Iowa Public Television

Iowa Press Transcripts

Iowa Press Links

Borg: THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IS TEN DAYS INTO ITS NEW FISCAL YEAR, BUT THE NEW BUDGET ISN'T APPROVED. WE'LL GET AN UPDATE ON THE 106TH U.S. CONGRESS, AND CAMPAIGN POLITICS, FROM IOWA SENATOR TOM HARKIN ON THIS EDITION OF IOWA PRESS.

FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM WAS PROVIDED BY FRIENDS OF IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION, EIGHTY THOUSAND MEMBERS SUPPORTING QUALITY PUBLIC TELEVISION PROGRAMMING.

THIS IS THE SUNDAY, OCTOBER 10 EDITION OF IOWA PRESS. HERE IS DEAN BORG.

Borg: WELL, WITH A CONTINUING RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE SPENDING, THE OPERATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEGAN A NEW FISCAL YEAR ON OCTOBER 1st. DEBATE CONTINUES ON THE STILL EMERGING BUDGET FOR WHAT IS NOW THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR, RESULTING IN A WELL PUBLICIZED STANDOFF BETWEEN THE DEMOCRATIC WHITE HOUSE AND THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS. YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THE WELL-PUBLICIZED BUDGET CAPS IN THE 1997 BALANCED BUDGET ACT. WELL, TODAY THE STANDOFF FOCUSES ON WHERE TO CUT, WHAT TO CUT, AND HOW MUCH TO CUT. AND WHILE THE DEBATE ON THE BUDGET AND OTHER HIGH-PROFILE LEGISLATION CONTINUES IN CONGRESS, IOWA DEMOCRATS ARE IN DES MOINES THIS WEEKEND TO HEAR THEIR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES, AL GORE AND BILL BRADLEY, ON THE SAME STAGE. OUR GUEST TODAY WILL HAVE A LOT TO SAY ON BOTH THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND MATTERS PENDING IN CONGRESS. SENATOR HARKIN, WELCOME TO IOWA PRESS.

Harkin: OH, DEAN, IT'S GOOD TO BE BACK.

Borg: ACROSS THE TABLE, DAVID YEPSEN OF THE DES MOINES REGISTER AND MIKE GLOVER OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS.

Glover: SENATOR, AS DEAN MENTIONED, IT'S A PRETTY BIG POLITICAL WEEKEND, AND YOUR CAMPAIGN, THE CAMPAIGN IN YOUR PARTY FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION, HAS BEEN GETTING A LOT OF ATTENTION LATELY. HANDICAP THAT RACE FOR US. WHERE DOES IT STAND?

Harkin: WELL, I THINK IT STANDS RIGHT NOW THAT IT'S A BATTLE. I THINK THAT BRADLEY HAS DONE BETTER THAN PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT HE WOULD DO. I THINK THAT GORE -- VICE PRESIDENT GORE WAS RUNNING AS VICE PRESIDENT. AND ALMOST THE SAME MISTAKE THAT GEORGE BUSH MADE IN 1988. AND WHEN YOU RUN AS VICE PRESIDENT, THEN YOU AREN'T REALLY A CANDIDATE. AND I THINK NOW AL GORE -- AND I THINK IT WAS A GREAT MOVE TO MOVE HIS CAMPAIGN HEADQUARTERS OUT OF WASHINGTON, MOVE IT TO TENNESSEE. CAMPAIGNS SORT OF TAKE ON A FLAVOR, AN AMBIENCE OF WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED. AND I THINK MOVING IT TO TENNESSEE IS GOING TO DO WONDERS. IT'S JUST GOING TO GIVE A WHOLE NEW FLAVOR TO THE CAMPAIGN. I BELIEVE AL GORE IS NOW A CANDIDATE. AND AS A CANDIDATE, THAT'S WHERE HE'S GOING TO SHINE.

Yepsen: SENATOR, YOU'VE BEEN A CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY YOURSELF. YOU'VE ENDORSED THE VICE PRESIDENT IN THIS CAMPAIGN OVER MR. BRADLEY. WHAT'S BEEN WRONG WITH THE GORE OPERATION? HAS IT JUST BEEN LOCATED IN WASHINGTON? IS JUST MOVING THE HEADQUARTERS TO NASHVILLE ALL IT'S GOING TO TAKE, OR DOES HE HAVE OTHER PROBLEMS LIKE CLINTON FATIGUE OR THE STIFFNESS QUESTION THAT HE'S NO GOOD ON THE STUMP? GIVE US A CRITIQUE.

Harkin: WELL, I THINK THAT IT'S ALWAYS TOUGH TO RUN AS A VICE PRESIDENT BECAUSE YOU'RE THE VICE PRESIDENT, AND YOU'RE CONNECTED TO THE PRESIDENT. IT'S TOUGH TO DO THAT. AS I SAID, GEORGE BUSH HAD THE SAME PROBLEMS IN 1988, IN THE BEGINNING, AND THEN HE CAUGHT ON AND BECAME A CANDIDATE AND WENT ON, OF COURSE, TO WIN HIS PARTY'S NOMINATION AND WIN THE PRESIDENCY. AND I JUST THINK THAT'S WHERE VICE PRESIDENT GORE HAS BEEN. IT'S TOUGH TO MOVE AROUND AS VICE PRESIDENT. YOU'VE GOT ALL THE ARMORED VEHICLES AND ALL THE SECRET SERVICE PEOPLE AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF, AND IT MAKES IT VERY TOUGH. BUT NOW -- I'M HANDICAPPING THIS RACE RIGHT NOW. AL GORE IS AHEAD. I BELIEVE THERE'S BEEN -- BRADLEY KIND OF CAME UP, BUT I THINK FROM NOW ON, YOU'LL SEE GORE START TO PULL QUITE A BIT AHEAD.

Glover: WELL, HOW DOES HE SOLVE THAT PROBLEM? HOW DOES HE ESTABLISH HIMSELF AS AN INDIVIDUAL PRESENCE WITHOUT CUTTING DISTANCE BETWEEN HIMSELF AND THE WHITE HOUSE?

Harkin: WELL, I THINK ALL ELECTIONS ARE ABOUT THE FUTURE AND NOT THE PAST. SO FAR, EVERYONE TALKS ABOUT THE CLINTON WHITE HOUSE AND THE CLINTON PRESIDENCY. AS WE MOVE INTO LATER THIS FALL, THIS WINTER, NEXT SPRING, PEOPLE WILL BEGIN TO THINK, WAIT A MINUTE, IT'S NOT ABOUT CLINTON; THIS IS ABOUT THE NEXT FOUR YEARS. AND THAT'S WHEN IT WILL START LOOKING AT AL GORE AS A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE... SOMEONE WHO CARES DEEPLY ABOUT WORKING FAMILIES; SOMEONE WHO IS A LEADER ON THE ENVIRONMENT; AND FOR US IN IOWA, SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS AND CARES ABOUT AGRICULTURE AND THE RURAL ECONOMY. THESE ARE THE REASONS I'M SUPPORTING HIM.

YEPSEN: SENATOR, WHAT ABOUT SOMETHING THAT SENATOR MOYNIHAN SAID. AND I HEAR THIS FROM A LOT THE DEMOCRATS TOO... THAT AL GORE CAN'T WIN: NICE GUY. I MEAN, MIGHT BE RIGHT ON THE ISSUES; BUT AMERICAN HISTORY BEING WHAT IT IS, -- VICE PRESIDENTS, CLINTON FATIGUE -- HE CAN'T WIN. WHAT DO YOU SAY TO A CAUCUS-GOING IOWA DEMOCRAT WHO'S KIND OF WORRIED ABOUT THAT TODAY?

Harkin: HEARD THE SAME THING ABOUT BILL CLINTON IN 1992, RUNNING AGAINST AN INCUMBENT PRESIDENT. YOU WERE THERE, DAVID. YOU KNOW THAT. "CLINTON? GOVERNOR OF ARKANSAS? HE HASN'T GOT A CHANCE!" IN FACT, WHEN I RAN IN 1992, BILL BRADLEY, JAY ROCKEFELLER, DICK GEPHARDT, ON AND ON, ALL DECIDED NOT TO RUN BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THAT GEORGE BUSH WAS UNBEATABLE.

Yepsen: I REMEMBER YOU SAID HE HAD A FEET OF CLAY.

Harkin: THAT'S RIGHT. AND IT TURNED OUT I WAS RIGHT. BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT, LOOK, THEY DIDN'T THINK HE COULD WIN IN 1992 EITHER, SO THIS IS EARLY ON IN THE CAMPAIGN. YOU GET ALL THESE KIND OF BOUNCES GOING AROUND. AL GORE IS TOUGH. HE'S SMART. HE'S BEEN THERE FOR US. AND BELIEVE ME, HE IS GOING TO PULL THIS OUT, AND HE'S GOING TO WIN.

Glover: LET'S FLIP THAT QUESTION AROUND A LITTLE BIT. YOU'VE MENTIONED THAT BILL BRADLEY HAS COME UP A LITTLE BIT. HE'S GAINING ON THE VICE PRESIDENT. WHAT IS FORMER SENATOR BRADLEY DOING RIGHT?

Harkin: WELL, I THINK, BASICALLY, HE'S TRYING TO PLAY AN OUTSIDE GAME. AND THERE'S ALWAYS AN ELEMENT IN OUR PARTY -- I GUESS IN ANY PARTY, I GUESS, THAT SAYS, "WELL, MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING NEW OUT THERE." THOSE OF US WHO'VE BEEN IN THE PARTY, WELL, GORE'S BEEN AROUND, WE'VE SEEN HIM. BUT WHAT'S BRADLEY SAYING? THERE'S SORT OF A CURIOSITY FACTOR ABOUT THAT, THAT I THINK TENDS TO BOOST A CANDIDATE UP THAT KIND OF COMES IN FROM THE OUTSIDE. I DON'T THINK THERE'S MUCH MORE TO IT THAN THAT. THAT'S WHY I SAY, I THINK NOW THAT GORE IS A CANDIDATE AND PEOPLE BEGIN TO LOOK AT HIM AS A CANDIDATE, HE'LL START TO PULL THAT DISTANCE.

Glover: IS HE THE LIBERAL ALTERNATIVE IN THIS RACE?

Harkin: WHO?

Glover: BILL BRADLEY?

Harkin: NOT ON YOUR LIFE.

Yepsen: WELL, SENATOR, WHAT'S WRONG WITH BILL BRADLEY? YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW BOTH OF THESE MEN. YOU WEIGHED A CHOICE YOURSELF AND OPTED FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT. WHAT DID YOU SEE LACKING IN SENATOR BRADLEY?

Harkin: I'VE SERVED WITH BOTH THESE PEOPLE. I'VE SERVED WITH AL GORE LONGER, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE WE WERE IN THE HOUSE TODAY. BUT I SERVED WITH BILL BRADLEY FOR ALMOST 12 YEARS, I GUESS, NOW THAT I THINK ABOUT IT. I LIKE BILL BRADLEY. HE'S A FINE GUY. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING BAD TO SAY ABOUT BILL BRADLEY. BUT I'M THINKING ABOUT WHO CAN LEAD THIS COUNTRY, AND WHO REALLY EMBODIES WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE PRINCIPLES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. NOW, REALLY DEEP DOWN -- DEEP DOWN, ARE YOU FOR WORKING FAMILIES? WHERE ARE YOU ON THE ENVIRONMENT, AND WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN? YOU SEE, I THINK WE ARE AT A VERY CRITICAL STAGE, GLOBALLY, AND WE'VE GOT TO HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO UNDERSTANDS WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THE ENVIRONMENT GLOBALLY AND WHO HAS THE GUTS AND THE KNOWLEDGE TO TAKE IT ON, EVEN THOUGH IT'S GOING TO BE UNPOPULAR TO TALK ABOUT AND TO DO THE THINGS NECESSARY TO GET OUR ENVIRONMENTAL HOUSE IN ORDER. GORE IS THERE. HE UNDERSTANDS IT, AND HE'LL TAKE IT ON, AND HE'LL DO IT. THIRDLY, IN TERMS OF RURAL AMERICA. LET'S FACE IT, I REPRESENT A RURAL STATE. SENATOR BRADLEY, QUITE FRANKLY, AND NO DISPARAGING TO HIM, BUT HAS NEVER BEEN THEREFOR US IN THE PAST. I TRIED TO GET DEBT RELIEF FOR FARMERS IN THE 1980S, WHEN WE WERE HURTING HERE IN IOWA, TO RESTRUCTURE DEBTS. AND SENATOR BRADLEY WOULDN'T SUPPORT US. IN 1993 WHEN WE HAD THE TERRIBLE FLOODS IN IOWA, I OFFERED THE AMENDMENT TO GET MORE AID TO FARMERS AS A RESULT OF THE FLOOD. SENATOR BRADLEY DID NOT SUPPORT THAT. ETHANOL, HE'S ALWAYS BEEN ONE OF THE BIGGEST OPPONENTS TO ETHANOL. IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS VERY, VERY MEANINGFUL TOME AND TO IOWA. AND AL GORE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE FOR US ON RURAL, ON AG, AND ON ETHANOL. HE CAST THE TIE-BREAKING VOTE TO KEEP ETHANOL AS PART OF OUR REFORMULATED GASOLINE.

Yepsen: SENATOR BRADLEY NOW SAYS HE'S BEEN OUT HERE TO TALKING TO IOWANS AND HE'S CHANGED HIS POSITION ON SOME OF THIS. HE'S NOW FOR ETHANOL. HE UNDERSTANDS THE PLIGHT OF FARMERS. ISN'T THAT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU?

Harkin: WELL, YOU KNOW I HEARD -- HE SAID SOMETHING ONE TIME ABOUT THAT, WELL, "HE WAS ONLY REPRESENTING NEW JERSEY."

Yepsen: RIGHT.

Harkin: WELL, I CAN'T BUY THAT. WHEN I TOOK AN OATH OF OFFICE AND SENATOR BRADLEY AND SENATOR GORE WAS A SENATOR, WHEN WE TAKE AN OATH OF OFFICE, WE TAKE AN OATH OF OFFICE TO BE A UNITED STATES SENATOR. YES, MY OBLIGATION IS TO REPRESENT MY STATE AND DO EVERYTHING I CAN FOR IOWA, BUT I HAVE TO TAKE THE NATIONAL INTEREST INTO ACCOUNT WHEN I VOTE ON THE SENATE FLOOR. IF YOU WANT TO BE A -- IF YOU JUST WANT TO REPRESENT YOUR STATE, MAYBE YOU SHOULD BE IN THE STATE SENATE AND NOT THE UNITED STATES SENATE. AND LASTLY, I'LL SAY THIS... HOW CAN HELPING FARMERS RESTRUCTURE THEIR DEBTS IN THE 1980S AND HELPING DO THAT, HOW CAN THAT HURT PEOPLE IN NEW JERSEY? HOW CAN HELPING FARMERS GET MORE FOR RELIEF BECAUSE OF THE FLOODS HURT THE PEOPLE IN NEW JERSEY? I'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO FIGURE THAT ONE OUT.

Glover: SENATOR, ONCE WE GET DONE WITH THIS NOMINATING PROCESS, THERE'S GOING TO BE A GENERAL ELECTION. BY ALL ACCOUNTS, THE FRONT-RUNNER ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE IS TEXAS GOVERNOR GEORGE W. BUSH. HE'S RAISED MORE MONEY THAN ANY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN HISTORY. MOST POLLS SHOW HIM PRETTY COMFORTABLY AHEAD. TO WHAT DO YOU ACCOUNT THIS BUSH PHENOMENON?

Harkin: WELL, HE'S GOT A GOOD NAME. PEOPLE RECOGNIZE THE NAME RIGHT AWAY. THAT'S OVER HALF THE BATTLE RIGHT THERE. LET'S BE HONEST, HE HAS A GOOD PERSONA. HE COMES ACROSS WELL. I DON'T KNOW HIM INDIVIDUALLY, BUT HE SEEMS TO COME ACROSS WELL. AND HE JUST WAS VERY AGGRESSIVE IN GETTING A LOT OF MONEY IN THE BEGINNING AND SEWING UP A LOT OF SUPPORT. BEHIND THAT, I DON'T SEE MUCH THERE. I DON'T SEE WHAT HE'S REALLY DONE AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS OR ANYTHING BEFORE THAT, THAT WOULD REALLY LEND ITSELF TO BEING A LEADER OF OUR COUNTRY. I JUST DON'T SEE MUCH THERE.

Glover: CAN DEMOCRATS BEAT HIM?

Harkin: OH, I THINK SO. I BELIEVE AL GORE WILL BEAT HIM.

Yepsen: MORE IMPORTANTLY TO YOU, CAN YOU BEAT HIM IN IOWA? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO KEEP IOWA IN THE DEMOCRATIC COLUMN A YEAR FROM NOW? YOU'VE CARRIED THIS STATE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES IN THE LAST THREE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, AND YET POLLS OF BOTH BRADLEY/BUSH AND GORE/BUSH SHOW THIS STATE GOING BACK INTO THE REPUBLICAN COLUMN. WHAT WILL YOU BE DOING TO CHANGE THAT DYNAMIC?

Harkin: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, IT'S VERY EARLY IN THE CAMPAIGN, AS YOU KNOW. I THINK WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE CRUNCH NEXT YEAR, IOWANS ARE GOING TO SAY, "WHAT'S BEST FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS IN IOWA." WE ARE A STATE THAT PRIDES ITSELF ON EDUCATION, AND FORTUNATELY, WE HAVE A NEW GOVERNOR THAT'S REALLY DOING GOOD THINGS IN EDUCATION IN TERMS OF REDUCING CLASS SIZE. GOVERNOR VILSACK HAS TAKEN A GREAT LEAD IN THAT. WHO'S GOING TO BE THERE FOR US IN EDUCATION? WELL, HERE'S GEORGE BUSH. HE WANTS VOUCHERS AND ALL THESE OTHER KINDS OF THINGS. AL GORE SAYS WE'VE GOT TO STRENGTHEN PUBLIC EDUCATION. WE HAVE TO REDUCE CLASS SIZES. WE HAVE TO HAVE BETTER TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS. SO IN EDUCATION, IN RURAL AMERICA... AL GORE UNDERSTANDS RURAL AMERICA. HE'S ALWAYS BEEN THERE FOR US. HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT'S NEEDED FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF IOWA. I DON'T BELIEVE GEORGE BUSH HAS THE SLIGHTEST IDEA WHAT WE NEED IN RURAL IOWA TO SUCCEED IN THE NEXT FOUR YEARS. JUST ONE LAST THING. I BELIEVE THAT GEORGE BUSH, JUNIOR -- THE ONE THAT'S RUNNING; THE GOVERNOR, NOT THE FATHER -- HAS NEVER REALLY UNDERSTOOD THE NEED THAT WE HAVE IN THIS STATE FOR A SOUND SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE SYSTEM. WE HAVE THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF ELDERLY OVER THE AGE OF 80. PRETTY SOON WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE THE HIGHEST PROPORTION OVER 65 IN THE STATE OF IOWA. A LOT OF OUR INCOME IN THE STATE OF IOWA COMES FROM SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE. ACTUALLY MORE THAN IT DOES FROM CROPS THAT WE GROW. AND I DON'T BELIEVE GEORGE BUSH UNDERSTANDS THAT. AL GORE DOES.

Glover: BEFORE WE LEAVE THIS POLITICAL QUESTION, THERE'S A BIG EVENT COMING IN DEMOCRATIC POLITICS JUST THIS COMING WEEK. THE IOWA FEDERATION OF LABOR IS GOING TO CONSIDER ENDORSING A DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE. YOU'VE GOT PRETTY GOOD TIES WITH ORGANIZED LABOR. ARE YOU DOING WHAT YOU CAN TO HELP AL GORE GET THAT ENDORSEMENT?

Harkin: YES, I AM.

Glover: DO YOU BELIEVE HE'LL GET IT?

Harkin: YES, I DO.

Borg: THERE'S A CAMPAIGN OF ANOTHER KIND GOING ON BEFORE WE EVEN GET TO ELECT A PRESIDENT, AND THAT IS, WHO GETS TO CHOOSE THE DELEGATES FIRST. THERE'S QUITE A LOT OF JOCKEYING BETWEEN PRIMARY STATES AND CAUCUS STATES AND NEW HAMPSHIRE AND IOWA RIGHT NOW. WHAT SHOULD BE DONE? WHAT SHOULD IOWA DO ABOUT ITS CAUCUS DATE NOW JUST ONE DAY BEFORE NEW HAMPSHIRE?

Harkin: WELL, I'M SORRY THAT NEW HAMPSHIRE DECIDED TO DO WHAT IT DID. I THINK BOTH OF THE PARTIES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT. I THINK IT WAS THEIR SECRETARY OF STATE OR WHOEVER IT WAS THAT MOVED IT UP. I'M SUPPORTING OUR CHAIRMAN, ROB TULLY, WHO'S BEEN TRYING TO NEGOTIATE WITH NEW HAMPSHIRE TO GET THEM TO AGAIN MOVE IT BACK TO WHERE IT WAS. I HOPE THAT NEW HAMPSHIRE WILL DO THAT.

Glover: WHAT IF THEY DON'T?

Harkin: WELL, AGAIN, I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO OUR STATE-PARTY CHAIRMAN. I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO ROB TULLY TO DECIDE WHAT WE HAVE TO DO AND, OF COURSE, HE'LL WORK WITH REPUBLICANS. WE'RE IN THIS TOGETHER. THIS IS ONE PLACE WHERE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ARE IN THIS THING TOGETHER.

Glover: IS THERE A DANGER DOWN THE ROAD FROM THIS LITTLE SPAT THAT SURFACED THIS YEAR BETWEEN IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE? BY TRADITION, IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE HAVE COOPERATED AND BANDED TOGETHER TO KIND OF FEND OFF ALL OF THE CHALLENGERS TO THEIR EARLY STATUS. IS THERE A DANGER IN FUTURE CAMPAIGNS THAT IF THESE TWO STATES ARE SPATTING, THEY BOTH COULD LOSE?

Harkin: THAT'S TRUE. I THINK, MIKE, IF NEW HAMPSHIRE AND IOWA, REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS HAVE ALWAYS WORKED TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THAT IOWA WAS THE FIRST CAUCUS STATE AND NEW HAMPSHIRE WAS THE FIRST PRIMARY STATE. IT'S BEEN A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH NEW HAMPSHIRE AND IOWA. IT'S BEEN A GREAT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. AND I THINK IT'S GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY BECAUSE IT ALLOWS CANDIDATES WITHOUT A LOT OF MONEY TO GO OUT AND LET PEOPLE FEEL THE CLOTH AND SEE IF THEY ARE REALLY A VIABLE CANDIDATE. IT'S A GOOD WEEDING OUT PROCESS. IF YOU HAVE TO JUMP INTO CALIFORNIA OR NEW YORK RIGHT AWAY, THEN IT'S ALL TV AND MONEY. AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD THAT COMES ABOUT BECAUSE WE HAVE IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE WHERE THEY ARE.

Yepsen: SENATOR, IT WOULDN'T BE AN OFFICIAL IOWA PRESS SHOW IF WE DIDN'T ASK YOU ABOUT YOUR OWN POLITICAL PLANS. ARE YOU GOING TO BE A CANDIDATE FOR REELECTION IN 2002?

Harkin: WELL, I HAVE NOT MADE ANY IRREVOCABLE DECISIONS ABOUT THAT YET, BUT I LOVE MY JOB, I LOVE THE STATE OF IOWA. I'M WORKING ON ISSUES OF EDUCATION, AS YOU KNOW, VERY HARD. I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THINGS OF AGRICULTURE AND TRYING TO GET MORE MONEY OUT FOR AGRICULTURE IN EMERGENCY. BUT I HAVEN'T MADE THAT DECISION YET.

Yepsen: IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE YOU'RE THINKING YOU MIGHT.

Harkin: WELL, LIKE I SAID, I LOVE MY JOB.

Yepsen: CONGRESSMAN GANSKE WAS OUT HERE A COUPLE WEEKS AGO AND INDICATED HE'S THINKING ABOUT RUNNING AGAINST YOU. YOU'VE BEATEN TWO REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEN IN YOUR CAREER. YOU THINK YOU COULD BEAT A THIRD ONE?

Harkin: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, IT'S TOO EARLY TO START TALKING ABOUT RUNNING. COME ON.

Yepsen: NOT ON THIS PROGRAM, IT ISN'T.

Harkin: IT'S NEVER TOO EARLY HERE. WELL, LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY, IF I DO DECIDE TO SEEK REELECTION, I'LL BE PREPARED.

Borg: I'D LIKE TO GET TO SOME ISSUES. YOU HAVE ALLUDED TO THEM EARLIER. FREEDOM TO FARM... WHEN THAT LEGISLATION WAS PASSED, IT WAS TO BE THE PANACEA TO FREE FARMERS FROM GOVERNMENT CONTROLS, BUT THE LITTLE CAVEAT WAS WE KNEW AT THE TIME THERE WASN'T MUCH OF A SAFETY NET THERE. WELL, TIMES HAVE TURNED ROUGH AND THE SAFETY NET ISN'T THERE. IS IT TIME TO CHANGE FREEDOM TO FARM?

Harkin: I BELIEVE WE HAVE TO CHANGE FREEDOM TO FARM. FOR INSTANCE, JUST LOOK AT THE EMERGENCY PACKAGE THAT HOPEFULLY THE PRESIDENT WILL SIGN NEXT WEEK. I'LL SUPPORT IT. ALTHOUGH I AM SUPPORTING IT WITH RESERVATIONS, BECAUSE THE PAYMENTS THAT WILL GO OUT TO FARMERS ARE JUST ALL MESSED UP. YOU COULD HAVE FOUR FARMS ALL SITUATED NEXT TO ONE ANOTHER AND PLANTING THE SAME CROPS EXACTLY, MIRROR IMAGE CROPS. CORN AND SOYBEANS, FOR EXAMPLE. YOU COULD RANGE FROM $2,000 TO ABOUT $460,000 JUST IN THOSE FOUR FARMS, IN THE PAYMENTS.

Borg: IS THE MOOD IN CONGRESS, THOUGH, TO CHANGE FREEDOM TO FARM. YOU MAY FEEL THAT WAY COMING FROM A FARM STATE, BUT CAN YOU CONVINCE YOUR URBAN COLLEAGUES?

Harkin: WELL, I THINK SO. MORE IMPORTANTLY, CAN WE CONVINCE OUR RURAL COLLEAGUES, THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEES: REPRESENTATIVE LARRY COMBEST FROM TEXAS, WHO IS THE HEAD OF THE AG COMMITTEE ON THE HOUSE SIDE, REPUBLICAN, HAS COME OUT AND SAID WE HAVE TO CHANGE FREEDOM TO FARM. WE CAN'T JUST LURCH FROM ONE DISASTER TO ANOTHER. IT'S NOT RIGHT. AND THE WAY WE'RE THROWING THE MONEY OUT THERE THIS TIME WHERE YOU COULD ACTUALLY NOT PLANT A CROP, PLANT NOTHING, AND GET $160,000FROM THE GOVERNMENT. AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL GET THAT. AND YET, IF YOU HAD A DISASTER IN NORTH CAROLINA, OR IN THE NORTHEAST, OR A DROUGHT IN THE DAKOTAS, YOU'LL GET PENNIES. IT'S NOT RIGHT THAT SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T PLANT A CROP GETS$160,000, SOMEONE WHO PLANTED A CROP AND SUFFERED A DISASTER DOESN'T GET RECOMPENSE.

Glover: IT WOULDN'T BE AN IOWA PRESS SHOW IF WE DIDN'T BRING AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT OF POLITICS INTO AN ISSUE LIKE THAT. JUST LAST WEEK, SENATOR BRADLEY, WHOM WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING, ISSUED A FARM PROPOSAL, A PACKAGE OF FARM PROPOSALS. YOU'VE READ IT, I ASSUME. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF IT?

Harkin: IT'S PRETTY GOOD. I LIKE IT.

Glover: ARE THOSE THE SORTS OF CHANGES THAT YOU WOULD MAKE TO FREEDOM TO FARM. HE WANTS TO SPEND ABOUT $5 BILLION DOING A FARM INCOME MAINTENANCE...

Harkin: WELL, HE WAS A LITTLE VAGUE ON THE SPECIFICS. OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, I HAVE FOR A LONG TIME SAID THAT WE NEED TO TAKE THE CAPS OFF THE LOAN RATES. WE NEED TO HAVE A PAID FARMER RESERVE WHERE FARMERS CAN STORE THEIR GRAIN AND GET PAYMENTS FOR STORING SO THEY CAN MARKET OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME. AND WE NEED A BETTER CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM. I SEE THAT SENATOR BRADLEY CAME OUT FOR THAT AND I APPLAUD HIM FOR THAT. THAT WAS VERY GOOD. BUT WE NEED A SHORTER TERM CONSERVATION RESERVE, AND I DON'T THINK SENATOR BRADLEY UNDERSTANDS THAT. WE NEED SOMETHING THAT'S NOT TEN YEARS BUT SOMETHING WHERE YOU CAN TAKE LAND OUT FOR MAYBE TWO YEARS OR THREE YEARS AT A TIME.

Glover: HE WAS TALKING ABOUT TAKING 42 MILLION ACRES OUT OF PRODUCTION. IS THAT A GOOD TARGET, IN YOUR MIND?

Harkin: WELL, I DON'T THINK SO IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF A TEN-YEAR CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM. I THINK WHERE WE ARE NOW IN THE 32-, 34-MILLION-ACRE RANGE IS PROBABLY ABOUT RIGHT. BUT THEN WE NEED AN ADDITIONAL, MAYBE, TEN MILLION ACRES THAT ARE SHORT-TERM, WHERE YOU COULD PUT IT IN FOR TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS, GET IT BACK OUT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WORLD SITUATIONS CHANGE RAPIDLY. WEATHER CAN CHANGE RAPIDLY. WE MAY NEED THAT LAND BACK IN PRODUCTION MORE RAPIDLY THAN OVER A TEN-YEAR PERIOD OF TIME.

Glover: AND HE WANTS TO TAKE THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARD ADMINISTRATION AND PUT IT OVER IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. WOULD YOU SUPPORT THAT SHIFT?

Harkin: WELL, I'M NOT CERTAIN ABOUT THAT. AS YOU KNOW, I FOUGHT HARD TO GET AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL JUST FOR AGRICULTURE ANTITRUST. AND MR. KLINE, THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL IS APPOINTING A PERSON TO THAT POSITION. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD HELP ANY TO MOVE IT OVER TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. WE JUST NEED A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT THAT'S FOCUSED MORE ON THE VERTICAL INTEGRATION IN AGRICULTURE. BUT I WILL SAY ONE OTHER THING, I'VE LOOKED AT THIS VERY CAREFULLY. I'VE READ THE ANTITRUST LAWS. WE NEED TO CHANGE THE LAWS. WHEN THESE LAWS WERE PASSED, WE HAD MILLIONS OF FAMILY FARMERS OUT THERE. WE HAD SMALL PLOTS, SMALL FARMS. THINGS HAVE CHANGED. THE ANTITRUST LEGISLATION THAT WE'RE OPERATING UNDER RIGHT NOW IS BASICALLY PASSED FOR MANUFACTURING, FOR BIG MANUFACTURING OUTFITS LIKE THAT, BUT NOT FOR AGRICULTURE. I THINK SOME CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE IN THE ANTITRUST LAWS.

Yepsen: SENATOR, ANOTHER ISSUE FACING CONGRESS IS CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. YOU'VE BEEN A SUPPORTER OF THAT IN THE SENATE, BUT THE BILL GOES NOWHERE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CUT OFF DEBATE. WILL THERE BE 60 VOTES IN THE SENATE TO CUT OFF DEBATE AND GET TO A VOTE ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM?

Harkin: WELL, I DON'T WANT TO SOUND TOO POLITICAL, BUT AS LONG AS THE REPUBLICANS ARE IN CHARGE, THERE WOULD BE NO CHANCE OF THAT. AND IN FACT, I MIGHT EVEN GO FURTHER. EVEN IF THE DEMOCRATS GOT IN CHARGE AND WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TO BREAK THE 60 VOTES, I DON'T THINK SO. SENATOR MCCONNELL FROM KENTUCKY HAS DUG IN HIS HEELS ON THIS, AND HE HAS ENOUGH VOTES TO KEEP US FROM GETTING 60. WE CAN GET ABOUT 56. I THINK THE LAST TIME WE VOTED, IT WAS ABOUT56. SO WE PICK UP ABOUT 11 REPUBLICANS. SO IF WE GET ALL THE DEMOCRATS, YOU PICK UP 11 REPUBLICANS. WE JUST NEED TO PICK UP FIVE OR SIX MORE. AND QUITE FRANKLY, I'M DISMAYED BY IT. I WISH WE COULD PICK THEM UP, BUT WE CAN'T CUT OFF DEBATE. THEY FILIBUSTER IT.

Glover: TO BE CLEAR, IN YOUR MIND, WHAT IS CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM?

Harkin: TO BE CLEAR, CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IS, FIRST OF ALL, HAVING BETTER ACCESS TO TELEVISION AND RADIO IN TERMS OF CANDIDATES, AT LOWER PRICES. MAYBE EVEN SOME FREE TELEVISION AND RADIO FOR CANDIDATES. SECONDLY, PUTTING LIMITS ON HOW MUCH YOU CAN SPEND IN A CAMPAIGN, BASED UPON POPULATION. I VOTED FOR THAT BACK IN THE '80S THAT WOULD HAVE LIMITED HOW MUCH YOU COULD SPEND ON A SENATE RACE, FOR EXAMPLE, BASED ON POPULATION. I THINK THAT'S FAIR. AND THIRD, TO CUT BACK ON SOFT MONEY -- NOT CUTBACK, "END" SOFT MONEY. JUST END THE INFUSION OF SOFT MONEY INTO THESE CAMPAIGNS, AND MAKE IT MORE ACCOUNTABLE IN TERMS OF THE HARD MONEY THAT WE GET. I THINK THAT IF YOU DO THOSE THINGS, I THINK YOU COULD HAVE GOOD CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM.

Glover: IN THIS CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, TEXAS GOVERNOR BUSH HAS COME UNDER FIRE FROM SOME FOR HIS RELIANCE ON MONEY. HIS COUNTER IS "THAT'S A WAY OF PEOPLE VOICING THEIR SUPPORT FOR ME. IF A LOT OF PEOPLE, MORE THAN A HUNDRED THOUSAND, WANT TO GIVE ME MONEY, WHY SHOULDN'T THEY BE ABLE TO?" HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT? Harkin: WELL, AS I'VE OFTEN SAID, THOSE OF US IN PUBLIC LIFE, NOT ONLY SHOULD WE AVOID CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, WE SHOULD AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. AND I THINK WHEN PEOPLE START PUTTING LARGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY INTO A CAMPAIGN, YOU MAY SAY, "OH, WELL, THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING TO ME." WELL, IT SAYS TO THE PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY THAT SOMEONE IS BUYING INFLUENCE, AND IT GIVES THAT APPEARANCE. WHETHER IT'S THERE OR NOT, IT GIVES THAT APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCE. I JUST SAID THE OTHER DAY ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE ON THE DEBATE ON OIL ROYALTIES... I SAID THERE'S BEEN ARTICLES IN THE NEWSPAPER THAT THOSE WHO ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE FROM ME WHO WERE SUPPORTING THE OIL COMPANIES, THAT THE REASON THEY'RE DOING IT IS BECAUSE LOOK AT ALL THE MONEY THEY'VE GOT FROM THE OIL COMPANIES. WELL, I DON'T QUESTION ANYONE'S MOTIVES ON THE SENATE FLOOR. BUT I SAID, UNTIL WE GET CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO GET STORIES LIKE THAT. AND PEOPLE HAVE SAID, "OH, YOU'RE DOING THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU GET ALL THE MONEY FROM THE OIL COMPANIES." OR THEY'D SAY TO ME, "WELL, THE ONLY REASON YOU'RE SUPPORTING AGRICULTURE IS YOU GET MONEY FROM AGRICULTURE INTERESTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT." AND THAT JUST BREAKS DOWN THE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN WHAT WE DO IN WASHINGTON.

Yepsen: SENATOR, ANOTHER ISSUE FACING CONGRESS IS PATIENTS BILL OF RIGHTS. IT PASSED IN THE HOUSE. IT'S NOW COMING OVER TO THE SENATE. WHAT ARE THE PROSPECTS FOR PATIENTS BILL OF RIGHTS IN THE U.S. SENATE?

Harkin: WELL, ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE THE OTHER DAY -- FIRST OF ALL, I THOUGHT THE HOUSE DID A GREAT JOB. THAT'S THE BILL, THE DASCHLE-KENNEDY BILL THAT WE HAD IN THE SENATE THAT FAILED. SO THE HOUSE BILL IS A GOOD BILL. I STRONGLY SUPPORT IT. AS YOU KNOW, THE SENATE PASSED A KIND OF A SHELL OF A BILL, SO NOW WE GO TO CONFERENCE, AND I WILL BE ONE OF THE CONFEREES. BUT JUST TWO DAYS AGO -- THREE DAYS AGO, I'M SORRY, ON THE SENATE FLOOR, SENATOR NICHOLS, WHO IS THE REPUBLICAN WHIP, SAID WE'RE DRAWING A LINE... WE TALKED ABOUT THE HOUSE PASSING THE BILL, AND HE SAID, "WE'RE DRAWING A LINE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT PATIENTS BILL OF RIGHTS." SO WE ONLY HAVE A FEW WEEKS LEFT IN THIS SESSION, AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN GO TO THE HOUSE BILL. BUT IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN HOW MUCH THE SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP IS GOING TO DIG IN ITS HEELS ON IT.

Glover: LOOK AT HOW THE DEMOCRATS ARE APPROACHING THIS. DO THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO PASS A PATIENTS BILL OF RIGHTS OR DO THE DEMOCRATS WANT AN ISSUE CALLED THE PATIENTS BILL OF RIGHTS FOR THE CAMPAIGN?

Harkin: MIKE, LET'S KEEP ONE THING IN MIND, THE PATIENTS BILL OF RIGHTS IS A BIPARTISAN BILL THAT PASSED THE HOUSE. WE HAVE 68 REPUBLICANS THAT VOTED FOR IT. ANY WAY YOU CUT IT, THAT'S A BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.

Yepsen: BUT, SENATOR, THE ISSUE OF THE RIGHT TO SUE FALLS ALONG PARTISAN LINES, DOES IT NOT?

Harkin: 68 REPUBLICANS, COME ON, VOTED TO GIVE PATIENTS THE RIGHT TO SUE.

Yepsen: MOST REPUBLICANS VOTED NOT TO; MOST DEMOCRATS DID. THAT'S WHAT I MEAN BY THAT QUESTION.

Harkin: BUT STILL, IN ANY BIPARTISAN MEASURE LIKE THIS, YOU USUALLY DON'T GET AN EVEN SPLIT, BUT AS LONG AS YOU GET THAT MANY FROM ONE PARTY TO SUPPORT A BILL, I THINK YOU CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT'S A BIPARTISAN APPROACH.

Yepsen: OKAY, BUT WHAT ABOUT MIKE'S QUESTION. DO DEMOCRATS REALLY WANT A BILL OR DON'T YOU WANT TO HAVE AN ISSUE TO BEAT UP REPUBLICANS IN THE FALL CAMPAIGN?

Harkin: WE WANT A BILL. WE HAVE ALWAYS -- WE HAVE BEEN SEEKING FOR A LONG TIME TO GET A BILL OUT THERE THAT WOULD SAY TO PATIENTS, "WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU MORE CONTROL OVER YOUR HEALTH CARE, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY THE POWER OF THE HMO'S AND STUFF THAT DICTATE." ONE PROVISION IN THE HOUSE BILL THAT I HAVE FOUGHT SO HARD FOR, AND THAT IS TO ALLOW PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES TO GET SPECIALIST CARE WITHOUT GOING BACK ALL THE TIME TO THEIR FAMILY PRACTITIONER. THAT'S IN THE HOUSE BILL. WE HAVE FOUGHT FOR THESE THINGS. IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I WOULD LOVE IT IF WE COULD TAKE THE HOUSE BILL AND SEND IT TO THE PRESIDENT.

Yepsen: ANOTHER ISSUE DEAN MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING WAS THE BUDGET, THE FLAP OVER THE BUDGET. HOW WILL THAT BE RESOLVED? AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHY SHOULD ANYBODY IN IOWA CARE ABOUT THIS? YOU GUYS IN CONGRESS ARE ALWAYS FIGHTING OVER BUDGETS. IS THAT A BIG DEAL OR NOT? DOES IT MEAN ANYTHING TO IOWA?

Harkin: IT COULD MEAN A LOT TO US.

Yepsen: HOW SO?

Harkin: FOR INSTANCE, THIS WEEK, WE JUST PASSED OUR EDUCATION BILL IN THE SENATE. AND I'M THE MINORITY LEADER ON THAT. SENATOR SPECTOR, REPUBLICAN, IS THE CHAIRMAN. WE WORKED ALL YEAR, AGAIN IN A BIPARTISAN FASHION, TO GET THIS BILL THROUGH. WE PASSED -- I THINK WE HAVE 73, 74 VOTES IN THE SENATE TO PASS THIS BILL. THAT FUNDS EDUCATION. IT FUNDS HEALTH CARE. IT FUNDS THINGS LIKE HEAD-START PROGRAMS, MEALS ON WHEELS FOR SENIORS. WE UPPED MEDICAL RESEARCH AT N.I.H. BY $2 BILLION. WE PUT TWO BILLION MORE IN FOR CHILD CARE. WE DOUBLED THE AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS TO CUT DOWN ON VIOLENCE AFTER SCHOOL. A LOT OF GOOD THINGS IN THAT BILL. A STRONG BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. WHAT'S THIS MEAN TO IOWANS? THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP HAS SAID, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ACROSS-THE-BOARD CUT. THEIR BUDGET OFFICE SAYS, WELL, IF THAT'S SO, IT WILL BE A 5-PERCENT CUT, AND THE O.M.B. SAYS IT WILL BE 10 PERCENT. SO SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 5- AND 10-PERCENT CUT. THAT MEANS HUGE CUTS IN EDUCATION PROGRAMS THAT WE VOTED TO PASS. THAT MEANS WE'LL CUT BACK ON HEAD-START PROGRAMS. WE'LL CUT BACK ON AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS. THAT MEANS WE'LL CUT BACK ON BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH. IT MEANS A LOT TO THE STATE OF IOWA.

Glover: THERE WAS A BIG DEBATE IN CONGRESS, A BIG DEBATE BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE ABOUT TAX CUTS. AND THERE'S SOME INTERESTING POLLING ON WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT TO SEE IN TERMS OF TAX CUTS. HOW DOES THAT PLAY OUT?

Harkin: WELL, I'M ONE OF THOSE -- I SAY IN TERMS OF TAX CUTS, I DON'T THINK WE NEED A BROAD TAX CUT LIKE WAS BEING TALKED ABOUT, $792 BILLION OVER TEN YEARS, BECAUSE THAT WOULD REALLY EAT INTO SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE. I THINK OUR FIRST THING, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME BUDGET SURPLUSES. THE FIRST THING IS TO PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE. THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT. SECONDLY, THE BUDGET SURPLUSES THAT WE HAVE, ARE THERE THINGS OUT THERE THAT WE NEED TO INVEST IN BEFORE WE GIVE A BROAD-BASED TAX CUT TO PEOPLE THAT HAVE A LOT OF MONEY IN THIS COUNTRY? AND I SAID YES.

Glover: WE'VE ONLY GOT A FEW SECONDS LEFT.

Harkin: LET'S PUT IT INTO EDUCATION. LET'S REDUCE CLASS SIZE. LET'S START REBUILDING OUR SCHOOLS. OVER HALF THE SCHOOLS IN AMERICA AREN'T EVEN WIRED FOR THE INTERNET. LET'S START GETTING THAT DONE.

Borg: QUICKLY, MIKE.

Glover: HOW WILL HISTORY TREAT BILL CLINTON?

Harkin: NEAR-TERM HISTORY, PROBABLY NOT TOO WELL. LONG-TERM HISTORY, I THINK PRETTY GOOD BECAUSE WE STOPPED THE EROSION OF REAGONOMICS. WE TURNED THIS COUNTRY AROUND AND WENT FROM DEFICITS TO SURPLUSES. WE BEGAN MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION ON EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, THE THINGS THAT REALLY WILL MAKE US MORE STABLE AND SECURE IN THE NEXT CENTURY. SO I THINK LONG-TERM HISTORY WILL BE GOOD TO HIM.

Borg: SENATOR HARKIN, THANK YOU.

Harkin: THANK YOU, DEAN.

Borg: ON OUR NEXT EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS," WE'RE BACK ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL. JOINING US, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ALAN KEYES. MR. KEYES, FORMER AMBASSADOR, TALK-SHOW HOST, IS MAKING HIS SECOND RUN FOR THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT. HE'LL JOIN US NEXT SUNDAY AT NOON AND 7:00. AND THAT'S IT FOR THIS WEEK'S EDITION OF IOWA PRESS. I HOPE YOU'LL WATCH NEXT WEEK WHEN WE QUESTION ALAN KEYES. UNTIL THEN, I'M DEAN BORG. AND THANKS FOR JOINING US TODAY.

FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM WAS PROVIDED BY FRIENDS OF IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION, EIGHTY THOUSAND MEMBERS SUPPORTING QUALITY PUBLIC TELEVISION PROGRAMMING.