Iowa Public Television

 

Iowa's Candidates for the United States House of Representatives

posted on October 26, 2004

THIS IS "CAMPAIGN 2004," AN EXAMINATION OF THE CANDIDATES AND THE ISSUES. HERE IS KAY HENDERSON.

Henderson: GOOD EVENING. TONIGHT WE BEGIN A THREE-PART SERIES FOCUSING ON THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 2004 WHICH, AS YOU KNOW, COMES OUR WAY A WEEK FROM TODAY, ON NOVEMBER 2, ELECTION TUESDAY 2004. THIS EVENING, TOMORROW EVENING, AND THURSDAY NIGHT, WE DISCUSS THE POLICY AND POLITICS OF THE CAMPAIGN OF 2004 WITH IOWA CANDIDATES WHO WILL APPEAR ON THE FEDERAL BALLOT. TONIGHT WE'LL TALK WITH THREE CANDIDATES SEEKING TO REPRESENT IOWA IN THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. DENNY HEATH, AN INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE FROM CLINTON, IS RUNNING FOR THE U.S. HOUSE IN EASTERN AND NORTHEASTERN IOWA'S FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. ALSO WITH US ARE PAUL JOHNSON, WHO IS SEEKING TO REPRESENT IOWA IN THE FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IN CENTRAL AND NORTH CENTRAL IOWA; AND JOYCE SCHULTE, A DEMOCRAT FROM CRESTON. SHE'S A CANDIDATE IN WESTERN IOWA'S FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. THANKS, ALL, FOR JOINING THIS EVENING.

Schulte: THANK YOU.

Henderson: FIRST QUESTION TO ALL OF YOU, I'D LIKE YOU TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF. YOU MET SOMEONE AT A COCKTAIL PARTY OR PERHAPS YOU WENT TO A FOOTBALL GAME AND ARE SITTING BESIDE THEM ON THE BLEACHERS. JOYCE SCHULTE, HOW WOULD YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF IN THAT SORT OF BRIEF FASHION?

Schulte: GENERALLY, KAY, I TELL THEM ABOUT MY FAMILY, MY TWO BOYS. AND GENERALLY I TELL THEM ABOUT THE EDUCATION WORLD THAT I FUNCTION IN AND HOW SIGNIFICANT EDUCATION IS REALLY TO CREATING THE WORLD. EDUCATION HELPS ENLIGHTEN THE MIND AND CHARGE THE MIND UP. THAT'S WHERE WE GET THE IDEAS FOR INVENTIONS OR WHERE WE HAPPEN TO FIND A DISCOVERY OF SOME SORT FLOATING AROUND IN OUR MIND, AND THE POWER OF EDUCATION. AND I JUST LOVE TO SEE A CHILD'S MIND SHOW UP ON THEIR FACE, BECAUSE YOU SEE IT WHEN IT LIGHTS UP.

Henderson: AND SO WHERE ARE YOU AN EDUCATOR?

Schulte: I'M AT SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE, DIRECTOR OF STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES PROGRAM THERE. AND SO I SEE THE OLDER FACE LIGHT UP WHEN THEY FIND THAT PIECE OF KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR OR WHEN THEY FIND A WAY TO LEARN THAT'S NEW TO THEIR STYLE, WHEN THEY FIND A WAY TO REMEMBER A TEXTBOOK OR TO REMEMBER BY ROTE MEMORY, IN SOME CASES, A LONG LIST OF PHARMACEUTICAL NAMES. AND WHEN YOU TEACH SOMEBODY THOSE PIECES AND YOU SEE IT LIGHT UP, YOU UNDERSTAND THE POWER THAT EDUCATION HAS FOR THE ECONOMY, FOR THE WHOLE WORLD.

Henderson: WE'LL TALK ABOUT PHARMACEUTICALS IN A LITTLE BIT.

Schulte: OKAY, THANK YOU.

Henderson: I WANT TO TURN TO MR. JOHNSON. SAME QUESTION TO YOU. YOU MET SOMEBODY AT THE FOOTBALL GAME IN THE BLEACHERS. HOW WOULD YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF?

Johnson: WELL, I'M PAUL JOHNSON. I'M A FARMER FROM NORTHEAST IOWA NEAR DECORAH. I GOT MY FIRST START IN PUBLIC SERVICE BACK IN THE 1960S WHEN JOHN KENNEDY WAS PRESIDENT AND STARTED THE PEACE CORPS. I DROPPED OUT OF COLLEGE AT THAT TIME, AND I SPENT TWO YEARS IN GUANA IN WEST AFRICA WITH THE PEACE CORPS, CAME BACK TO THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN WHERE I GOT DEGREES IN FORESTRY AND FOREST ECOLOGY. IN 1974 MY WIFE AND THREE CHILDREN AND I MOVED TO OUR FARM IN NORTHEAST IOWA. AT THAT TIME WE WERE IN DAIRY. WE ALSO HAD BEEF CATTLE. WE'VE HAD SHEEP. AND WE STILL GROW CHRISTMAS TREES TODAY. WE'VE RAISED OUR THREE CHILDREN. NOW WE HAVE FIVE GRANDDAUGHTERS. I'VE ALSO HAD THE OPPORTUNITY IN THE 1980S TO SERVE IN THE IOWA LEGISLATURE. I SERVED SIX YEARS IN THE IOWA LEGISLATURE, WORKING ON CONSERVATION ISSUES, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ISSUES, GROUNDWATER ENERGY ISSUES, RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT AND PROTECTION. WENT BACK TO FULL-TIME FARMING, AND IN 1993 I HAD THE HONOR TO GO TO WASHINGTON AND SERVE AS CHIEF OF THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, NOW THE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE. IT'S THE LARGEST CONSERVATION AGENCY FOR PRIVATE LANDS IN THE WORLD, AND I HAD A WONDERFUL FOUR YEARS THERE. I CAME BACK TO FULL-TIME FARMING AND THEN GOVERNOR VILSACK WAS ELECTED AND I WAS ASKED TO HEAD UP THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. I DID THAT FOR SIXTEEN MONTHS, AND NOW I'M HERE.

Henderson: MR. HEATH, YOU ARE HERE AS WELL. LET'S SAY YOU BUMP INTO SOMEBODY, YOU'RE SITTING BY THEM IN THE AIRPLANE. HOW WOULD YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF?

Heath: WELL, I WOULD SAY MY NAME IS DENNY HEATH. I'M FROM CLINTON, IOWA, THE FIRST DISTRICT. I'VE LIVED THERE ALL MY LIFE, MARRIED 36 YEARS, THREE GROWN CHILDREN, THREE GRANDCHILDREN. I'M ACTUALLY RETIRED NOW. I WORKED ON THE RAILROAD FOR 25 YEARS, BUT I'VE HAD A VARIED CAREER. I WORKED MY WAY THROUGH COLLEGE, EARNED TWO DEGREES, BACHELORS DEGREE AND A MASTERS DEGREE IN EDUCATION. AND NOW I HAVE SOME TIME THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DEVOTE TO THE COMMUNITY, AND THAT'S WHY I'M RUNNING IN THIS ELECTION. SOME PEOPLE WILL REMEMBER THAT I RAN IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT AND I LOST, AND SOME PEOPLE HAVE SAID THAT I'M KIND OF A SORE LOSER FOR CONTINUING TO RUN. BUT THE POINT THAT WAS MADE TO ME AFTER THE ELECTION WAS THAT THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE DID NOT REALLY TELL PEOPLE HOW HE STOOD ON THE PRO-CHOICE ISSUE. AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS DEFINITELY A PRO-CHOICE PARTY. IT'S A MAJOR PLANK IN OUR PLATFORM. SO IF WE HAD NO CANDIDATE RUN ON PRO-CHOICE STANCE, WE WOULD HAVE NO CANDIDATE AT ALL BECAUSE BOTH THE OTHER CANDIDATES ARE ANTI-CHOICE. AND BILL GLUBA HAS SAID HE'S GOING TO GO TO WASHINGTON AND DO AWAY WITH THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE. SO I HAD DEMOCRATS FLOOD MY PHONE AND SAY WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, AND THAT'S WHY I'M RUNNING. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I'M RUNNING.

Henderson: LET'S TALK ABOUT ONE THING THAT YOU MAY BE PROMISING VOTERS. POLITICIANS ARE PRONE TO PROMISE PEOPLE SOMETHING. IF YOU'RE ELECTED, JOYCE SCHULTE, WHAT WOULD YOUR NUMBER ONE PROMISE OR PLEDGE BE TO THE VOTERS, JUST ONE?

Schulte: NUMBER ONE, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, KAY, IS TO TAKE THE PEOPLE'S VOICE TO THE HALLS OF CONGRESS. IT IS NOT MY OPINION THAT SHOULD GO THERE. IT IS NOT JUST A SINGLE, NARROW LITTLE ISSUE. WE'RE HEARING THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE FROM THE MISSOURI LINE TO THE MINNESOTA BORDER. AND THE PEOPLE'S VOICE IN THAT NATIONAL FORUM HEARD STRONGLY IS WHAT I WILL TAKE THERE. THAT'S THE PROMISE I MAKE: TO WORK AS HARD THERE AS I WORK ANYWHERE ELSE, BUT TO TAKE THE PEOPLE'S VOICE AS MY MISSION.

Henderson: PAUL JOHNSON, WHAT'S YOUR NUMBER ONE PROMISE?

Johnson: CERTAINLY NOBODY COULD BE AGAINST THAT. AND I WOULD TO. I WOULD ALSO ADD TO THAT, THOUGH, THAT I HAVE A RECORD OF WORKING WITH BOTH PARTIES. AND MANY OF US I THINK IN IOWA AND ACROSS THE NATION TODAY ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PARTISAN BICKERING THAT GOES ON IN DES MOINES AND IN WASHINGTON. AND I WOULD COMMIT, AS I ALWAYS HAVE, TO WORKING BOTH SIDES. I HAVE A VERY GOOD RECORD OF DOING THAT WHEN I WAS IN THE IOWA LEGISLATURE, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WHEN ELECTED WE DO OUR BEST TO SET ASIDE OUR POLITICAL HATS AND REALLY WORK FOR THE PEOPLE AND WORK FOR OUR COUNTRY. AND I COMMIT MYSELF TO DOING THAT.

Henderson: MR. HEATH, WHAT'S YOUR NUMBER ONE PLEDGE TO THE VOTERS?

Heath: WELL, ACTUALLY I LIKE THE WAY JOYCE SAID IT, BUT I TAKE ABSOLUTELY NO CAMPAIGN MONEY, SO I CAN ACTUALLY DO THAT. WHEN I GO TO WASHINGTON, THERE WILL BE NO SPECIAL INTEREST TO PAY BACK. THE INCUMBENT IN MY DISTRICT HAS $1.3 MILLION TO RUN AND THREE QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS OF THAT COMES FROM SPECIAL INTEREST. AND WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS. WHEN HE GOES TO WASHINGTON, HE'S GOT TO PAY BACK THOSE FAVORS. WHEN I GO TO WASHINGTON, I WILL OWE NOBODY BUT THE CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT BECAUSE I'VE TAKEN NO MONEY. IN THE ENTIRE 434 OTHER CONGRESSIONAL RACES, NO CANDIDATE CAN SAY THAT. I'M THE ONLY ONE THAT DOES THAT. SO THE ONLY THING I HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT WHEN I GO TO CONGRESS IS THE GREATER PUBLIC GOOD, AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO DO.

Henderson: YOU HAVE MENTIONED THE INCUMBENT BUT YOU HAVEN'T MENTIONED HIM BY NAME. YOU'RE RUNNING AGAINST JIM NUSSLE.

Heath: JIM NUSSLE.

Henderson: ONE OF THE THINGS THAT FOLKS MUST DO IF YOU'RE ENCOURAGING VOTERS TO SELECT A NEW PERSON IS ESSENTIALLY FIRE JIM NUSSLE. WHY SHOULD JIM NUSSLE BE FIRED?

Heath: JIM NUSSLE HAS BEEN THERE FOR FOURTEEN YEARS. HE'S A BIG MONEY MAN. HE'S A YES MAN FOR THE REPUBLICANS, WHICH I SUPPOSE IS GOOD. THE PARTY LIKES THAT BUT, YOU KNOW, CANDIDATES SHOULD BE LEADERS OF THE PARTY, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THE PARTY SHOULDN'T LEAD THE CANDIDATE BY THE NOSE. HE'S DONE VERY LITTLE TO HELP OUR DISTRICT IN THE FOURTEEN YEARS, ALTHOUGH AT ELECTION TIME HE COMES AROUND AND GIVES US SOME OF OUR MONEY BACK AND MAKES IT LOOK LIKE HE'S TRYING TO DO THAT, BUT HE DOESN'T DO THAT. HE'S REALLY NOT DEDICATED TO THE PEOPLE OF THE DISTRICT, AND IT'S VERY CLEAR.

Henderson: JOYCE SCHULTE, YOU'RE RUNNING AGAINST AN INCUMBENT NAMED STEVE KING, A FIRST-TERM CONGRESSMAN. WHY SHOULDN'T HE BE ELECTED TO A SECOND TERM?

Schulte: MY OPPONENT HAS REALLY MISLED PEOPLE IN LOTS OF WAYS. HE HAS SAID HE'S FOR CHILDREN, FOR FAMILIES, HE VOTES AGAINST THEM. HE TAKES MONEY FROM THE LARGEST CORPORATIONS, AND HE VOTES FOR THEM TO GET EVEN LARGER. HE SAYS HE'S FOR IOWA FARMERS, BUT HE ENHANCES THE BRAZILIAN FARMERS. HE ENHANCES THE BELIZE ETHANOL PLANTS AND YET SAYS HE'S FOR THE IOWA ETHANOL. HE'S GOING TO ALASKA TO PROMOTE OIL DRILLING, AND YET HE SAYS HE'S FOR THE IOWA FARMERS. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT EDUCATION AND HEAD START, HE SAID ON ONE DAY HE WAS FOR IT, WENT BACK TO WASHINGTON, VOTED AGAINST IT. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. YOU HAVE TO EITHER MEAN WHAT YOU SAY OR DON'T SAY IT. IN TERMS OF CHILDREN, THERE'S A PRESERVATIVE OR THERE'S AN INGREDIENT IN CHILDREN'S IMMUNIZATIONS. IT'S CALLED MERCURY, OR THIMEROSAL. MY OPPONENT HAS GOTTEN A LITTLE OUT OF KILTER ON THIS, IS UNWILLING TO SUPPORT THE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD TAKE THAT INGREDIENT COMPLETELY OUT. WE HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THAT INGREDIENT MAY BE THE CAUSE AGENT FOR AUTISM. NOW, WHY WOULD YOU SAY YOU'RE FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AND NOT TAKE MERCURY OUT OF THE IMMUNIZATIONS FOR CHILDREN? IT'S ALSO, AT TIMES, IN THE IMMUNIZATIONS FOR FLU VACCINES, AND WE'RE PROMOTING THAT PRIMARILY FOR THE ELDERLY. DO THE ELDERLY REALLY NEED MORE MERCURY IN THEIR MINDS? DO CHILDREN NEED MORE MERCURY IN THEIR MINDS? I DON'T THINK SO. SO I THINK WE HAVE TO HEAR THE VOICES OF THE PEOPLE. WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THOSE ISSUES THAT PEOPLE CALL IMPORTANT.

Henderson: PAUL JOHNSON, YOU'RE RUNNING AGAINST TOM LATHAM. WHY SHOULD HE BE FIRED?

Johnson: WELL, WE CAN GO DOWN JUST ABOUT EVERY ISSUE, WHETHER IT BE THE ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION OR HEALTH CARE OR EDUCATION OR FOREIGN POLICY OR ENERGY, AND WE COME FROM VERY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON THOSE THINGS. BUT I WOULD PROBABLY PULL IT BACK AND LIST THREE GENERAL REASONS WHY. I ALREADY MENTIONED ONE, THAT I HAVE A REPUTATION FOR WORKING IN A BIPARTISAN WAY. MY OPPONENT DOES NOT. I HAVE A REPUTATION FOR NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE STATUS QUO AND TAKING ON ISSUES, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY BE VERY TOUGH ISSUES, AND TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THEM AND TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS TO THEM. THAT'S WHY WE DID THE GROUNDWATER PROTECTION ACT IN 1987. THAT'S WHY WE DID THE REAP ACT IN 1989, ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACT IN 1990. I FLOOR MANAGED ALL THREE OF THOSE. SO THERE ARE THOSE TWO THINGS. AND THEN THERE'S THE THIRD, AND IT WAS MENTIONED BY DENNY, THE ISSUE OF MONEY. ALTHOUGH I DO NOT OPPOSE SPECIAL INTERESTS, I REALLY OPPOSE THE OVERWHELMING INFLUENCE THAT THEY HAVE TODAY. OF THE QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS OR SO THAT I'VE RAISED IN THIS CAMPAIGN THUS FAR, ABOUT $9,000 HAS COME FROM SPECIAL INTERESTS. AND I'VE TOLD THEM THAT THEY'RE WELCOME TO CONTRIBUTE, BUT NO MORE THAN WHAT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN. IT'S SURPRISING THEN HOW FEW OF THEM WANT TO CONTRIBUTE AT ALL. ON THE OTHER HAND, MY OPPONENT HAS TAKEN ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF HIS MONEY FROM SPECIAL INTERESTS, INCLUDING TOM DELAY AND KATHERINE HARRIS. REMEMBER HER FROM FLORIDA FAME? WHY IN THE WORLD SHOULD THESE PEOPLE BE DECIDING WHO SHOULD REPRESENT US IN THE FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IN IOWA? SO THOSE THREE AREAS IN PARTICULAR, I AM VERY, VERY DIFFERENT IN PRINCIPLE. THEN WE CAN GET TO THE SPECIFICS WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.

Henderson: I'M READY. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE INTERESTS OF IOWANS. WHAT ARE VOTERS TELLING YOU ARE NUMBER ONE ON THEIR MINDS? A POLL TAKEN BY THE "CHICAGO TRIBUNE" FOUND THAT HEALTH CARE WAS THE NUMBER ONE CONCERN OF IOWA VOTERS. MR. JOHNSON, DO YOU FIND THAT TO BE TRUE, AND WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION TO WHAT YOU BELIEVE AILS THE SYSTEM?

Johnson: YES, I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT'S TRUE. I'VE HELD HUNDREDS OF MEETINGS NOW ACROSS THE DISTRICT OVER THE LAST SIX MONTHS, AND HEALTH CARE IS PROBABLY THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE. FOR SENIORS IT'S STILL AN ISSUE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. THEY'RE VERY UPSET THAT MEDICARE CANNOT NEGOTIATE FOR PRICES WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, AND THEY'RE ALSO VERY UPSET THAT THEY CAN'T REIMPORT FROM CANADA. BUT IT GOES MUCH BROADER THAN SENIORS THIS TIME AROUND. IT'S WORKING PEOPLE. IT'S BUSINESSES. IT'S SCHOOLS. IT'S YOUNG PEOPLE TRYING TO GET A START IN LIFE. HEALTH CARE IS JUST DRAGGING US ALL DOWN. IT'S AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ISSUE BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A DRAIN ON MANY OF OUR BUSINESSES. AND AS I'VE MENTIONED, THE SCHOOLS -- SCHOOL BOARDS ARE HAVING TROUBLE COVERING HEALTH INSURANCE FOR THEIR TEACHERS, AND IN MANY CASES THEY CAN'T COVER THEIR FAMILIES ANYMORE.

Henderson: AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU ADVOCATE PUTTING EVERYONE IN A MEDICARE-LIKE SYSTEM; IS THAT CORRECT?

Johnson: THAT'S RIGHT, YES. I WOULD REALLY -- I LIKE THE IDEA OF A PRIVATE DELIVERY SYSTEM WHERE WE WOULD MAINTAIN PRIVATE HOSPITALS, FOR PROFIT, NONPROFIT, GROUPS SUCH AS MAYO AND SO ON. I THINK THAT WE HAVE SOME VERY GOOD HEALTH CARE COMING OUT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR. ON THE OTHER HAND, WE HAVE SUCH INEFFICIENCIES IN THE MANY-PAYER SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE TODAY. MEDICARE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A VERY EFFICIENT SYSTEM. AND ALTHOUGH IT'S GOT ITS WARTS AND ITS FLAWS, THEY CERTAINLY CAN BE FIXED. AND SO I WOULD REALLY PUSH FOR A SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM AND ONE THAT IS DECOUPLED FROM THE EMPLOYER SO THAT WE DON'T DRAG DOWN OUR EMPLOYERS THE WAY WE ARE RIGHT NOW.

Henderson: MR. HEATH, THE HEALTH CARE ISSUE TO YOU. YOU HAVE SOME SPECIFIC IDEAS ABOUT THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG ISSUE, I UNDERSTAND.

Heath: YES, VERY SPECIFIC. THE REASON WE DON'T HAVE HEALTH CARE IN THIS COUNTRY IS BECAUSE CAMPAIGN MONEY KEEPS CONGRESSMEN FROM GIVING US A GOOD SYSTEM. WE COULD HAVE HAD NATIONAL HEALTH CARE BACK IN '93 UNDER THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, AND THE REPUBLICANS JUMPED ON IT WITH BOTH FEET. THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED. THEY GET SO MUCH MONEY FROM THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES AND THE INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT WE ARE NEVER GOING TO GET GOOD LEGISLATION UNTIL WE GET CAMPAIGN MONEY OUT OF THESE ELECTIONS. THE QUESTION ABOUT GOING TO CANADA FOR DRUGS, THAT'S RIDICULOUS. WE'RE THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO GO BEGGING TO CANADA TO GET DRUGS. WHAT WE SHOULD DO, IF WE HAD A CONGRESS THAT HAD ANY GUTS, IS TELL THE DRUG COMPANIES IF YOU CAN SELL IT THERE AT THAT PRICE, YOU SELL IT HERE AT THIS PRICE. YOU EITHER GET REASONABLE OR YOU GET REGULATED, AND THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE. WE'VE REGULATED EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY, THE BANKS, THE SAVINGS AND LOANS, THE RAILROADS, THE AIRPLANES, INTERSTATE COMMERCE. WE REGULATE EVERYTHING. WE NEED TO REGULATE THESE PEOPLE. BUT UNTIL YOU GET THE MONEY OUT, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. THEY HAVE WAY TOO MUCH POWER. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I THINK JIM NUSSLE WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARRANGED FOR THE DRUG COMPANIES TO ACTUALLY WRITE THIS DRUG LEGISLATION. THAT'S LIKE HIRING A FOX TO BE ASSISTANT MANAGER OF THE KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. YOU KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO. THEY'RE GOING TO GET ALL THEY CAN, AND THEY GAINED $139 BILLION BY DOING THIS. THAT'S WHY JIM NUSSLE HAS $1.3 MILLION TO RUN FOR THIS OFFICE.

Henderson: MRS. SCHULTE, YOU'VE HEARD THEIR PRESCRIPTIONS FOR WHAT AILS THE SYSTEM. WHAT IS YOURS?

Schulte: I'M OPEN AT THIS POINT, KAY. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF MODELS, MEDICARE BEING ONE OF THEM. V.A. ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE POTENTIALLY A MODEL. WHAT I'M ASKING FOR IS THAT IT COVER EVERYBODY, THAT IT INCLUDE PORTABILITY SO THAT YOU'RE NOT LOCKED INTO HAVING TO STAY ON THE JOB THAT YOU DO OR DON'T LIKE JUST IN ORDER TO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE. I WANT IT TO INCLUDE MENTAL HEALTH ON PAR WITH PHYSICAL HEALTH, DRUG REHAB INCLUDED IN THAT. BUT I THINK THE MODEL PIECE CAN MAYBE BE LOOKED AT IN SEVERAL WAYS, AND THERE'S A NUMBER OF MODELS OUT THERE. I ALSO WANT A WAY THAT'S GOING TO KEEP OUR PHARMACEUTICAL COSTS AS LOW AS POSSIBLE. I FIND A LOT OF PEOPLE SAYING WHY ARE THEY SPENDING MORE MONEY ON MAGAZINE ADS THAN THEY ARE ON RESEARCH. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO PEOPLE IN WESTERN IOWA. IF YOU'RE REALLY TRULY INTERESTED IN THE FUTURE OF PHARMACEUTICALS HELPING PEOPLE, THEY SAY IN WESTERN IOWA, YOU SHOULD PUT MORE MONEY INTO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT THAN YOU DO INTO THE ADS. AND WHY WOULD I WANT A DOCTOR WHO IS SO DUMB THAT HE WOULD TAKE MY DIAGNOSES AND MY REQUEST FOR A PRESCRIPTION WHEN MY DOCTOR HAS THE TRAINING?

Henderson: ANOTHER THING THAT IS WORRYING IOWANS IS THE HIGH COST OF GASOLINE AND OTHER ENERGY THAT THEY BRING INTO THEIR HOMES TO HEAT IT THIS WINTER SEASON. MRS. SCHULTE, HOW DO YOU THINK FEDERAL ENERGY POLICY SHOULD BE CHANGED? THERE'S BEEN SORT OF A MEETING OF THE MINDS IN D.C., AND NOTHING HAS COME TO PASS SO FAR. HOW WOULD YOU ENACT NEW FEDERAL ENERGY POLICY?

Schulte: WE'RE STILL EXTREMELY TIED TO PETROL CHEMICAL. I SEE WESTERN IOWA IN PARTICULAR AS BECOMING THE ALTERNATIVE FUEL CAPITAL OR EQUIVALENT TO TEXAS OIL WITH THE ETHANOL, WITH THE BIODIESEL, WITH THE WIND TURBINES. WE CAN HAVE MORE OF THOSE FROM THE MINNESOTA BORDER TO THE MISSOURI BORDER AND TRULY ASSIST THE COMMUNITIES, THE NURSING HOMES, THE COMMUNITY COLLEGES, ALL OF THE HOUSING IN WESTERN IOWA WITH REDUCED COST ON SOME OF THOSE THINGS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE VEHICLES BECOME WHAT'S CALLED LIGHT VEHICLES, WHERE THE FIBER THAT'S USED IN CREATING THE VEHICLE IS A LIGHTER WEIGHT BUT STRONGER. I THINK WE COULD SEE A LOT MORE OF THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. I WOULD TAKE THE SUV PROCESS AND SAY IF IT'S LIGHTWEIGHT WITH HIGHER GAS MILEAGE, THEN GO AHEAD AND BUILD THE LARGER VEHICLE.

Henderson: MR. HEATH, HOW WOULD YOU CHANGE U.S. ENERGY POLICY?

Heath: WE WOULD HAVE -- I THINK WE SHOULD DEVELOP ALTERNATE SOURCES OF ENERGY, AND WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO DO IT. AND I HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS: THE REASON WE DON'T; FOLLOW THE MONEY. THE BIG OIL COMPANIES INVEST IN THESE CAMPAIGN FUNDS, AND LEGISLATORS WON'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO US. MY WIFE AND I JUST BUILT -- WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF FINISHING A RETIREMENT HOME WHERE WE'RE GOING TO SPEND THE REST OF OUR LIVES, PROBABLY. AND WE PUT IN GEOTHERMAL HEATING, WHICH IS JUST WONDERFUL BECAUSE THE ONLY THING YOU USE IS ELECTRICITY. AND WE CAN ACTUALLY GET ELECTRICITY FROM THE SUN IF WE COULD GET DEVELOPERS TO ACTUALLY WORK ON IT. WE NEED TO GIVE THEM SERIOUS TAX-FREE INCENTIVES TO BRING THESE KINDS OF ENERGY TO US, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DISENGAGE THIS DEPENDENCE WE HAVE ON MIDDLE EASTERN OIL. AND ACTUALLY, THE OIL CAN BE USED FOR SO MANY OTHER THINGS LIKE DRUGS AND PLASTICS AND THINGS, INSTEAD OF BURNING IT THROUGH A CAR AND POLLUTING THE ATMOSPHERE. SO THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF ALTERNATIVES WE COULD FOLLOW, BUT WE HAVE TO OFFER INCENTIVES TO COMPANIES TO DO THIS.

Henderson: MR. JOHNSON, WHAT ARE YOUR IDEAS ON THIS ISSUE?

Johnson: I LED THE FIGHT IN 1990 THAT GAVE IOWA SOME OF THE VERY BEST LEGISLATION IN THE COUNTRY TO PROMOTE ENERGY EFFICIENCY. AND WE WERE MAKING GREAT STRIDES BACK THEN. AND THEN IN THE MID '90S, THE LEGISLATURE TOOK IT APART AND MADE IT VOLUNTARY. I THINK WE HAVE A REAL PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY. EVERYBODY SAYS THAT WE OUGHT TO HAVE RENEWABLE ENERGY AND THAT WE OUGHT TO HAVE CONSERVATION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY. BUT NOBODY REALLY IS WILLING TO PUT THE FLAG OUT THERE ON THE HORIZON AND SAY THIS IS WHERE WE'RE GOING, AND I THINK IT'S TIME TO DO THAT. FOR EXAMPLE, WITH ELECTRICITY, WE SHOULD SET A NATIONAL GOAL THAT BY THE YEAR 2010, EACH ELECTRIC COMPANY, EACH UTILITY REACHES 10 PERCENT OF THEIR ELECTRIC GENERATION FROM RENEWABLES. YOU CAN'T IMAGINE HOW MANY WINDMILLS WOULD POP UP IN IOWA OVERNIGHT IF WE DID THAT. WE HAVE SOME STATES THAT ALREADY HAVE THOSE STANDARDS, BUT SINCE IT'S NOT A NATIONAL STANDARD, WE'RE NOT GOING THERE AS QUICKLY AS WE LIKE. THE SAME HOLDS TRUE FOR FUEL EFFICIENCY IN VEHICLES. IN THE 1970S WHEN WE HAD THE ENERGY CRISIS, WE SET SOME STANDARDS FOR OUR INDUSTRY, AND WE SAID LET'S GO THERE. AND IN FACT, WE DID. WE MADE GREAT STRIDES. THEN IN THE MID '80S, CONGRESS SAID YOU CAN DO IT IF YOU WANT, ESSENTIALLY. AND WE HAVE NOT MADE PROGRESS SINCE THEN. AS THE OTHER SPEAKERS HAVE SAID, WE HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF TECHNOLOGY TODAY. AND I'M NOT THE LEAST BIT CONCERNED THAT WE CAN'T MAKE IT IF WE SET OUR MINDS TO IT, BUT WE'VE GOT TO DO THAT. WE'VE GOT TO PUT THAT FLAG OUT THERE AND SAY THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING. WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO DO IT IN FACT, BECAUSE TODAY CHINA, FOR EXAMPLE, IS INDUSTRIALIZING. THEY WANT TO BE LIKE THE UNITED STATES. AND ARE WE GOING TO TELL THEM THAT THEY CAN'T BE? WELL, IF THEY ARE LIKE THE UNITED STATES, VERY QUICKLY THAT'S 800 MILLION MORE CARS. AND YOU THINK $2 A GALLON GAS IS EXPENSIVE NOW, JUST YOU WAIT.

Henderson: FOLKS, ONE OF THE MOST DOMINANT ISSUES, AS WE ALL KNOW, HAS BEEN IRAQ. REGARDLESS OF HOW WE GOT HERE, LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD VOTE IF ELECTED IN CONGRESS. MR. HEATH, WHAT WOULD YOU VOTE FOR IN TERMS OF FUTURE U.S. POLICY IN IRAQ? WOULD YOU VOTE TO PULL THE TROOPS BACK? WOULD YOU VOTE TO SUPPORT ARMING THEM, ET CETERA?

Heath: WELL, INITIALLY I WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED TO GO TO IRAQ, MAINLY BECAUSE IF YOU SAW COLIN POWELL BEFORE THE UNITED NATIONS AND YOU'VE LIVED THROUGH THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS IN THE '60S, YOU KNOW THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE. YOU COULD SEE IT IN THEIR FACES. BUT OUR SON IS A SERGEANT IN THE MARINE CORPS. HE'S BEEN TO IRAQ ONCE AND HE'LL BE GOING BACK AGAIN, I'M SURE. THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT 90 PERCENT OF OUR TROOPS RIGHT NOW, ACTIVE TROOPS, HAVE EITHER BEEN IN IRAQ, THEY'RE IN IRAQ, OR THEY'RE ON THEIR WAY BACK FROM IRAQ.

Henderson: SO HOW WOULD YOU RESOLVE THAT?

Heath: WELL, THERE'S GOING TO BE A DRAFT IF THIS CONTINUES. AND PEOPLE SAY, WELL, NO, IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. VIETNAM, WE HAD A HUGE DRAFT AND IT WASN'T EVEN CALLED A WAR. IT WAS CALLED A CONFLICT. I THINK THIS CAN BE RESOLVED WITH DIPLOMACY. I THINK THAT IF GEORGE BUSH HAD BEEN WISE AND HAD GOTTEN ACTUALLY A WORLD CONSENSUS OF THE MAJOR POWERS AND GONE INTO IRAQ, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, BECAUSE IF YOU CAN GET THOSE PEOPLE TO SUPPORT THIS, IT WOULDN'T TAKE LONG TO SETTLE THIS AT ALL. THE PROBLEM IS HE WENT IN WITH SOME VERY SMALL NATIONS. THE U.K. WENT IN BECAUSE THEY WERE UNDER ATTACK TOO. THERE WAS A PLANE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO HIT THEM TOO, AND IT NEVER HAPPENED. THAT'S THE REASON THEY DIDN'T GO. IF HE'D HAVE DONE THAT, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN MUCH BETTER SHAPE. BUT HE WENT IN BASICALLY UNILATERALLY AND GAVE ALL THESE HUGE REBUILDING CONTRACTS TO HALIBURTON. YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

Henderson: SO YOU WOULD CUT HALIBURTON OFF?

Heath: NO. AMERICAN COMPANIES WOULD HAVE TO GAIN FROM THIS TOO. BUT IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE REBUILT. A WORLD COMMUNITY THAT DOES IT, THE CONTRACTS WOULD HAVE TO BE SPREAD OUT TO EVERYBODY. WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO COME AND HELP US AND THEN HAVE GEORGE BUSH GIVE ALL THESE CONTRACTS TO HALIBURTON? THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

Henderson: MRS. SCHULTE, WHAT WOULD YOU DO FROM THE FUTURE IN IRAQ?

Schulte: ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO IS TO CONTROL THE CORRUPTION THAT IS OVER THERE THAT'S BLEEDING THE MONEYS AWAY. THE COST PLUS BASIS FROM THE PENTAGON BIDS, OR NOT EVEN BIDS, WOULD HAVE TO END. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH A COMPANY BUILDING A PROFIT INTO THEIR BIDDING PROCESS, BUT BASE IT ON COST, NOT A COST-PLUS BASIS. IN TERMS OF THE MILITARY ITSELF, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REALLY SUPPORT THE MILITARY: TRULY ARM THEM; TRULY PROTECT THEM; TRULY GIVE THEM EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING TO HAVE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BECOME SERIOUS ABOUT THIS IN TERMS OF OUR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. YOU DON'T HAVE A FRIENDSHIP ONE DAY, SLAP THEM IN THE FACE THE NEXT, AND GO BACK AND SAY, OOPS, I'D STILL LIKE TO BE A FRIEND. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK TO ALL OF OUR ALLIES, ALL OF OUR FRIENDS, MAYBE EVEN AN OCCASIONAL ENEMY OR TWO, AND LEARN HOW TO LIVE IN THIS WORLD PEACEFULLY AND GRACEFULLY TOGETHER. THIS TERRORIST OPERATION IS AGAINST SO MANY COUNTRIES, AND YET IT'S HARBORED IN SO MANY COUNTRIES. IF WE PULLED ALL OF OUR CORPORATE MONEYS OUT OF THE COUNTRIES THAT HARBOR TERRORISTS -- AND IT'S HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WE COULD PULL OUT -- THEN I THINK THE TERRORISTS WOULD BE LEAVING SOME OF THOSE COUNTRIES. TERRORISTS HAVE TO HAVE MONEY AND A SAFE HAVEN.

Henderson: MR. JOHNSON, HOW WOULD YOU RESOLVE THE FUTURE IN IRAQ?

Johnson: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WE ALL HAVE TO ACCEPT -- OR I THINK THAT IT'S TIME WE ACCEPT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE MADE A TERRIBLE MISTAKE IN GOING INTO IRAQ. THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, JUST LIKE MOST OF THE WORLD ADVISED US TO HOLD OFF UNTIL WE FOUND OUT THAT FOR SURE. THERE WERE NO REAL DIRECT TIES WITH OSAMA BIN LADEN IN 9/11. WE'VE FOUND THAT OUT SINCE, BUT THE REST OF THE WORLD SEEMED TO BE LEANING IN THAT DIRECTION BACK THEN. I REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE FIRST THING WE NEED TO DO IS ELECT A NEW PRESIDENT, A NEW COMMANDER IN CHIEF. I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THIS PRESIDENT CAN INTERNATIONALIZE THAT EFFORT LIKE ALL AMERICANS WANT, I BELIEVE. HE IS -- HE REMINDS ME SO MUCH OF ANOTHER PRESIDENT FROM TEXAS, IN FACT FORTY YEARS AGO, WHO KNEW HE HAD MADE A MISTAKE BUT MADE THE STATEMENT THAT, "I WILL NOT BE THE FIRST PRESIDENT TO LOSE A WAR." AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED. AND I SENSE THAT WE ARE IN THE SAME SITUATION TODAY. AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS ACCEPT THE FACT THAT WE REALLY HAVE GOT TO EXTEND A HAND TO THE REST OF THE WORLD AGAIN. AND WE DIDN'T DO THAT AFTER 9/11. THE WHOLE WORLD WAS WITH US. OUR WHOLE COUNTRY WAS UNITED. AND OUR APPROACH WAS TO SAY EITHER YOU'RE WITH US OR YOU'RE WITH THE TERRORISTS. THAT WAS A HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE THING TO SAY BACK THEN. IT'S DIVIDED THE WORLD AND WE'VE GOT TO GET BACK ON TRACK.

Henderson: THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, MR. JOHNSON, MRS. SCHULTE --

Heath: CAN I DO A FOLLOW-UP ON THAT?

Henderson: WE'RE OUT OF TIME, I'M SORRY. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO END OUR DISCUSSION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR INSIGHTS INTO THE CAMPAIGNS THAT YOU ARE ALL WAGING. WE'LL RETURN TOMORROW EVENING WITH OUR THREE-PART SERIES FOCUSING ON THE ISSUES AT HAND IN TUESDAY'S GENERAL ELECTION. IOWANS WHO WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT AS CANDIDATES FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATE WILL JOIN US HERE IN THE IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION STUDIOS TO DISCUSS THE POLICY AND POLITICS OF THEIR CAMPAIGNS. 6:30 P.M. IS OUR AIRTIME, AND WE HOPE YOU WILL BE JOINING US AT THAT TIME. I'M KAY HENDERSON OF "RADIO IOWA." THANKS FOR JOINING US HERE ON STATEWIDE IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION.

 

CAPTIONS BY: MIDWEST CAPTIONING DES MOINES, IOWA  


Tags: campaign 2004 Iowa