U.S. SENATE: WHEAT BRINGS HIS SIX TERMS AS REPRESENTATIVE TO RACE

BIOGRAPHY

Why are you running for U.S. Senate this year?

I believe I can help the country move successfully into the 21st century. These challenges still confront us in 1990s, in particular, providing quality health care to our children and to all our citizens, making sure we have a good educational system, and trying to create a crime-free society for environmental safety and security. I want to bring our tax dollars back home from overseas where they are, all too often, involved in supporting other nations' militaries who can't afford to defend themselves. All are keys to having the kinds of funds to invest in the United States and focus on the problems we have to have a nation that really lives up to its potential.

What effect does party affiliation have on your campaign?

It certainly has some people choosing to be Democrats and Republicans because of the philosophies in which they believe. Obviously it would be easier for me to work with this president or future Democratic administrations than it probably would be for a Republican member of the U.S. Senate. I think Missouri would be well served by having a Democrat and a Republican in the U.S. Senate so that we would have a person of each party to work together.

What do you feel you have to offer citizens of Missouri?

I believe my motivation has been demonstrated by my performance over the years. I have never become one of those who have gotten a beltway mentality and the Kansas City Star has noted that on more than one occasion. I have come home and maintained close contact with constituents over the years. My skill has increased to the point that I think I am a very effective legislator. Both in Jefferson City when I was named one of the 10 best legislators in the state and in Washington, and in various publications it has been noted that I am one of the more effective members of Congress.

Discuss briefly your background and experience that has prepared you to serve in the U.S. Senate.

I can give you a list of my experience in public service that will include, of course, being a member of Congress for the greater Kansas City area and my time as a Missouri state legislator. Prior to that, I was an aide to the Jackson County executive. But I think my experience growing up is more important. It is where I formulated my values and my general view of the world. My dad was in the Air Force and my mom was a schoolteacher. We had the opportunity to live, of course not only in the United States, but abroad to see how Americans' views are seen by the rest of the world. Every time we returned from overseas, made us appreciate our country, our ideas and our freedoms. And I strive to protect them.

What distinguishes you from the other candidates running this year in the Senate?

Because I don't know that much about the Libertarian, let me focus largely on my Republican opponent, John Ashcroft. There are a number of clear differences between us. We have both been in public office for a period of time. He first ran for office in 1972 when I was still in college. He didn't win in his race for Congress but was elected to statewide office for 18 years.

I believe my record is more of accomplishment and facing the challenges than Ashcroft's. Most people are hard-pressed to point to his accomplishments when they look back upon his record.

Even throughout his campaign, we have been able to see the difference in the willingness to take a stand on issues. Ashcroft criticized the crime bill that I voted for. I think is going to make a big difference in reducing crime in this country. Yet, he never took a personal position on it.

The same thing happened on campaign-finance reform. When he came to Washington and when the Republicans were signing the contract with America, he criticized the Democratic Party for being able to get campaign-finance reform and other reforms in the Senate. But he said he didn't personally have enough information to have made a decision on it. Well, if you have enough information to criticize, you should have enough information to be able to say how you would vote personally.

A third example is the Hancock II amendment. I have been very clear in my opposition of Hancock II, and it has been consistent. Ashcroft has given different positions in different places and has, in fact, equivocated at best. I am not sure that is the kind of leadership we would expect or desire from a member of the Senate.

There are many problems facing the country, but what do you feel is the ONE biggest problem facing the United States today?

The perception in America today is that crime, violent crime in particular, has exploded, and that we are having a very difficult time being able to cope with it. I think we have taken a good first step with the crime bill in all of its various aspects, in particular the 2,000 new police officers we will see for the state and 100,000 more we will have for the entire nation. I would like to amend that bill so the local match wouldn't be required, because I think that is going to be a deterrent to a number of communities being able to get those funds and actually use them. But it is a good first step.

The crime bill will also include boot camps for juvenile first-time offenders. Right now there is a huge gap in our criminal justice system. Many police officers and some juveniles tell me the appropriate word to describe the juvenile justice system is a joke. This would allow us to be able to put juveniles into a structure discipline punishment setting instead of ignoring their crimes until we are forced to respond to them as adults because of the severity of the crime. It would both help our society and hopefully give our kids the chance to get their lives straightened out.

The bill also provides funding for building new prisons so we will be able to keep prisoners for 85 percent of their sentences as opposed to the situation now.

What do you feel is the biggest problem facing the people of Missouri, and how do you as a senator intend to address that problem?

Missouri has the same problems as surrounding states and the nation, the crime problem. We are the only state that has two cities in the nation in the Top 10 in crime. In both Kansas City and St. Louis, I have talked to people; in fact, people here in the south of the Bootheel, who are afraid to go to Kansas City or St. Louis because of the perception of the overwhelming crime. So, continuing to address that problem is vitally important.

In Missouri, in particular, we need a new focus on education. Our educational system sank between 1984 and 1992. I believe Gov. Carnahan has done a good job in responding to the crisis that existed in education.

Our entire nation needs a new focus on education. President Reagan had a commission in 1986 called the nation at risk that had a report that said if another nation had done to us what we have done to ourselves we would have considered it and act of war. Since that time we have done very little to refocus our resources and our nation to make sure our children are better educated.

What can be done to expand economic development opportunities in Missouri?

Well, we have already taken some major steps. The enterprise zone law is something I am very proud of because I sponsored it in Missouri. I was the first person to introduce it and put together the coalition of people that martialed it through the House and the Senate. It has created more than 1,000 new businesses and 30,000 new jobs in the state in the past decade. It is that kind of innovative approach and the willingness to look at solutions despite the labels that might be associated with them.

Other kinds of tax incentives would be appropriate for economic development in light of the fact that big businesses aren't producing the new jobs. About 80 percent of all new jobs over the course of the next decade must come from small business. The tax incentives should apply to small businesses. I would favor a capital gains differential that was a result-oriented capital gains differential.

How serious is the health-care problem? Is it a crisis?

Crisis depends on whether you are able to get health care. For many people our health-care system is the best in the world and I would certainly not argue with that.

Unfortunately there are too many people who can't get health care at all. These tend to be middle-class people who work for a living every day. There is some 35 million Americans who are associated with working families who don't have access to health care.

Wealthy people can afford it and will continue to be able to. There are many programs that assist lower classes to be able to get health care. But it is working people who find it difficult, especially from increasing costs on an annual basis. That is why I have supported trying to guarantee availability of health care to every American. I will continue to do so.

I think this administration has learned a lesson about the way we make changes of that magnitude. It just isn't done generally in a revolutionary fashion. It requires a step-by-step approach to an ultimate end. There are several incremental steps I think we can begin to look at including eliminating existing conditions to deny people health care.

What role should the federal government play in providing all Americans access to health care?

The federal government already plays a major role in health care with Medicare and Medicaid. I don't want the federal government to become the health-care provider for the nation.

I think the American people have spoken very clearly in that they don't want a Canadian-style single-payer system. But they do want everyone to be able to get health care. I don't know of any entity capable of putting into place the mechanism to structure that except for the federal government. I believe people want health care that is structured around the workplace. Also, allow those who are unemployed, self-employed, or in businesses that are too small for it to be practical to find some other mechanism for getting health care.

There has been a lot of talk about problems with Congress as an institution, and the need to make changes in the way it operates. How do you assess Congress and what changes or reforms do you believe are needed?

It definitely needs some reforming. I have been pleased to participate in helping to reform Congress up until now. I would put the internal administration of the Congress into the hands of a professional administration instead of allowing it to continue as political patronage.

I think there are other reforms needed, like campaign-finance reform, which involves the very heart of who gets elected to Congress in the first place. Lobby reform is vitally important for the Congress. The House of Representatives has passed on a number of occasions, including this year, a resolution that applies all of the personnel laws that apply to all other people to the people of Congress.

The budgetary system needs to change. We don't need to do an annual budget like we do now building it from the ground up. We should be on a two- or three-year budget cycle with appropriate adjustments made during the cycle to end the necessity to work through all the appropriations bills in a complete and confidential manner on an annual basis. That is very difficult and time consuming.

Next year, a new farm bill will be written. What direction do you think it should take?

In its overall direction, I think it is important that it be supportive of family farms in Missouri. That would be a big key to us. If you look back at my past record, I have been very supportive of maintaining price supports at levels where farmers can actually benefit from their efficiency and their produce. I would expect to continue to do so.

The reserve program is something that is already coming under attack from people around the country. I think my role as legislator who happens to be from an urban area would be to put together a coalition of urban people who understand how important it is to have agriculture interests supported. I am from Kansas City, and I have always understood about 25 percent of our business base is agribusiness.

Are you satisfied with efforts being made now to bring the budget deficit under control, and what further steps do you support?

I am pleased we are going in the right direction. The recent reports show this year's annual deficit budget will be $203 billion -- that is far too much, but it is headed downward. It has been headed downward for two years in a row for the first time in 20 years. Projections show the budget deficit will go down next year from many of the changes put into effect by this administration. That will be the first time in 50 years the budget deficit has been reduced for three years annually.

I think we need to continue with our examination of the overall structure of the federal government. Under Vice President Gore's re-inventing government process, we have already identified 250,000 jobs that are going to be eliminated over a period of years. That will help us reduce the budget deficit.

I also think it is a drastic mistake to call for increased spending for the defense department. I grew up in the military. I understand the responsibilities we have around the world, but the Cold War is over. To invest the kinds of funds that would be necessary, for instance the star wars missile defense system, would put us on exactly the wrong track to bring down the budget deficit.

I am opposed to the line-item veto. I opposed it when Reagan and then Bush called for it. I opposed it when Clinton called for it. To shift that kind of legislative authority from the legislative body to the president, shifts the balance too dramatically. The legislative body becomes a rubber stamp.

What direction should be taken with welfare reform in the United States?

Welfare reform should be one of the first issues to come up next year. I was disappointed it didn't come up this year. I was one of the sponsors of a welfare-reform bill that didn't get enough attention.

We should be enforcing the work ethic in this society. We should be putting people to work in permanent private sector jobs. To do that, we need to give people skills and appropriate training.

We need to include a work requirement in welfare-reform legislation we pass. We need to provide the support it takes to allow people to move permanently into new jobs. There was an article in, I believe, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch recently that talked about many women, in particular, who cycle back and forth, on and off welfare over long periods of time. That is the kind of behavior we have to change.

What do you see as the role of the U.S. military in the post-Cold War era?

Oddly enough, it is an expanding role not a diminishing role. Because there are more tasks the military can be called upon to perform. We can't become policemen of the world nor do I think that is appropriate nor would anyone intend it. But there are some situations where other nations are trying to emulate us in the attainment of democracy when our diplomatic efforts, our technical help, and our ability to deploy our military to help them for a short period of time can be very meaningful and allow them to achieve a state of democracy. It will require a case-by-case examination, perhaps much more so than the military did during the Cold War era.

I opposed the military invasion of Haiti. I sent letters to the President and members of the Congress last year insisting that the President not invade. I am very pleased the negotiators, including Colin Powell, Sam Nunn, and former President Carter were able to come to an accommodation that had the dictators in Haiti leaving the country and allowing President Aristide to return.

From your campaign experience, how do you think people feel about government, and what can be done to improve their feelings?

There are many views about government, which obviously political philosophy affects it dramatically. There is an overall sense that people want government to be more efficient, to be more effective at what it does. To make sure their tax dollars are being spent wisely and well. It is hard to assure people that is always the case when we can document where there are still problems.

I will continue to pursue that abuses are eliminated and that what we attempted to do is better than what we have done in the past. The overall philosophical debate is probably how much we should attempt to do as a government. My sense is that people don't believe government can do everything by any means. But they do want government to be the guarantor of opportunity for people in this society.

How much do you intend to spend on this campaign?

As much as I can raise, which unfortunately won't be as much as Ashcroft has been able to raise. We have raised at this point more than $3 million which is significantly more than the last Democratic Party nominee was able to raise. That includes the primary.

As a result, I have been competitive in both the primary, and I intend to be competitive in the general election -- enough to win.

BIOGRAPHY:

Alan Wheat

Age: 42

Party: Democrat

Hometown: Kansas City

Political experience: Serving sixth term in Congress; served in Missouri House

Opponents: John Ashcroft, Republican; Bill Johnson, Libertarian

Election Day: Tuesday, Nov. 8