recently that have accused Senator McCain of waffling on the abortion issue and I'm glad you raised the question Senator McCain. Could you clarify. Well basically the Wall Street Journal is the most widely read newspapers in the country. And therefore I think that the editorial was the larger editorial and it defended Senator McCain's position on waffling. And I think it made an attempt to be even handed and what it advocate was the fact that the the zealots on both sides of the show were causing the problem if they quiet their rhetoric. And if that matter if it's the wrong versus Wade certain

people and letting the states decide what to do the problem would go away. Well Fred I'm glad you raised the issue because it's something I wanted to ask too. So let's hear what Senator McCain has to say. Thank you Fred. I believe it was not an editorial I believe was a column piece by academic Yeah yeah. It was written by a member of the editorial staff you know. Anyway I thank you. I have supported I am 17 year record of pro-life voting. I am unashamed and unabashed to be pro-life. My point has been that I think we need an inclusive party. We need to keep the principles of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan that there is room in our party for those who disagree on a specific issue. I believe that the pro-choice and pro-life people do not like abortion in any way. And we should work together on areas that we can work together for as such as encouraging of

adoption according improving foster care including economic development so that we can reduce as welfare reform has done is reduce the out of wedlock children. And there's many areas that we can work together on. And that seems to have been interpreted as some way of me not being an adherent to what I believe in and that is a pro-life position. And all I can do is repeat that I have a 17 year record and I would hope that people would rely to some degree on my voting record. But this is a terribly difficult issue and one that requires I think for us to try to work together on rather than divide up and be a litmus issue for membership in the Republican Party. Fred thanks for raising the issue here. So what specifically does that mean that John McCain president would or would not do. You know McCain once he's in office John McCain would seek the repeal of Roe v. Wade. John McCain would seek an inclusive dialogue and efforts to

do the things that I just stated. Adoption courage adoption courage meant of foster care encouragement of programs which help young women through this very difficult situation and dialogue so we can achieve the same goal and and that would be in a very important issue to me because it's a terrible aspect of America today. Repeal of Roe v. Wade you'd said in the short term or long term and I think that was where people started to use the word one thing they can they can use that word if they choose to. My record is very clear. We're going to take a break. And in a moment we'll take a lot more of your phone calls and we'll talk about tobacco reform and taxes. Stay right with us. This is the exchange on New Hampshire Public Radio Thursday on the exchange we catch up with New Hampshire's House Democratic leader Peter Berling. Join us tomorrow for the exchange. Support for the exchange comes from our contributing listeners and Woller and Michael architects of the New

Hampshire architects planners and interior designers serving all of New England online at W W W W A.P.M. dot com and the 10th annual Labor Day weekend crapware on September 4th through the 6th along the waterfront at Lake Winnipesaukee love in Alton with over 100 artisans and craftsmen. Rain or shine at 7 5 5 2 1 6 6. 3. This is the exchange on New Hampshire Public Radio. I'm Laura Conaway and our guest today is Arizona Senator John McCain a Republican presidential candidate. McCain's campaign is focusing heavily on New Hampshire and California. He's been in the Granite State all week on a bus tour called Straight Talk Express. McCain's voting record in the Senate puts him on the conservative side of the Republican Party but he's probably best known for bucking the party line

especially on campaign finance reform and tobacco legislation. 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 in Concord 2 2 4 8 9 8 9. Those are the exchange phone numbers for you to join us today. Senator McCain by the way has represented Arizona in Congress since 1982. First in the house and then in the Senate. He's a former Navy fighter pilot who was shot down during the Vietnam War. He was captured and spent more than five years there as a prisoner of war. Again we'd like to hear from you. What would you like to hear from the presidential candidates this primary season 1 8 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 in Concord 2 2 4 8 9 8 9. Senator McCain before the go back to the phones. I have to ask you about tobacco because that's been another huge issue. And you said when the Senate killed your bill you said it had quote squandered the opportunity to address a serious national problem that of course being smoking. How would you have addressed this problem. Well the problem really is that 3000 young Americans begin to smoke every day and two thousand of them will die early as a result of tobacco related illness. If

adults choose to smoke that's obviously I'll be paying their hospital bills. But that's obviously a choice they make. But we're dealing with companies that entice young people to smoke. They lied to Congress. They manipulated the content of cigarettes to make it more addictive to young women. All those are now matters of record. They spent 50 million dollars the most according to Kathleen Jamieson of the Annenberg School they spent 50 million dollars as an ad campaign and another 50 million dollars in lobbying in Washington to kill the tobacco bill according to Kathleen Jamieson of the Annenberg School that's the most it's ever been spent in the history of American politics. And they used my name liberally. In fact they made me a household word and some people appreciated that a four letter word and what would you do. The bill would have basically raised the cost of a pack of cigarettes and that money would have gone to treat tobacco related illness in return for which and health care research and other anti-tobacco

advertising campaigns in return for that the tobacco companies sort of gotten some relief from liability and in ensuing court cases. Well the bill died in the Senate. There was an agreement between the attorneys general and the states. And it's of interest to me now that a lot of this money that the states have is being used for causes that have nothing to do with tobacco. In fact in most cases in most cases I find that very disturbing and very distressing because the teen age and child tobacco use continues to rise in this country. So I think we should have passed it. It's a testimony to the influence of huge money and special interest money in Washington. If I don't want to bother with the details but I'm the chairman of the Commerce Committee there are 20 members 11 Republicans and nine Democrats who passed out of the committee 19 to one your tobacco bill the tobacco bill. And then there was a delay before it got to the floor of the tobacco companies went to work and we couldn't pass the

legislation. Well let me ask you about the state money because that's been an issue here in New Hampshire and elsewhere as you said health groups would like to see it used on anti-tobacco efforts. But the states are saying it's ours. We fought for it. Are our various legal guns went out and got that money and the federal government shouldn't tell us how to use this money. Well they have a point in that they made the agreements with the attorneys general. But I can't help but be disappointed that they're not making greater efforts for health care research for treatment of tobacco related illness anti-smoking campaigns which have been proven effective in states like Florida and California. And we will continue to have this problem. And by the way on the issue of taxes $50 billion dollars a year of American taxes go to treat tobacco related illness in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. So those who thought that this was a tax increase you're already paying a huge amount in taxes to treat tobacco related illnesses. And every time one of these

young kids start smoking two out of three of them are going to have a tobacco related illness. That is the hidden tax taxes on the attack that was made on a tax that was made on the legislation Well it's a big tax increase it's you know it's and or they changed the debate with the 50 million dollars in expenditure from an anti smoking issue to a big tax and spend issue. And they did it very successfully and I have to congratulate them. All the major lobbying organizations in Washington some of them are with ex senators as members of them many of them friends of mine received huge amounts of money millions of dollars in lobbying fees from the tobacco companies. It's a very interesting commentary on the way things work in Washington but I'm not complaining because life isn't fair and that's that's what happens when you try again. Sure. Well now that they've made the agreement between the states and the attorneys general we're just going to probably will not surface again. Right.

Let's go back to the phones again 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 is the exchange 800 number. Concord is 2 2 4 8 9 8 9. And our next caller is from West Moerland. Hi Richard you're on the air. Good morning Senator McCain. How are you Richard. I'm well thank you. I make the following suggestion in all earnestness and with integrity. Thank you. I wish you would run as a Democrat. I think your principal issues are supported by the Democratic Party. I think the Democratic Party could use the voice of moderation Well I thank you maybe I could run with Warren Beatty. I think it's I thank you. But let me point out I am a. Strong Republican. I like lower taxes less government less regulation strong national defense robust and code consistent and coherent foreign policy. I believe that my record and my philosophy clearly put me

strongly on the conservative side of the agenda. You know it's people who complain about not getting credit for things I worked for her son national security foreign policy national defense issues. Now I have known for the tobacco bill. Life isn't fair. I as I said before but I thank you Richard but I hear I do believe this and I've been up in New Hampshire on other presidential campaigns. I do believe that people in New Hampshire respect those who display independence. That's why we have the slogan on the license plate. And I would hope that one of my ability to succeed here in New Hampshire would because I have displayed independence. I am proud to be a conservative. I am most proud of that. I think that's my fundamental bedrock philosophy. Lower taxes less government less regulation. Encouragement of this in information technology that we're going through. But at the same time when there are things that are wrong I think you should stand up against them and stand up for what you know is right.

Well Richard you tried to bring you the greetings from current troops Don. Thank you. Thank you very much Richard very much. Bye bye bye. Here is an interesting point even though you have a high conservative rating and you said that you're proud to be a strong conservative and Ronald Reagan is one of your heroes because of these issues. Do you think that you mean in campaign finance and tobacco do you think you'll have a harder time attracting those core conservative primary Republican voters. Well I hope not because I think that core Republican voters and independent voters. One thing about voters in New Hampshire you know Lawrence Well aside do they they examine the candidates they're going to examine my entire record and I have a long record voting not just rhetoric but voting and they'll be examining my record and my positions and I think that that I can compete with any of the other candidates on that basis. But also again they'll examine the record. But as we discussed earlier in the program they also want to know your

vision for the future of the country. That's really a key element. That's why Ronald Reagan prevailed. And by the way one of my other heroes was Theodore Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt believed that there was a role for government. That's why we have national parks in America today is because of Theodore Roosevelt. So there is a role. He was a reformer. That's why he was able to get through this prohibition for corporate contributions to American political campaigns because the robber barons were controlling American politics. So one of the reasons why Teddy Roosevelt is one of my personal heroes is because he was very active and yet he also was a very strong conservative. I think they're not contradictory. So you can have an activist government and be a conservative. Absolutely. Let's take another call this one from Kingston. Charlie is up from Kingston. Hi Charlie. Good morning. Good morning Senator McCain. Hi Charlie. Sen. McCain respectfully but directly when I use when I speak of reform and against special interest money it concerns me. Let me explain. Sure.

When federal regulators. Not that many years ago were trying to stop the reckless lending and outright fraud that led us to the tunnels and all costing us whatever it was a hundred two hundred fifty billion dollars. It was widely reported that you use your influence to help Charles Keating in his savings loan and you were commonly referred to as a member of the Keating Five. How do I reconcile that with your talking about reform and integrity and your 17 year record. Well thank you Charlie for the question and thank you for the respect. The fact is that there was a three year investigation culminating in ethics committee hearings. I was judged as quote Having used poor judgment. Actually I did worse than that because the fact that I went to a meeting with four other senators with a group of regulators was wrong and not because of anything that

I said or did but because of the appearance that it created I think that people will judge that. What I did accurately is wrong. I think they will judge that in the entire context of my service both in the Congress and to the country. It's a good question Charlie. Thank you Charlie. You want to follow. Well I remember back in those days Senator that it was reported not that I use TV 2020 type programs as my icon of accuracy. My memory is that it was commonly reported that you were much more involved than that and that you were involved in it. I don't know how to use the word but basically allowing eatings scam to go on and on. And I just referenced that on a on a national basis. That was a big bill. America had to pay it seems like nobody remembers that but whatever was say was 150 billion I think I'm relatively close. That's a lot of money. And when I again when I hear you talking about

them and against special interest it gives me pause I don't hear anybody asking you that question. And well Charlie I'm glad you asked. And I got to have this question. The question his asking regularly Charlie I'm happy to tell you as I say it's part of my record. And it was something that I did that was wrong but there was a complete and thorough investigation of it including public hearings which lasted for several weeks of the Ethics Committee. I went on every talk show in America on this issue and described exactly what I did and what I didn't do. Everybody who observed it believed that the fact is that the judge whether it was found guilty of bad judgment and Charlie. Now that you want to get into it let me add one other aspect of this Mr. Bob Bennett who you know was the president's lawyer one of the most respected lawyers in America was asked by the Ethics Committee to conduct an independent counsel investigation.

His conclusions and recommendations were that John Glenn and I be dropped from the further investigation because of our lack of involvement in it for the first time in the history of the Ethics Committee because I was the only Republican. The Ethics Committee did not release John Glenn and me from the investigation and it went forward. And Charlie I'd be glad to send you the statements that Mr. Bob Bennett made after he had completed a year long independent investigation. I don't think he could be charged with bias in any direction and maybe that would give some balance to your view as to the extent of my involvement in the Keating Five. But I will again state unequivocally I wish I did wrong but it was a wrong thing to do. By appearing at a meeting with four other powerful senators with a group of regulators let me ask you about another major issue that the next president will face and that Social Security reform and one major reform that many people are looking at especially in your party is some type of privatization of the system. Do you support that idea. Sure. I see no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to invest their tax dollars that are

going to pay for their retirement in investments which are within reasonable parameters. The return on Treasury bills which they're presently invested in is 3 percent since 1945 stock market with all its ups and downs that's an average return annually of 5.5 percent. I think people ought to be allowed to invest their own money. The problem is is you know their own money is not going to an account with their name on it. Their own money is going to pay the benefits of present retirees. And that's why we have to have an infusion of money to make it solvent and then it would be possible to allow them to make those investments. You know I have disagreed with the president quite frequently. But one of the least rational proposals that he's had is that the government invest people's retirement funds. That to me is insane. There was some real conflict of interest there of the business of government is not to be in business. And I think we'd all be majority stockholders

and Ben and Jerry's. By the time it was all through because everything else would be politically incorrect. But if people should be allowed to invest their own savings so that they can take care of their retirement system. And obviously there should be some advisory group that says look these are good investments and you should have a wide menu to choose from. But unless we do that the solvency aspect of it will be dramatically diminished. So this $800 excuse me the three trillion dollar surplus is not going to be enough to keep Social Security. So I think it is if we invested in it. But remember we're spending the surplus as we speak in the name of emergency funding. We spent seven and a half billion dollars on farm crisis. We spent $4.5 billion in a quote emergency on the census. In other words Congress did not know that the year 2000 was arriving. So a lot of this surplus is being spent as we speak and that is of course very deceptive to the American people and makes them very cynical and understandably so.

Quickly because I want to go back to the phones. Should the surplus be spent also on tax cuts. I think yes. I think Americans deserve tax relief. But I think you've got to look at this in the context of all the major issues here Social Security Medicare the debt and tax relief. And we have to look at them in entirety. Clearly we have to reform Medicare. Clearly we should pay down the debt because Americans all that to future generations as well. But there are many areas that really we need to actually we need to eliminate the marriage penalty. There's no reason why we should have people pay additional taxes because they get married. We should raise the inheritance tax up to about five million dollars. Why can't you pass on to your children what if you want to what you've worked all your life to earn. We should eliminate the so-called earnings test. Why is it that a 65 year old person pays as much as a third more in taxes on their wages if they choose to work after age 65. And we should lift the tax bracket of 15 percent up to around $70000 a year so that lower income Americans who were still paying around

40 percent of their income because of the addition of Medicaid or Medicare and Social Security taxes they still need relief. And so we can do that and it's not that expensive when you really look at it but they've got to be taking the context of the other aspects compelling requirements we have as well. You're listening to the exchange on New Hampshire Public Radio I'm Laura Conaway our guest today is Arizona Senator John McCain. We'd like to hear from you. 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 in Concord 2 2 4 8 9 8 9. Our next caller is from Nashua south up. Hi Seth. Hey. OK. Senator McCain I told her to say this but I respect you greatly because of your military service and my hat's off to you as well your time you spent in there and the help. Well thank you Seth. Sorry about that I just I have great respect.

I'm interested in knowing what your views are on the gun control issue and I'm wondering what your strategy is going to be to refute the attempt by the anti-gun lobby to basically scare the citizenry and pass through bills that don't really do anything to solve crimes and just restrict your rights. So Seth It sounds like you. I'm not sure where how do you feel about gun control. I think you're second amendment guy aren't you Seth. I know. Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you for your kind comments. It's it's I am a second amendment person as well. I believe that we need to and I think you would agree do everything we can constitutionally to make guns unavailable to children. I believe that we passed a bill through the Senate although not perfect should be passed through the house. It has provision for safety locks and has provision for closing loopholes. Pawnshops it has a background check

provisions and other provisions that I think need to be passed. Your point though and I think you were alluding to it earlier on is it we should we should enforce existing law. The terrible tragedy recently out in Los Angeles that individual violated two federal laws and two state laws. The numbers of prosecution of existing laws have decreased under this present administration. I also would add one other point and this is a very important issue. Republicans say that the problem is Hollywood and Democrats say the problem is gun control. It is a multifaceted problem. A few weeks ago General Colin Powell General Schwarzkopf I Senator Lieberman Democrat of Connecticut Bill Bennett and others signed a letter to Hollywood asking them to exercise some self-restraint on what they are producing and what are affecting young Americans minds.

If we took every gun and threw it in the Atlantic Ocean I could still take you to a Web site where a child can learn how to make a pipe bomb. I can show you a video game where the object is to kill policemen. There is terrible kinds of things that are affecting Americans. Senator Lieberman I proposed amendment which was agreed to that the Surgeon-General study the effect of media violence on children and report to the Congress and the American people which was done in 1972. So we've got to look at this issue in its entirety. We have to know what's affecting young Americans and we have to try as a nation to work together. So I probably am not is exactly on your side Seth in that. But I do believe that we need to enforce existing laws. I believe the law the bill we passed to the Senate should be passed by the House. And I would be willing to look at other measures if necessary. That makes sense through the regular legislative hearing process and through national debate and discussion. Thanks. Thank you I'm glad you raised the point. So the issue with background checks was

one day at gun shows versus three days gun shows I believe in my voting. I voted for three days because gun shows. Excuse me I voted for one day because gun shows don't usually last for three days. So if you had to have an I'm for instant background checks I don't know why anybody would be opposed to an instant background check if you have a three day waiting period and the gun show is over after one or two days. Obviously that negates the ability to conduct the gun show. Let's go next to Manchester Marilyns on our car phone. Hi Marilyn. Hello. Go ahead. Hi Marilyn. Hi. Senator McCain I wanted to ask you what you see as the federal role for the arts and humanities in New Hampshire. We don't have any big cities and we don't have a lot of corporate headquarters and the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities played a very important role helping everyone from filmmaker Ken Burns who are struggling theater the Palace Theater in Manchester a gone bankrupt basically the theater in Portsmouth struggle. The American States first

of all is threatening to go out of business. That's all they are for the art and very reduced in size and important to our state. What do you see as a federal role in that area. Would you support the continued budget for the National Endowment for the arts or an increase in that budget. I would probably support at least some of it. I do not support it when egregious things happen such as Mr. Mablethorpe paintings and works a crucifix and you know you're a Catholic education and he was making a statement about the commercialization of capital of the capital. I don't I don't care if he was for motherhood and apple pie. I am offended when my tax dollars go for such a terrible thing. What kind of. Hey Marilyn Monroe. Now every artist anymore. You know. But yeah let's get to that point because we're not truly and Marilyn that these things have been eliminated.

There's a woman that covers herself with chocolate and that would pay for. Let's get to the middle again. Let's get to the major point. No I won't get to the major point because Americans are offended when their tax dollars are used for something that is the point. So there are some Goleman. Marilyn I will not eliminate the arts endowment but I will oppose the increases in any funding until such time as these egregious examples and that are offensive to all Americans that I know are eliminated and I know they are not eliminated every time we turn around. They say they're eliminated. And then there's some new grant and some new egregious aspect of this misuse of American tax dollars. So for him I think no I think you are misinformed. I think you are misinformed and I would be glad to do more research and I'd be glad to send you the information and how you can excuse such a thing as what Mr. Mablethorpe did because of a product of a Catholic education staggers my imagination. Thank you Marilyn for the call. Marilyn thanks for bringing it up. I think her point your point seems to be once you are 100 percent assured that incidents like this will not happen I'm

sure that feeling is fine. I also think that it's very important we have state state and local funding to match it. If the economy the state of New Hampshire is in the best shape it's been in this century. And I think that we should have state and local funding match to show their commitment as well to it. And I don't believe very frankly that some of this money has been evenly distributed throughout the country as well. I'd like to look at that formula. At the same time. But in all due respect for someone to say to me that it's because someone did this because of a Catholic education I mean I'm sorry but I can't. That dialogue cannot take place. I was offended by it. And I think all Americans were offended by it. And I know that if Marilyn were still on the line her other response would be well it was only a small amount of money. It doesn't matter if it was five cents. The American taxpayers dollars should not be used for these kinds of egregious things and it's not just that it's a number of things that have taken place over the

years. Every time they come back and say Well Lisa have been eliminated and then there's another case in Maryland if you'll drop me a note I will give you a numerous other examples of this outrageous use of my tax dollars. So but I but I do think we have a role in government to encourage development of the arts and and other programs. Senator McCain we have just about a minute left. Maybe less but I didn't want to ask you about a candidate's personal life. This has been an issue especially in the case of George W. Bush and some people saying he might have used drugs when he was younger. What do we the voters need to know. What is none of our business. In the specific case the governor I believe he has a right to privacy on that issue. But it's the media and the American public who will set the bar as to what is private and what isn't private the kind of candidate has the right to not answer. But the American people then decide which is appropriate and which isn't. We've come a long way in recent years as we know and in the privacy

aspects. It's part of the business of running for public office. It's tough. I worry a little bit about the de-motivating aspects of young people to seek public office. But in this business you're going to be asked questions and it's up to you to answer but those questions I think are determined by the media and the American people. OK. And we will wrap it up with that. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I'm glad we ended up with a spirited exchange on the National Endowment for the Arts. Thanks for coming in. Republican Senator John McCain a presidential candidate. He's represented Arizona in Congress since 1982 first in the house and then in the Senate. The exchange is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio. The producers are Eric Erickson and Mary Kruger are engineers Shea's Ellar. And I'm Laura Keneally. The views expressed on this program were those of the individuals and not necessarily those of New Hampshire Public Radio or its underwriters. If you missed part of today's program listen any time at w w w dot and HPR dot org or listen to the exchange tonight at 8:00 p.m. following fresh air

cassette copies of the exchange are all available by calling 6 0 3 2 2 8 8 9 1 0. 0