Iowa Public Television

 

Newt Gingrich

posted on May 25, 2005

Borg: VIEWING CONGRESSIONAL CONFLICT FROM THE SIDELINES. A FORMER SPEAKER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REMAINS A POTENT REPUBLICAN PARTY VOICE. A CONVERSATION WITH NEWT GINGRICH ON THIS EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS."

FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM WAS PROVIDED BY "FRIENDS," THE IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION FOUNDATION; BY THE IOWA BANKERS ASSOCIATION... FOR PERSONAL, BUSINESS, AND COMMERCIAL NEEDS, IOWA BANKS HELP IOWANS REACH THEIR FINANCIAL GOALS; BY THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF IOWA, THE PUBLIC'S PARTNER IN BUILDING IOWA'S HIGHWAY, BRIDGE, AND MUNICIPAL UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE; AND BY CAPITOL RESOURCES, INC., LOCATED IN BROOKLYN, IOWA; AND BY NICOLE SCHLINGER AND ERIC LANGE INDIVIDUALLY, FUND-RAISING AND COMMUNICATION SERVICES FOR MAJOR CAMPAIGNS SINCE 1996.

ON STATEWIDE IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION, THIS IS THE FRIDAY, MAY 20 EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS." HERE IS DEAN BORG.

Borg: REGULAR "IOWA PRESS" VIEWERS EXPECT MAJOR NEWSMAKERS ON THIS PROGRAM, AND TODAY'S GUEST FITS THAT DESCRIPTION AND A BIT MORE. HE'S EARNED A SPOT IN POLITICAL HISTORY. TESTIMONY TO THAT IS THE FACT THAT HE'S KNOWN BY ONE NAME, NEWT. NEWT GINGRICH BURNISHED HIS MARK ON THE AMERICAN POLITICAL LANDSCAPE IN 1994 WHEN THE G.O.P. WON THE MAJORITY IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AFTER FORTY YEARS OF DEMOCRATIC CONTROL. MR. GINGRICH IS LARGELY CREDITED AS THE ARCHITECT OF THAT REPUBLICAN REVOLUTION. THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA STRETCHED OVER HIS FIVE-YEAR TENURE AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE. MR. GINGRICH ENDED A 21-YEAR CONGRESSIONAL CAREER IN 1999. NOW AS AN AUTHOR, LECTURER, AND POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, HE REMAINS POLITICALLY ACTIVE AND VOCAL. MR. GINGRICH, WELCOME TO IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION AND TO "IOWA PRESS."

Gingrich: GLAD TO BE HERE.

Borg: NICE TO HAVE YOU HERE. NICE TO HAVE YOU IN IOWA --

Gingrich: IT'S ALWAYS FUN TO BE BACK.

Borg: -- AND THERE MAY BE A REASON FOR THAT. WE'LL FIND OUT JUST SOON ABOUT THAT. ACROSS THE TABLE: "DES MOINES REGISTER" POLITICAL COLUMNIST DAVID YEPSEN AND "ASSOCIATED PRESS" SENIOR POLITICAL WRITER MIKE GLOVER.

Glover: SPEAKER GINGRICH, I'LL ECHO THE WELCOME TO IOWA AND FOLLOW IT WITH A QUESTION OF YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IN IOWA THAT STARTS THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE. WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

Gingrich: WELL, I'M OUT HERE BECAUSE I KNOW THAT EVERY CANDIDATE AND EVERY REPORTER IN THE COUNTRY WILL SOONER OR LATER COME THROUGH IOWA. I'VE WRITTEN A BOOK CALLED "WINNING THE FUTURE," WHICH TRIES TO OUTLINE WHAT I THINK A 21ST-CENTURY CONTRACT WITH AMERICA OUGHT TO BE LIKE. AND MY HOPE IS THAT WHETHER THEY'RE A DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE OR A REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE, THEY'VE GOT TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SCALE OF CHANGE WE NEED IF WE'RE GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL FOR OUR CHILDREN AND FOR OUR GRANDCHILDREN.

Glover: AND WHAT'S YOUR MESSAGE FOR THEM?

Gingrich: MY MESSAGE IS THAT WE HAVE REALLY BIG CHALLENGES AHEAD, I THINK MAYBE MORE CHALLENGES THAN WE'VE SEEN AT ANY TIME SINCE 1980 AND THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE REALLY SERIOUS WORK BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND BY THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO GIVE OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN THE KIND OF COUNTRY WE INHERITED FROM OUR PARENTS.

Yepsen: SO, MR. SPEAKER, JUST FOR THE RECORD, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING ABOUT THIS -- THE OBVIOUS QUESTION THAT WE ASK: ARE YOU RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT?

Gingrich: MY HONEST ANSWER IS I DON'T KNOW. I AM TRYING VERY OPENLY TO SHAPE THE DEBATE AND THE AGENDA, TO GET PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT VERY LARGE QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS THAT I THINK ARE TRULY HISTORIC. CHINA AND INDIA ARE GOING TO DEVELOP. THAT'S A BILLION THREE HUNDRED MILLION CHINESE AND ABOUT A BILLION INDIANS. IT'S THE FIRST TIME SINCE 1840 THAT AMERICANS HAVE FACED COUNTRIES WHO ARE POTENTIALLY AS BIG AS WE ARE IN TERMS OF THEIR MARKET. NOW, TO MEET THAT COMPETITION IS GOING TO REQUIRE CHANGE IN LITIGATION, IN TAXATION, IN EDUCATION, IN REGULATION. THAT'S A BIG CHALLENGE. JUST THAT ONE ITEM IS A BIG CHALLENGE.

Yepsen: WE WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT A LOT OF THOSE THINGS, BUT BEFORE I DO, I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT AN EDGE-OF-THE-NEWS QUESTION, AND THAT'S IRAQ. A LOT OF AMERICANS ARE WONDERING WHAT DO WE DO NOW.

Gingrich: I THINK IRAQ IS A HARDER PROBLEM THAN I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT WAS THREE YEARS AGO. AND LET ME JUST BE TOTALLY CANDID. PART OF THAT, I THINK, IS BECAUSE WE MISHANDLED IT FOR OVER A YEAR BY HAVING AN AMERICAN IN CHARGE IN A WAY THAT WE NEVER DID IN AFGHANISTAN, AND I THINK THAT SET US BACK VERY BADLY. PART OF IT IS THAT THERE IS THIS UNDERLYING ABILITY TO ORGANIZE THAT WE'RE NOT USED TO DEALING WITH. YOU SEE IT IN LEBANON WITH HEZBAHLA. YOU SEE IT IN THE PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES WITH HAMAS AND ISLAMIC JIHAD. YOU SEE IT IN IRAQ AND YOU SEE VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT BOTH SYRIA AND IRAN ARE IN EFFECT ENGAGED IN A COVERT WAR AGAINST US IN IRAQ. AND I THINK THIS IS A SERIOUS, SERIOUS PROBLEM, AND I THINK WE AMERICANS HAVE GOT TO REALLY FACE HOW LONG AND HARD THIS MAY BE.

Yepsen: ONE OF THE THINGS YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR BOOK WAS THE NOTION OF HOW THE UNITED STATES REALLY LOSES THE COMMUNICATIONS WAR WITH THE ARAB AND ISLAMIC WORLD. THEY HAVE AL JAZEERA. WE HAVE NOTHING REALLY TO COUNTER THAT. HOW DO WE SOLVE THAT PROBLEM?

Gingrich: WELL, I'M GLAD, FIRST OF ALL, THAT KAREN HUGHES HAS AGREED TO GO BACK TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT TRUSTS HER, CONDI RICE TRUSTS HER. SHE HAS ENORMOUS CAPABILITY. BUT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUILD A REAL DELIVERY SYSTEM FROM THE GROUND UP. IT'S NOT JUST THAT WE LOSE IN THE ARAB WORLD, WE LOSE IN EUROPE. HERE YOU HAVE OPPONENTS WHO HATE WOMEN'S RIGHTS, WHO ARE PREPARED TO KILL WOMEN IF THEY GO TO SCHOOL OR IF THEY SHOW THEIR FACE. IN COUNTRIES LIKE SAUDI ARABIA, WOMEN CAN'T DRIVE, THEY CAN'T HAVE A BANK ACCOUNT, THEY CAN'T GO TO WORK, THEY CAN'T VOTE. AND WE'RE NOT ABLE TO MAKE THE CASE IN WESTERN EUROPE THAT THERE'S SOMETHING PROFOUNDLY WRONG ABOUT A SOCIETY THAT TOTALLY SUPPRESSES WOMEN. THAT'S REALLY A COMMUNICATIONS PROBLEM IN THE FIRST ORDER. IT'S NOT A BUSH ADMINISTRATION PROBLEM. IT IS AN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS PROBLEM THAT WE ALL HAVE TO WORK ON.

Borg: A MOMENT AGO YOU MENTIONED IRAN AS POSSIBLY BEING INVOLVED ALONG WITH SYRIA AGAINST US IN IRAQ. BUT THERE'S A BIGGER PROBLEM WITH IRAN AND NORTH KOREA, THAT IS WITH POSSIBLY NUCLEAR WEAPONS. WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS THERE AND WHAT CAN WE DO?

Gingrich: WELL, THAT'S PART OF THE REASON THAT I SUGGESTED THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A NATIONAL DISCUSSION THAT'S MUCH HARDER THAN WE LIKE. WE LIKE OUR POLITICIANS TO SHOW UP AND GIVE US THREE EASY PROMISES AND "ELECT ME, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY." THERE'S A VERY GRAVE DANGER THAT WE'RE GOING TO FACE A NORTH KOREA THAT HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS, THAT IS BY ANY REASONABLE STANDARD UTTERLY IRRATIONAL. THIS IS A COUNTRY WHICH HAS SHRUNK THE HEIGHT OF ITS PEOPLE ON AVERAGE BY THREE OR FOUR INCHES THROUGH MALNUTRITION AND SURVIVED. THERE'S NO UNREST THAT I KNOW OF THAT'S REALLY MASSIVE. AND SO I THINK THIS IS A REAL CHALLENGE. THE CHINESE HAVE INDICATED VERY CLEARLY THAT THEY ARE NOT PREPARED TO DO ANYTHING SERIOUS ABOUT NORTH KOREA. THEY HAVE SAID THEY WILL NOT CUT THEM OFF, THEY WILL NOT TRY TO PRESSURE THEM WITH SANCTIONS. AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE FACED WITH A REAL CHALLENGE THERE. AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN SAY THERE'S AN EASY ANSWER TO.

Borg: DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION?

Gingrich: MY SUGGESTION IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO, FIRST OF ALL, MAKE THE CHINESE UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROBABLE CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR BEHAVIOR IS GOING TO BE A NUCLEAR ARMED JAPAN. WHAT THE CHINA ARE DOING IS SETTING UP A NEIGHBOR TO JAPAN THAT IS SO DANGEROUS THAT THE JAPANESE ARE ALMOST CERTAINLY GOING TO DECIDE THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE ARMAMENT THAT CAN DETER NORTH KOREA.

Borg: AND WE SHOULD ASSIST THAT?

Gingrich: I THINK IF WE CANNOT GET THE NORTH KOREANS TO DISARM, WE HAVE TO TAKE EVERY STEP NECESSARY TO BLOCK THEM FROM USING THE WEAPONS, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE HELPING THE JAPANESE IF THEY ASK US.

Glover: AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM IS A HIGH DOMESTIC PRIORITY, A HIGH FOREIGN POLICY PRIORITY. NOT LONG AGO WE WERE ONCE AGAIN EVACUATING KEY GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN WASHINGTON. IS ENOUGH BEING DONE FOR THE SORT OF MECHANICS OF THE WAR ON TERRORISM?

Gingrich: AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE PLACES WE HAVE TO HAVE A MUCH MORE SERIOUS CONVERSATION. I THINK IF A CESSNA AIRPLANE, WHICH IS A VERY SMALL, SLOW AIRPLANE, CAN PENETRATE WASHINGTON AIR SPACE WITHOUT HAVING A FIGHTER PLANE SITTING ON TOP OF IT AND IF WE DON'T HAVE THE KIND OF POINT DEFENSE SYSTEMS THAT PROTECT THE CAPITOL, THE WHITE HOUSE, AND THE SUPREME COURT SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO EVACUATE THEM, THERE'S SOMETHING PROFOUNDLY WRONG WITH HOW WE PLANNED THIS. THE IMAGE OF AMERICA WORLDWIDE ALMOST FOUR YEARS AFTER 9/11 SHOULD NOT BE OUR GOVERNMENT STAFFS RUNNING DOWN THE STREET.

Glover: SO YOUR ANSWER IS WE'RE NOT DOING ENOUGH.

Gingrich: WE'RE NOT DOING ENOUGH AND WE'RE NOT DOING IT SERIOUSLY ENOUGH. WE'RE NOT ALLOWING THE OBJECTIVE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WORLD TO FORCE US TO RETHINK OUR GOVERNMENT. WE'RE ALLOWING OUR BUREAUCRACIES TO FORCE US TO PRETEND WE'RE OKAY WHEN WE'RE NOT.

Glover: AND WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THE DEBATE THAT YOU HEAR SOMETIMES FROM THE LEFT THAT THE WAR ON TERRORISM, THE PATRIOT ACT AND ALL THAT, SETS UP ATTENTION OVER CIVIL LIBERTIES?

Gingrich: I AGREE ENTIRELY WITH THE LEFT ON THAT. I THINK I'M A CONSERVATIVE IN THE SENSE THAT I DON'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT. I DON'T TRUST ANY GOVERNMENT. AND I CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT THE U.S. ATTORNEY TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THE PATRIOT ACT FOR ANYTHING EXCEPT TERRORISM. I DON'T WANT SOME U.S. ATTORNEY SOMEDAY DOWN THE ROAD TO TAKE VERY STRONG POWERS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO STOP A TERRORIST AND USE IT AGAINST AN INNOCENT AMERICAN. AND I THINK ANYBODY WHO IS NOT WORRIED ABOUT THIS DOES NOT UNDERSTAND HOW FRAGILE OUR LIBERTIES ARE.

Yepsen: WHAT SORT OF RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE PUT INTO THE PATRIOT ACT WHEN CONGRESS STARTS TO REWRITE IT?

Gingrich: I THINK THEY SHOULD WRITE IN THAT IT APPLIES ONLY TO TERRORISM AND THAT ANY U.S. ATTORNEY WHO USES IT AGAINST ANY CITIZEN ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN TERRORISM IS COMMITTING A FELONY.

Yepsen: I WANT TO GO BACK TO CHINA FOR A MOMENT. YOU MENTIONED GETTING TOUGH WITH CHINA. BUT HOW CAN A U.S. PRESIDENT GET "TOUGH WITH CHINA" WHEN THEY LOAN US SO MUCH MONEY? I MEAN HOW CAN WE STAND UP --

Gingrich: YOU MEAN GET TOUGH WITH CHINA OVER NORTH KOREA?

Yepsen: YEAH, OR TAIWAN OR ANYTHING THE CHINESE -- OR HUMAN RIGHTS, WHERE THE CHINESE ARE ALSO FINANCING OUR NATIONAL DEBT?

Gingrich: THERE ARE THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT THINGS HERE. THE CHINESE ARE INVESTING MONEY HERE BECAUSE THEY'RE DESPERATELY AFRAID THAT THE VALUE OF THE YUAN RMB IS GOING TO RISE, AND THEY THINK IF IT RISES THAT THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE A LOT OF THEIR EXPORTS AND THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE A LOT OF JOBS AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF SOCIAL UNREST. SO THEY'RE IN EFFECT SAYING TO US: WE WILL ARTIFICIALLY PROP UP THE DOLLAR IF YOU'LL KEEP BUYING OUR GOODIES BECAUSE WE'RE TERRIFIED THAT IF WE ALLOW THE DOLLAR TO EQUALIZE WITH THE YUAN THAT WE'RE IN FACT GOING TO HAVE A SEVERE RECESSION. THAT'S A CHINESE DECISION. ON TAIWAN, MY ATTITUDE IS THAT ANY ACT -- AND I'VE SAID THIS TO CHINESE LEADERS. ANY ACT THAT WOULD FORCEABLY TRY TO CONQUER 28 MILLION FREE PEOPLE WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT OF HITLER GOING INTO THE RHINELAND IN 1936. A CHINA, WHICH HAS PREPARED TO USE FORCE AGAINST TAIWAN, IS A CHINA WE WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER IS VERY, VERY DANGEROUS.

Yepsen: MR. SPEAKER, ANOTHER ISSUE THAT CONFRONTS A LOT OF IOWANS AND A LOT OF AMERICANS THESE DAYS IS THE WHOLE QUESTION OF GLOBALIZATION AND THE EXPORT OF AMERICAN JOBS OVERSEAS. WHAT DO WE DO TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS DOMESTICALLY THAT GLOBALIZATION IS CAUSING?

Gingrich: WELL, I THINK WE DECIDE TO GET OURSELVES IN SHAPE TO COMPETE WITH THEM. I THINK WE HAVE TO BE TOUGHER WITH OURSELVES THAN WITH FOREIGNERS. WE HAVE TO SAY -- WE'RE A LITTLE BIT LIKE A COLLEGE TEAM THAT'S GOTTEN OUT OF SHAPE AND HAS HAD A GREAT PAST AND NOW IT ACTUALLY WANTS TO GO AND PLAY A BALL GAME AND IT FINDS OUT: GEE, I'VE ACTUALLY GOT TO RECRUIT PLAYERS WHO ARE COMPETENT; AND I'VE ACTUALLY GOT TO HAVE PEOPLE TO PRACTICE IN THE SPRING; AND I'VE ACTUALLY GOT TO PLAY REAL GAMES; THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP SCORE; GEE, THAT'S REALLY INAPPROPRIATE. WELL, LET ME GIVE YOU SOME EXAMPLES. OUR MATH AND SCIENCE SYSTEM -- OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM FOR MATH AND SCIENCE IS A DISASTER. IT NEEDS TO BE OVERHAULED. AND IN "WINNING THE FUTURE," I HAVE AN ENTIRE CHAPTER ON HOW TO PROFOUNDLY RETHINK THE ENTIRE MATH AND SCIENCE SYSTEM. WE WILL NEVER COMPETE WITH CHINA AND INDIA A GENERATION FROM NOW IF WE HAVE THE CURRENT INCAPACITY TO PRODUCE PEOPLE TO DO MATH AND SCIENCE. WE OUGHT TO HAVE A TAX CODE THAT LET'S YOU WRITE OFF ANY INVESTMENT IN NEW TECHNOLOGY IN ONE YEAR, A HUNDRED PERCENT EXPENSING, BECAUSE WE WANT AMERICAN WORKERS TO HAVE THE BEST EQUIPMENT IN THE WORLD. WE DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF TAX CODE TODAY. WE WANT TO HAVE A SYSTEM WHERE WE DON'T HAVE SO MANY REGULATORY BARRIERS THAT OTHER COUNTRIES ARE GETTING AHEAD. TEN YEARS AGO WE WERE THE LEADING COUNTRY IN THE WORLD IN INTERNET CONNECTIVITY. TODAY I THINK WE RANK THIRTEENTH, AND A LOT OF THAT IS BECAUSE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION HAS FAILED TO FIX THE REGULATORY SYSTEM TO ENCOURAGE THE KIND OF INVESTMENT IN JAPAN AND KOREA AND SOUTH KOREA AND A VARIETY OF PLACES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE MUCH BETTER ACCESS TO I.T. THAN WE DO TODAY. AND IF YOU'RE IN RURAL AMERICA, HAVING ACCESS TO BROADBAND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CAN FIX YOUR LOCAL HOSPITAL, CAN DRAMATICALLY IMPROVE YOUR LOCAL SCHOOLS, CAN ALLOW YOU TO HAVE JOBS. THERE'S AN ARTICLE THAT CAME OUT JUST VERY RECENTLY ON THE NOTION OF OUTSOURCING INSIDE THE U.S. TO RURAL AMERICA. AND WE'RE TALKING, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT ESKIMOS IN ALASKA ON HOW YOU CAN HAVE JOBS IN SMALL VILLAGES CONNECTED BY SATELLITE IN A WAY THAT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FIVE YEARS AGO. SO IF WE'RE CLEVER, WE CAN COMPETE. BUT THE ANSWER IS NOT TO FOCUS ON FOREIGNERS. THE ANSWER IS TO FIRST GET OURSELVES IN SHAPE SO THAT WE AS A SOCIETY ARE COMPETITIVE.

Glover: PRESIDENT BUSH HAS MADE OVERHAULING THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM THE TOP DOMESTIC PRIORITY OF HIS SECOND TERM. YOU KNOW HIS PROPOSAL. IS HE ON THE RIGHT TRACK?

Gingrich: WELL, I THINK THAT THE CORE QUESTION HE'S ASKING IS ONE OF THE TWO BIGGEST QUESTIONS. I WOULD HAVE RANKED TRANSFORMING THE HEALTH SYSTEM AS BEING EQUALLY IMPORTANT. BUT I WOULD FOCUS IT DIFFERENT THAN THE PRESIDENT HAS. I WOULD FOCUS SOCIAL SECURITY ON THE SIMPLE FACT THAT MY TWO GRANDCHILDREN, WHO ARE THREE AND FIVE, WHEN THEY GET INTO THE WORK FORCE, IF WE KEEP THE CURRENT TRANSFER SYSTEM, ARE GOING TO HAVE A VERY, VERY SMALL OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A REAL RETIREMENT. AND THE REASON IS VERY SIMPLE. WHEN WE WROTE THE FIRST SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK, THERE WERE 42 WORKERS FOR EVERY PERSON WHO GOT SOCIAL SECURITY. TODAY THERE ARE THREE WORKERS. WHEN MY GRANDCHILDREN COME INTO THE WORK FORCE, THERE WILL BE TWO WORKERS. NOW, A TERRIFIC TRANSFER PROGRAM AT 42 TO 1 IS A PRETTY BAD TRANSFER PROGRAM AT 2 TO 1. IF MY TWO GRANDCHILDREN, MAGGIE WHO IS FIVE AND ROBERT WHO IS THREE, COULD PUT THEIR SAVINGS FROM DAY ONE WHEN THEY FIRST GO TO WORK AT A PART-TIME JOB AND FIRST PAY A FICA TAX, IF THEY COULD PUT THAT INTO A SAVINGS ACCOUNT AND HAVE A BUILDUP OF INTEREST FOR THEIR ENTIRE WORKING LIFETIME, THEY WOULD HAVE THREE OR FOUR TIMES THE SIZE RETIREMENT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM.

Glover: AND YOU'VE WATCHED THIS DEBATE UNFOLD SINCE PRESIDENT BUSH MADE HIS PROPOSALS IN THE STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH. WHAT HAS THE WAY THIS DEBATE HAS PLAYED OUT SAID ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO HAVE SERIOUS POLICY DEBATES IN THIS COUNTRY?

Gingrich: I THINK IT'S BEEN FOCUSED AT THE WRONG LEVEL. IT'S BEEN FOCUSED WAY UP HERE IN SOME KIND OF ARGUMENT IN WASHINGTON ABOUT MACRO ECONOMICS AND 2042 OR 2018 OR ALL THAT STUFF. IT OUGHT TO BE FOCUSED RIGHT HERE IN IOWA FOR PEOPLE. IT OUGHT TO BE ABOUT EVERY YOUNG PERSON IN IOWA AND WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO GET AT THE END OF THEIR WORKING LIFETIME.

Borg: BUT ISN'T THAT WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE IN GOING AROUND THE COUNTRY.

Gingrich: THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE THAT PART OF THE TIME, BUT THERE'S ALSO BEEN A WHOLE SERIES OF VERY CONFUSING ARGUMENTS. AND WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING VERY BOLD AND VERY BIG -- AND THIS IS AND I GIVE THE PRESIDENT A LOT OF CREDIT -- YOU REALLY HAVE TO NARROW DOWN YOUR FOCUS BECAUSE THE SYSTEM DOESN'T CARRY SEVEN MESSAGES, PARTICULARLY IF YOU HAVE ADVERSARIES WHO ARE GOING TO ATTACK YOU AND RUN ADS AND TRY TO TRUMP YOU. I'VE BEEN URGING, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE ARE FOUR MILLION PEOPLE TODAY WHO HAVE PRIVATE ACCOUNTS. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO, FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, OPTED OUT OF SOCIAL SECURITY. SO THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF WITNESSES THAT COULD BE BROUGHT TO WASHINGTON TO THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE WHO COULD TESTIFY, WHO COULD SAY, I'M 72 YEARS OLD AND THIS IS WHAT I'VE DONE AND THIS IS HOW MUCH I GET. AND BY THE WAY, NONE OF THEM ARE ASKING TO GO BACK INTO SOCIAL SECURITY.

Yepsen: ANOTHER TOPIC, MR. SPEAKER, YOU TALK A GREAT DEAL ABOUT IN YOUR BOOK IS HEALTH CARE, MEDICARE. WHAT DO WE DO IN THIS COUNTRY ABOUT THAT?

Gingrich: WELL, WE HAVE TO DRAMATICALLY CHANGE IT. YOU HAVE A TREMENDOUS SYSTEM HERE IN IOWA. YOU HAVE ENORMOUS POWERFUL HOSPITAL COMPLEXES, ONE OF THE LARGEST MEDICAL SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES AT THE UNIVERSITY. BUT WHAT WE DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE IN AMERICA IS THE KIND OF -- THREE BIG CHANGES. FIRST, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TO REPLACE PAPER: ELECTRONIC PRESCRIBING; ELECTRONIC RECORDS. A VERY SIMPLE MODEL. PAPER KILLS. WE KILL AT LEAST 8,000 AMERICANS A YEAR BY MEDICATION ERROR BECAUSE OF PAPER PRESCRIPTIONS. NOW, IF WE WERE KILLING 8,000 PEOPLE IN THE AIRPLANE BUSINESS, WE'D HAVE A NATIONAL CRISIS. WE KILL 8,000 PEOPLE WITH PRESCRIPTIONS THAT ARE ILLEGIBLE OR THAT DON'T GET CHECKED TO FIND OUT WHAT YOU HAD. ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS. A TRUE STORY. IT WAS TOLD TO ME BY DENNY HASTERT'S HEALTH ASSISTANT, SALLY CANFIELD, WHO GAVE ME PERMISSION TO USE IT. HER MOTHER GOES WITH HER FATHER BECAUSE HER FATHER NEEDS AN MRI. HER MOTHER IS VERY MILITANT AND VERY WORRIED ABOUT THE HEALTH SYSTEM, SO SHE FILLS OUT THE PAPER INFORMATION FIVE TIMES. AND EVERY TIME SHE CIRCLES "PACEMAKER." SHE'S STILL WORRIED ABOUT IT SO SHE GOES WITH HIM TO THE DRESSING ROOM TO GET READY TO GET HIS MRI. SHE TURNS TO THE STAFF AND SAYS, "YOU DO REALIZE HE HAS A PACEMAKER." THEY STOP. AND THEY SAY, "WELL, HE CAN'T HAVE AN MRI. IT WOULD KILL HIM." NOW, SHE HAD FILLED OUT THE FORM FIVE TIMES, BUT THE SYSTEM -- IF YOU HAD AN ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD, ON THE FRONT WHEN YOU TRIED TO ORDER AN MRI, IT WOULD HAVE COME UP IN BOLD RED LETTERS.

Yepsen: BESIDES THE ELECTRONIC.

Gingrich: THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, SHIFT TO PREVENTION AND WELLNESS. I DON'T KNOW THE LAWS IN IOWA, SO I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU MY GENERAL BIAS AND YOU CAN EDUCATE ME. EVERY STATE IN THIS COUNTRY SHOULD REQUIRE MANDATORY K-12 PHYSICAL EDUCATION FOR KIDS, REAL PHYSICAL EDUCATION FIVE DAYS A WEEK. THE REASON IS SIMPLE. YOU HAVE AN EXPLOSION OF OBESITY AND DIABETES. YOU HAVE WHAT USED TO BE CALLED ADULT ONSET DIABETES OCCURRING FOR 12 TO 14 YEAR OLDS. NOW, FOR OUR AUDIENCE, LET ME JUST EMPHASIZE DIABETES ISN'T JUST THIS SILENT STRANGE THING THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE INSULIN AND CHECK YOUR BLOOD SUGAR. DIABETES IS THE LEADING CAUSE OF BLINDNESS IN ADULTS. IT IS THE LEADING CAUSE OF AMPUTATION OF FEET IN ADULTS. IT IS A MAJOR CAUSE OF KIDNEY DIALYSIS AND THE DEATH OF YOUR KIDNEYS, ULTIMATELY THE DEATH OF YOU, AND IT IS A MAJOR CAUSES OF HEART DISEASE. THE ESTIMATE IS THAT EVERY FOURTH DOLLAR IN MEDICARE IS CAUSED BY DIABETES, AND WE DON'T TREAT IT AS A PREVENTIVE MANAGEMENT PROBLEM.

Yepsen: WHICH WE COULD DO IF WE WERE FOCUSING CHILDREN ON BETTER HEALTH CARE.

Gingrich: YOU DO THAT WITH CHILDREN. YOU DO THAT WITH ADULTS. YOU SHIFT THE SYSTEM FROM I'M ONLY GOING TO GO TO THE DOCTOR IF I HAVE AN ACUTE PROBLEM LIKE I NEED KIDNEY DIALYSIS TO, GEE, I BETTER FIND OUT IF I CAN BE DIABETIC AND I BETTER CHANGE MY DIET AND MY EXERCISE. SO THAT'S THE SECOND THING IS YOU'VE GOT TO SHIFT THE SYSTEM FROM ACUTE CARE TOWARDS PREVENTION, WELLNESS -- AND BY THE WAY, THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE HAS ON THEIR WEB PAGE -- YOU CAN GO CHECK THIS. THEY BELIEVE -- ANDY VON ESCHENBACH, THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, BELIEVES WE COULD ELIMINATE CANCER AS A CAUSE OF DEATH BY 2015, TEN YEARS FROM NOW.

Glover: ANOTHER ISSUE THAT'S FACING THE POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON IS THE BUDGET DEFICITS. THE BUDGET DEFICITS HAVE BEEN SPIRALING UP FAIRLY BIG. THERE'S A DEBATE IN WASHINGTON ABOUT WHETHER THE BUDGET DEFICITS ARE BIG ENOUGH TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF THE SIZE OF THE ECONOMY. WHAT'S YOUR VIEW? ARE THESE BUDGET DEFICITS A PROBLEM?

Gingrich: WELL, MY VIEW WAS THAT FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS AFTER 9/11, IT WAS GOOD TO RUN DEFICITS, BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE WERE IN VERY GRAVE DANGER OF SLIDING INTO DEFLATION. AND IF YOU HAD A DEFLATIONARY SPIRAL DOWNWARD AT A TIME WHEN YOU HAVE MASSIVE HOME OWNERSHIP WITH MORTGAGES, THE PAIN LEVEL WOULD HAVE BEEN UNBEARABLE. WE'VE GOTTEN PAST THAT. THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM NOW. I THINK IT'S VERY PRUDENT TO GO BACK TO A BALANCED BUDGET. I HAVE A CHAPTER ON THIS IN "WINNING THE FUTURE." AND YOU KNOW, WE DID BALANCE THE BUDGET FOR FOUR YEARS IN A ROW. AND BY THE WAY, THE CURRENT BUDGET CHAIRMAN, JIM NUSSLE, WAS PART OF THAT PROCESS. AND WE DID IT BY DOING A COUPLE THINGS. WE REFORMED WELFARE; 60 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE ON WELFARE LEFT TO GO TO WORK OR GO TO SCHOOL. WE CUT SPENDING. YOU ONLY HAVE TWO ACTUAL CUTS IN DOMESTIC SPENDING SINCE THE SECOND WORLD WAR, RONALD REAGAN'S FIRST YEAR AS PRESIDENT AND MY FIRST YEAR AS SPEAKER. THE ONLY TWO TIMES SINCE THE SECOND WORLD WAR. BUT WE ACTUALLY CONTROLLED SPENDING, AND WE SET PRIORITIES. AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND DO THE SAME THING ALL OVER AGAIN.

Glover: IS THIS ISSUE OF RUNNING BIG BUDGET DEFICITS A CLOUD THAT HANGS OVER THE BUSH PRESIDENCY?

Gingrich: I THINK IT'S A CLOUD THAT HANGS OVER THE BUSH PRESIDENCY, THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, AND THE COUNTRY. I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE A STRATEGY TO GET BACK TO A BALANCED BUDGET. BY THE WAY, THAT MEANS YOU'VE GOT TO TRANSFORM HEALTH BECAUSE HEALTH IS THE FASTEST GROWING SECTION OF THE BUDGET AND HEALTH IS TODAY 26 PERCENT OF ALL FEDERAL SPENDING. HEALTH IS SIX -- MEDICARE IS SIX TIMES THE FINANCIAL LIABILITY THAT SOCIAL SECURITY IS. I MEAN, PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW HUGE THIS HEALTH QUESTION IS.

Yepsen: MR. SPEAKER, IMMIGRATION IS ANOTHER TOPIC YOU DISCUSS IN YOUR BOOK. IT'S A CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT. A LOT OF POLITICIANS DON'T WANT TO TOUCH IT. WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT THE PROBLEMS OF IMMIGRATION?

Gingrich: NO, LET ME SAY, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IT'S IRRESPONSIBLE TO BE A LEADER AND NOT HAVE SOME SERIOUS THOUGHT ABOUT HOW YOU'RE GOING TO SOLVE THIS. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER. FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE TO GET CONTROL OF OUR BORDERS. THIS IS A NATIONAL SECURITY MEASURE. THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE HAS SAID IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY TWO MONTHS AGO THAT HE BELIEVES A NUCLEAR WEAPON COULD BE DRIVEN ACROSS THE BORDER. NOW, I DON'T WANT TO SEE A NUCLEAR WEAPON GO OFF IN AN AMERICAN CITY AND HAVE THE NEXT 9/11 COMMISSION COME BACK AND SAY, OH GEE, WHY DIDN'T WE NOTICE IT. SO I START OUT BY SAYING HAVING CONTROL OF YOUR OWN BORDER IS A TOTALLY LEGITIMATE THING FOR A COUNTRY TO DO. WE OUGHT TO DO IT AND GET IT OVER WITH. SECOND, WE OUGHT TO HAVE A VERY LARGE GREEN CARD PROGRAM THAT SAYS IF YOU WANT TO COME TO AMERICA, WORK FOR A LIVING, PAY TAXES, AND OBEY THE LAW, AND YOU WILL GIVE US A BIOMETRIC, EITHER A THUMBPRINT OR AN IRIS SCAN, BUT SOME WAY THAT WE KNOW YOU'RE ACTUALLY YOU, THEN WE'RE GOING TO LET YOU COME HERE, BECAUSE WE WANT YOU TO ACTUALLY WORK HARD AND WE WANT YOU TO OBEY THE LAW, WE WANT YOU TO HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE US RICHER AND YOU RICHER. AND I THINK THAT'S BEING HONEST. THERE ARE AT LEAST TEN MILLION ILLEGALS HERE TODAY, AND YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO END THE PROBLEM OF PEOPLE SNEAKING INTO AMERICA UNTIL YOU MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A LEGAL PROGRAM WHERE PEOPLE CAN COME IN INSIDE THE LAW IN AN HONORABLE WAY. THIRD, WE HAVE TO CHANGE OUR DEPORTATION RULES. IF YOU BREAK THE LAW IN THE UNITED STATES AND YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DEPORT YOU IN 72 TO 96 HOURS. INSTEAD, NOW YOU'RE TRAPPED FOR THREE YEARS INSIDE OUR LEGAL SYSTEM SO THAT 90 PERCENT OF THE ILLEGALS ARE NOT DEPORTED BECAUSE THEY JUST DISAPPEAR DURING THE PROCESSING. FOURTH, I AM FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION. I TELL EVERY REPUBLICAN DON'T TELL ME YOU'RE PROUD OF ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER BUT YOU'RE NOT FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION. YOU KNOW, HE WOULD NEVER HAVE BECOME PRESIDENT OF AUSTRIA, BUT HE COULD BECOME GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA. AND I'M FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION BUT I WANT PEOPLE TO WANT TO BECOME AN AMERICAN. AND BY THAT I MEAN THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO PASS AN AMERICAN HISTORY TEST IN ENGLISH AS PART OF THE CITIZENSHIP PROCESS.

Glover: THERE'S A DEBATE OVER ENERGY POLICY IN THIS NATION. WE HAVE GASOLINE AT $2 A GALLON, AND IT WILL APPARENTLY STAY THERE FOR A GOOD LONG TIME. IS THAT ENOUGH TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR? WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT THE ENERGY PROBLEMS FACING THIS COUNTRY?

Gingrich: WE NEED A NEW, SERIOUS STRATEGY THAT COMBINES THE ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY, AND NATIONAL SECURITY INTO ONE STRATEGY. WE SHOULD HAVE AN ALL-OUT EFFORT TO BUILD CARS THAT GO 200 OR 300 MILES TO THE GALLON. WE SHOULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE USE OF BIOMASS, WHETHER IT'S ETHANOL IN THE MIDWESTERN VERSION OR IT IS A VARIETY OF WOOD PELLETS IN THE NORTHEAST. YOU CAN DRAMATICALLY REDUCE FUEL OIL USE IN THE NORTHEAST WITH VERY SOPHISTICATED WOOD PELLET SYSTEMS THAT NOW ARE BEING DESIGNED.

Glover: PRAGMATICALLY HOW DO YOU DO THAT WITH THE POWER OF THE AUTO INDUSTRY?

Gingrich: YOU TAKE THEM ON. ONE OF THE JOBS OF LEADERSHIP IS TO SAY TO BIG INDUSTRIES ON OCCASION, THIS IS ABOUT THE COUNTRY. I BELIEVE WITH CHINA AND INDIA COMING ON LINE AS MAJOR CONSUMERS OF OIL, WITH THE INSTABILITY IN VENEZUELA, IN SAUDI ARABIA, IN ALL OF CENTRAL ASIA, IT'S VERY DANGEROUS FOR US AS A NATIONAL SECURITY MATTER TO NOT HAVE A STRATEGY THAT MINIMIZES THE LONG-TERM RELIANCE ON THE AVAILABILITY OF THE LAST MARGINAL BARREL OF OIL. AND I THINK THAT'S GOT -- THAT'S GOT TO BE A NATIONAL DEBATE, AND IT'S SOMETHING I THINK THE PRESIDENT ULTIMATELY IS GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE THE LEAD ON.

Yepsen: MR. SPEAKER, WE'VE ONLY GOT A COUPLE MINUTES LEFT, WAY TOO MANY QUESTIONS. BUT I NOTICED IN YOUR BOOK YOU DEVOTE A GREAT DEAL OF TIME TO THE QUESTION OF THE JUDICIARY AND YOU FEEL LIKE YOU NEED -- THAT SOMEHOW THE COUNTRY NEEDS TO GET THE JUDICIARY UNDER CONTROL, THAT JUDGES ARE IMPOSING THEIR OWN WILL ON THE COUNTRY. HOW DO YOU DO THAT?

Gingrich: WELL, YOU DO IT IN A LOT OF WAYS. FIRST OF ALL, YOU REQUIRE THAT YOU HAVE AN UP OR DOWN VOTE WHEN THE PRESIDENT SUBMITS JUDGES. SECOND, I THINK YOU HAVE TO BE PREPARED TO CHANGE THE LAWS NECESSARILY. I'M VERY MUCH FOR A LAW THAT SENATOR KYL HAS INTRODUCED -- OR A BILL HE'S INTRODUCED THAT SAYS THAT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN SAY "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" IS OUT OF BOUNDS, THAT THE COURTS CAN'T JUDGE ON THAT. THE CONSTITUTION CLEARLY ALLOWS THE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT TO SIGN A BILL THAT RESTRICTS JURISDICTION. WE'VE DONE IT ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES OVER THE YEARS. AND I THINK THAT THE ELECTED BRANCHES, THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESS, HAVE TO STAND UP TO THE JUDICIAL BRANCH. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FOR JUDICIAL SUPREMACY. THAT IS A 1958 EARL WARREN COURT AFFECTATION AND IT DOES NOT EXIST IN AMERICAN HISTORY AND IT SHOULD BE REBALANCED BY THE TWO ELECTED BRANCHES.

Yepsen: AND THE OTHER THING YOU TALK A GREAT DEAL ABOUT IN YOUR BOOK IS RESTORING THE CENTRALITY OF GOD TO AMERICAN LIFE. GIVEN THAT THE COUNTRY IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE SECULAR, HOW WOULD YOU GO ABOUT DOING THAT?

Gingrich: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I'M NOT SURE THE COUNTRY IS BECOMING THAT MUCH MORE SECULAR EXCEPT IN TALKING TO ITSELF ON MEDIA. THIS IS A COUNTRY THAT 91 PERCENT OF THE COUNTRY BELIEVES YOU SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY "ONE NATION UNDER GOD." NOW, 91 PERCENT IS A FAIRLY BIG MAJORITY. THIS IS A COUNTRY IN WHICH, IF YOU SAY TO PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, YOUR DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE SAYS YOU ARE ENDOWED BY YOUR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS, SO YOUR RIGHTS COME FROM GOD TO YOU, WHICH IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE EUROPEAN SYSTEM -- WHEN YOU SAY TO THE AVERAGE AMERICAN, "DO YOU THINK YOUR CHILDREN OUGHT TO KNOW THAT'S WHAT YOUR DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE SAYS," MY GUESS IS THAT'S A 90-95 PERCENT YES. YET YOU'RE GOING TO FIND VERY FEW SCHOOLS TODAY THAT ARE COMFORTABLE EXPLAINING THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IS BECAUSE YOU'D HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE WORD "CREATOR" MEANT?

Glover: WE'VE JUST GOT ABOUT THIRTY SECONDS LEFT. BUT HOW ARE YOU GOING TO CARRY OUT THIS MISSION OF TRYING TO DEFINE A POLITICAL AGENDA IN THE NEXT COUPLE YEARS?

Gingrich: I'M GOING TO REPEATEDLY COME BACK TO IOWA AND TALK TO YOU GUYS AND HOPE YOU'LL COVER IT. I'M GOING TO REPEATEDLY GO OUT AND TALK TO GROUPS AROUND THE COUNTRY AND TO CITIZENS. I'M GOING TO REPEATEDLY WORK AT MY WEB SITE, NEWT.ORG. LOOK, I'M VERY NAIVE. I THOUGHT YEARS AGO AS A YANKY-BORN REPUBLICAN IN GEORGIA, YOU COULD WIN A CONGRESSIONAL SEAT. I THOUGHT WHEN I GOT TO WASHINGTON, YOU COULD CREATE A MAJORITY. I THOUGHT YOU COULD RUN A CAMPAIGN IN WHICH THE CONTRACT WAS TOTALLY POSITIVE. SO I'M HAPPY TO COME OUT HERE AND NAIVELY SAY I THINK WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE IDEAS IN A CAMPAIGN.

Borg: WE'LL HAVE YOU BACK BUT WE'RE OUT OF TIME RIGHT NOW.

Gingrich: THANKS, DEAN.

Borg: THAT'S THIS WEEK'S EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS." I HOPE YOU'LL WATCH NEXT WEEKEND, REGULAR AIRTIMES: 7:30 FRIDAY AND SUNDAY AT NOON. I'M DEAN BORG. THANKS FOR JOINING US TODAY.

FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM WAS PROVIDED BY "FRIENDS," THE IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION FOUNDATION; BY THE IOWA BANKERS ASSOCIATION... FOR PERSONAL, BUSINESS, AND COMMERCIAL NEEDS, IOWA BANKS HELP IOWANS REACH THEIR FINANCIAL GOALS; BY THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF IOWA, THE PUBLIC'S PARTNER IN BUILDING IOWA'S HIGHWAY, BRIDGE, AND MUNICIPAL UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE; AND BY CAPITOL RESOURCES, INC., LOCATED IN BROOKLYN, IOWA; AND BY NICOLE SCHLINGER AND ERIC LANGE INDIVIDUALLY, FUND-RAISING AND COMMUNICATION SERVICES FOR MAJOR CAMPAIGNS SINCE 1996.

Tags: Iowa Newt Gingrich