Iowa Public Television

Iowa Press Transcripts

Iowa Press Links

Borg: THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT ITEMS ON THE SUMMER AGENDA FOR THE 106th U.S. CONGRESS. WE'LL PROFILE THE ISSUES AND GET A CONGRESSIONAL UPDATE FROM IOWA'S SECOND DISTRICT CONGRESSMAN JIM NUSSLE ON THIS EDITION OF IOWA PRESS.

FUNDING FOR IOWA PRESS WAS PROVIDED BY FRIENDS OF IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION. AND BY THE IOWA BANKERS ASSOCIATION... FOR PERSONAL, BUSINESS, AND COMMERCIAL NEEDS, IOWA BANKS HELP IOWANS REACH THEIR FINANCIAL GOALS. AND BY THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF IOWA, THE PUBLIC'S PARTNER IN BUILDING IOWA'S HIGHWAY, BRIDGE, AND MUNICIPAL UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE.

THIS IS THE SUNDAY, APRIL 30^TH EDITION OF IOWA PRESS. HERE IS DEAN BORG.

Borg: THE SUMMER CAMPAIGN SEASON LEADING TO THE GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 7^TH IS ABOUT TO BEGIN. THAT MEANS THAT 106th U.S. CONGRESS CONCLUDES ITS BUSINESS IN THE SHADOW OF CAMPAIGN POLITICS. THAT'S NOT NEW, AS POLITICALLY CHARGED ISSUES HAVE A HABIT OF FINDING THEIR WAY ONTO BOTH THE CONGRESSIONAL AND THE CAMPAIGN AGENDAS. INDEED, SOME CAMPAIGN TOPICS ARE ON THE CONGRESSIONAL AGENDA RIGHT NOW. WHILE AN OVERALL BUDGET AGREEMENT IS IN PLACE, INDIVIDUAL APPROPRIATIONS AREN'T SETTLED. A PATIENT'S BILL OF RIGHTS, LIKELY TO RESURFACE, AND SO COULD JUVENILE JUSTICE AND GUN-CONTROL LEGISLATION. TRADE WITH CHINA IS ANOTHER ISSUE ON THE AGENDA, AND THAT TOPIC IS OF PARTICULAR INTEREST TO OUR GUEST TODAY, CONGRESSMAN JIM NUSSLE FROM NORTHEAST IOWA'S SECOND DISTRICT. HE'S THE SENIOR MEMBER OF THE HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE, AND HE'S ON THE TRADE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CONGRESSMAN NUSSLE, WELCOME BACK TO IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION AND TO IOWA PRESS.

Nussle: THANK YOU. NICE TO BE HERE AGAIN.

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

Glover: CONGRESSMAN, IT'S BEEN A DRY SPRING HERE IN THE MIDWEST. IN FACT, IT'S BEEN DRY SINCE THE MIDDLE OF LAST SUMMER, AND THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT A DROUGHT THAT'S MOVING ACROSS THE GRAIN-PRODUCING SECTION OF THE COUNTRY. WHAT SHOULD CONGRESS DO, IF ANYTHING, TO PROVIDE SOME ASSISTANCE FOR THIS DROUGHT?

Nussle: WELL, DIFFERENT THAN YEARS IN THE PAST, CONGRESS, IN THE BUDGET THAT WE JUST PASSED, WORKED INTO THE BUDGET NUMBERS AN EMERGENCY PROGRAM TO DEAL WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF DROUGHT THAT JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT. IT'S NOT JUST, OF COURSE, HERE IN THE MIDWEST. THERE'S A LOT OF PLACES ACROSS THE COUNTRY WHERE THAT'S OCCURRING. AND SO PART OF THE EXCITING NEWS ABOUT THIS BUDGET, ASIDE FROM BEING ABLE TO SEPARATE SOCIAL SECURITY AND PAYING DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT AND THE THIRD BALANCED BUDGET IN A ROW IS THAT WE'RE FINALLY NOW STARTING TO LOOK AHEAD AND PLAN FOR EMERGENCIES THAT WE KNOW ARE COMING.

Glover: WELL, WHAT'S IN IT FOR THE DROUGHT?

Nussle: EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS THAT WILL BE THERE FOR AN ADDITIONAL AMTA PAYMENT. IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE'RE ALSO PUTTING IN $6 BILLION INTO THE AG BUDGET FOR REFORM OF CROP INSURANCE. AND BOTH OF THOSE PROGRAMS, WE BELIEVE, BOTH IN THE SHORT-TERM, AS WELL AS THE LONG-TERM, CAN HELP FARMERS DEAL WITH THE DIFFERENT EMERGENCIES THAT OCCUR.

Yepsen: AS YOU START TO LOOK AHEAD AT THE NEXT FARM BILL, CONGRESSMAN, WHAT SHOULD BE IN IT?

Nussle: WELL, WE HAVEN'T DEALT, YET, WITH THIS FARM BILL. AND THAT'S THE FRUSTRATION THAT I THINK SO MANY FARMERS OUT IN IOWA ARE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW. THE LAST PROMISE OF THE FARM BILL HASN'T EVEN BEEN REALIZED. THE PROMISE OF THE FARM BILL WAS FREEDOM FOR FARMERS TO GO OUT AND PLAN THEIR OWN CROPS, TO DECIDE EXACTLY HOW THEY WERE GOING TO MARKET THOSE CROPS, AND THEY DID A GOOD JOB IN THE FIRST TWO, TWO AND A HALF YEARS. AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED WAS IS THAT NOT ONLY ON RISK-MANAGEMENT TOOLS SUCH AS CROP INSURANCE DID I -- I THINK THE ADMINISTRATION DROPPED THE BALL, BUT ON TRADE POLICY, DID THE ADMINISTRATION DROP THE BALL. AND THE RESULT IS THAT THE REALIZATION OF THE POSITIVE ATTRIBUTES OF THE FREEDOM-TO-FARM BILL HAVE NOT YET BEEN REALIZED. SO BEFORE WE EVEN LOOK FORWARD -- I DON'T THINK WE CAN LOOK FORWARD UNTIL WE CAN SAY "WHAT WAS RIGHT OR WRONG WITH THE CURRENT FARM BILL AND FULLY IMPLEMENT THE CURRENT FARM BILL."

Yepsen: CONGRESSMAN, ONE OF THE ISSUES YOU'VE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE CONCENTRATION OF VARIOUS SEGMENTS OF THE AG ECONOMY. WHAT'S BEING DONE ABOUT THAT?

Nussle: WELL, AGAIN, A LOT OF FRUSTRATION WITH THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION ON THAT. WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO BROWBEAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO DEAL WITH NOT JUST MICROSOFT, NOT JUST CUBAN IMMIGRATION, BUT ALSO TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE CONCENTRATION IN AGRICULTURE. AND, IN FACT, IT HAS TAKEN US NOW, AFTER HEARINGS, AS I UNDERSTAND JUST YESTERDAY IN THE SENATE WHERE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CAME FORWARD AND SAID, "NO, THERE'S NOT A PROBLEM. WE HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT AGRICULTURE CONCENTRATION." BOTH OUR SENATORS FROM IOWA JOINED WITH MYSELF AND MANY OTHERS FROM -- FARMBELT REPRESENTATIVES HAVE SAID, "LOOK, WE'RE GOING TO TRANSFER THE JURISDICTION OF THIS TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND LET THEM MANAGE CONCENTRATION, BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK YOU'RE DOING A GOOD JOB. AND IF, IN FACT, YOU DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM AND CERTAINLY DON'T SEE THE PROBLEMS WE SEE, WE WANT SOMEONE ELSE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS."

Borg: ANOTHER ISSUE THAT HAS PITTED ONE SECTION OF THE COUNTRY AGAINST ANOTHER IS THAT OF ETHANOL. WHAT IS CONGRESS GOING TO DO ABOUT EXEMPTING SOME AREAS OF THE COUNTRY AND SO ON AND EXPAND THE USE OF ETHANOL, WHICH IS OF INTEREST HERE IN IOWA?

Nussle: WELL, I HAVE A PRETTY EXTREME POSITION ON THIS. I THINK MTBE METHANOL OUGHT TO BE BANNED, PERIOD. NO COMPROMISE. NO PHASE-IN. NO ALLOWING SOMEBODY TO BE EXEMPTED FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. LET'S BAN IT. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY IN CALIFORNIA -- IT'S KIND OF INTERESTING TO WATCH THESE FOLKS WHO ARE SELF-PROFESSED ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND LIKE TO TELL THE REST OF THE COUNTRY WHAT TO DO FROM THEIR CALIFORNIA VANTAGE POINT ALL OF THE TIME, ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW SAYING, YOU KNOW, "GEE, I KIND OF LIKE MY SUV. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE A HASSLE OVER THE KIND OF GAS THAT I'M BUYING. I THINK METHANOL, MAYBE WE OUGHT TO HAVE AN EXEMPTION FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, AND WE OUGHT TO ALLOW IT TO BE PHASED IN. WE DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THIS ETHANOL." I THINK WE OUGHT TO JUST STAND UP TO THEM. WE NEED TO LET THEM KNOW THAT ETHANOL IS THE ALTERNATIVE THAT IS THE TRUE OXYGENATE THAT WILL GIVE US THE KIND OF SMOG CONTROL, AND LET'S NOT ALLOW THE ADMINISTRATION OR ANYBODY ELSE TO GIVE AN EXEMPTION.

Borg: WHAT ARE THE PROSPECTS OF THAT HAPPENING?

Nussle: WELL, IT'S AN ELECTION YEAR, AS YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR OPENING. CALIFORNIA HAS JUST A FEW MORE ELECTORAL VOTES THAN IOWA DOES. SO WE'RE UP AGAINST A WALL WITH THAT. I HAVE NO DOUBT WITH AN ADMINISTRATION THAT IS INTERESTED IN ELECTORAL VOTES THESE DAYS.

Yepsen: CONGRESSMAN, WHAT ABOUT ALL THE ARGUMENTS THAT SAY ETHANOL NEEDS TO START STANDING ON ITS OWN AT SOME POINT, THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO AWAY WITH THESE FEDERAL TAX BREAKS THAT YOU HAND OUT?

Nussle: IT WILL AND IT WILL BE ABLE TO, PARTICULARLY IF WE DON'T CONTINUE TO GIVE BREAKS TO POLLUTING OXYGENATES, SUCH AS METHANOL; AND TO RECOGNIZE THAT PART OF THE REASON WHY WE HAVE THE DEPENDENCY ON FOREIGN OIL THAT WE DO RIGHT NOW IS THAT WE HAVE NOT LOOKED INTERNALLY AND DOMESTICALLY FOR ALTERNATIVE USES, AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY USES RIGHT HERE IN THIS COUNTRY SUCH AS ETHANOL.

Yepsen: IS THERE ENOUGH CAPACITY IN THE ETHANOL-PRODUCING INDUSTRY TO TAKE CARE OF CALIFORNIA VEHICLES?

Nussle: TODAY? NO.

Yepsen: WELL?

Nussle: PROBABLY -- I MEAN IMMEDIATELY? TODAY? THERE ARE MANY WHO ARE SUGGESTING THAT THERE MIGHT NOT BE. I MEAN, I'M NOT GOING TO GO OUT AND BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU A MEDIATION BETWEEN THE TWO COMPETING STUDIES ON THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, BUT I THINK WE OUGHT TO AT LEAST TRY. AND I DON'T WANT TO CEDE GROUND TO CALIFORNIA AND SUGGEST THAT, "OH, LET'S JUST PHASE IT IN. LET'S ALLOW THIS TO BE PHASED IN BECAUSE OF ELECTORAL VOTE PROCESSES AS OPPOSED TO LOOKING OUT FOR WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT." SURE, IT'S GOOD FOR IOWA FARMERS, BUT IT'S ALSO GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, AND IT'S GOOD IN BREAKING OUR DEPENDENCY ON FOREIGN OIL AS WELL.

Glover: THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT SOLVING THE AGRICULTURAL PROBLEM THROUGH TRADE. CHINA COMES INTO THAT EQUATION, AND THERE'S A VOTE COMING ON ADMITTING CHINA TO THE WTO. WHERE ARE YOU ON THAT AND WHAT WOULD THAT DO?

Nussle: I'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, BUT IT'S NOT JUST A LOT OF TALK. MIKE, WE HAVE NOT OPENED UP ENOUGH OPPORTUNITIES FOR IOWA FARMERS IN VALUE-ADDED AND BULK COMMODITY TRADE AROUND THE WORLD. THE CURRENCY COLLAPSE IN THE FAR EAST DEVASTATED WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING. OUR PORK FARMERS ARE JUST NOW, FINALLY, SEEING LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL. CHINA GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY THAT IS QUITE RICH. I HAVE VOTED EVERY SINGLE TIME TO CONTINUE NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA. THE VOTE IS GOING TO BE ON MAKING THAT PERMANENT. AND AS YOU KNOW, PERMANENT IN CONGRESS MEANS ö

Glover: RIGHT.

Nussle: -- TWO YEARS. BUT IT IS -- BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE AT LEAST TAKE A LOOK AT THIS IN A MORE PERMANENT NATURE. CHINA IS GOING TO JOIN THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS CALLED THE WTO WILLING TO ALLOW THE DIFFERENT PROCESSES OF NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS TO WORK. OTHER COUNTRIES WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CHINA MARKET IF WE DON'T ALSO. I'M LEANING VERY STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF THAT RIGHT NOW. I HAVEN'T DECIDED UNTIL I HAVE A CHANCE TO CONTINUE TO MEET WITH MY CONSTITUENTS AND HEAR THE PLUSES AND MINUSES. THERE ARE SOME MINUSES. THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS, IN LABOR AND ENVIRONMENT AND IN HUMAN RIGHTS, SOME VERY VALID CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED. BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO BALANCE THOSE, WHETHER OR NOT SITTING AT THE TABLE WITH THE CHINESE IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF SOLVING THOSE PROBLEMS, OR ISOLATIONISM FROM CHINA IS IN THE BEST INTEREST. AND RIGHT NOW, I WOULD NOT PICK ISOLATIONISM.

Glover: AND YOU THINK -- TAKING THAT STEP, LETTING THEM IN AS A PERMANENT MEMBER OF THE WTO, WOULD, IN FACT, OPEN THE CHINA MARKET TO AMERICAN PRODUCTS?

Nussle: WELL, LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. OUR PORK PRODUCERS LAST YEAR COULD ONLY IF -- I'LL PUT IT A DIFFERENT WAY. CHINA'S INCREASE OF CONSUMPTION OF PORK LAST YEAR EQUALLED IOWA'S TOTAL OUTPUT OF PORK FOR ONE YEAR. THAT'S HOW MANY PEOPLE A BILLION PEOPLE REPRESENT. THAT'S A LOT OF PORK. AND THEY DID NOT SATISFY THAT BY BUYING ONE IOWA PORK CHOP. THEY SATISFIED IT ALL WITHIN THEIR OWN DOMESTIC FAR EAST MARKET OR INTERNALLY. WE NEED TO BREAK INTO THAT, AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO NEGOTIATE A BILATERAL AGREEMENT TO LOWER THE BARRIERS TO MEAT PRODUCTS TO CHINA. AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CONTINUE THAT BY ALLOWING CHINA INTO THE WTO AND TRADING WITH THEM. OTHERWISE, GUESS WHO'S GOING TO GET IN? DENMARK IS GOING TO GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO SELL THEIR PORK PRODUCTS, NOT THE UNITED STATES. AND THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR OUR FARMERS.

Glover: I DON'T THINK YOU QUITE ANSWERED THE QUESTION. ARE YOU CONFIDENT TAKING THAT STEP WILL, IN FACT, BEGIN LOWERING THOSE BARRIERS. IT HASN'T UP UNTIL NOW.

Nussle: I AM CONFIDENT THAT NOT TAKING THE STEP WILL RAISE BARRIERS. SO WHETHER OR NOT THEY'LL LOWER THEM IS AN ISSUE THAT WE'LL ALWAYS HAVE TO DEAL WITH EVERY COUNTRY THAT WE TRADE WITH. BUT I AM CONFIDENT THAT NOT GOING IN THERE AND TRADING WITH THEM WILL RAISE BARRIERS THAT WILL KEEP US OUT.

Yepsen: CONGRESSMAN, TALK ABOUT THE LABOR STANDARDS ISSUE THAT YOU RAISED A MOMENT AGO. YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF BLUE-COLLAR WORKERS ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY AND IN YOUR DISTRICT WHO DO NOT SEE THE JOYS OF FREE TRADE QUITE THE SAME AS YOU DO. WHAT DO YOU SAY TO A WORKER WHO IS WORRIED ABOUT ADMITTING CHINA, EXPANDING FREE TRADE, AS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO TAKE AWAY JOBS FROM AMERICANS?

Nussle: WELL, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT WHICH JOBS. AND LET'S TAKE JOHN DEERE AS AN EXAMPLE. THOSE JOBS ARE CREATING TRACTORS AND IMPLEMENTS THAT ARE GOING OVER TO CHINA. THERE ARE CONTRACTS THAT ARE HANGING IN THE BALANCE. SO, TO A UAW WORKER WORKING ON THE LINE AT JOHN DEERE, I'D ASK THEM TO LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT TRACTORS THAT ARE ROLLING BY THEM AND SAY, "WHERE'S THAT GOING?" IS IT GOING TO A FARMER DOWN IN VINTON OR IS IT GOING TO A FARMER OUTSIDE OF BEIJING? THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT FIRST AND FOREMOST. NOW, IS IT GOING TO CHASE -- ARE JOBS GOING TO CHASE CHEAP LABOR? YES, THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENING. IT'S HAPPENING WITHOUT FREE TRADE WITH CHINA. IT'S HAPPENING WITHOUT NAFTA. IT WAS HAPPENING WITHOUT THE GENERAL AGREEMENTS ON TARIFFS AND TRADE. LABOR WAS ALREADY BEING CHASED -- OR MANUFACTURERS WERE ALREADY CHASING CHEAPER LABOR. SO THAT HAPPENS ALL OF THE TIME WITH OR WITHOUT THESE TRADE AGREEMENTS.

Yepsen: AND WHAT ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT? WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS WHO SAY FREE TRADE RESULTS IN A DIMINISHED ENVIRONMENT, THAT YOU'RE SHIPPING JOBS OVERSEAS. THEY CAN PAY THOSE WORKERS LESS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE TO MEET THE ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS THAT ARE MET HERE IN THE U.S. WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAT?

Nussle: ISOLATIONISM DOES NOT RAISE THE STANDARDS OF ANY COUNTRY. WE HAVE NOT RAISED THE STANDARDS OF ENVIRONMENTALISM OR HUMAN RIGHTS OR LABOR WITH CUBA BY ISOLATING CUBA IN THE WORLD -- IN WORLD TRADE OVER THE LAST FORTY YEARS. WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING TO RAISE THOSE STANDARDS. SITTING AT THE TABLE GIVES YOU THE OPPORTUNITY. ISOLATING THEM DOES NOT GIVE YOU ANY OPPORTUNITY. THEY DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW ANY RULE IF THEY ISOLATE THEMSELVES OR IF THEY'RE BEING ISOLATED BY OTHER COUNTRIES SUCH AS THE UNITED STATES.

Borg: ARE YOU INSINUATING ALSO THAT TRADE SHOULD BE NORMALIZED WITH CUBA?

Nussle: I THINK THAT DEFINITELY HAS TO BE LOOKED AT. AND I DON'T KNOW WHY -- IN FACT, I'M ON A BILL THAT SUGGESTS THAT THESE UNILATERAL EMBARGOES THAT WE HAVE WITH ALL SORTS OF COUNTRIES, THEY'LL ONLY HURT OUR FARMERS. THEY DON'T HURT THE -- I MEAN, THAT'S NOT HURTING FIDEL CASTRO. MY GOSH, THIS GUY HAS BEEN THERE FOR FORTY YEARS. MAYBE WE FINALLY HAVE HIM WHERE WE WANT HIM. I DON'T THINK SO. AND IT CERTAINLY HAS NOT BEEN BECAUSE WE'VE DONE A GOOD JOB IN OUR FOREIGN POLICY WITH FIDEL CASTRO.

Glover: SOMETHING IS HAPPENED ON THIS ISSUE OF TRADE, CONGRESSMAN. IT'S SOMEHOW GOTTEN POLARIZED. IT'S SOMEHOW GOTTEN HOT. IT'S GONE NUCLEAR, IF YOU WILL. YOU CAN'T SEEM TO HAVE A DEBATE ABOUT TRADE WITHOUT 50,000 PEOPLE IN THE STREETS. IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A RATIONAL DEBATE ABOUT TRADE, AND ALL THESE ISSUES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, OR IS IT SO POLARIZED THAT IT'S JUST GOING TO BE A FLASHPOINT WHEREVER IT COMES UP?

Nussle: THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. IT SEEMS TO BE THE ISSUE WHERE MANY GROUPS -- I WAS OUT IN SEATTLE, AS AN EXAMPLE, AND WAS OUT THERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING CONSTRUCTIVE ABOUT TRADE. AND WHAT I SAW WERE TWO DIFFERENT DAYS. I SAW A DAY WHEN UNIONS CAME OUT AND HAD SOME LEGITIMATE CONCERNS. THEY PROTESTED, OR THEY RALLIED, IN A VERY CONSTRUCTIVE WAY. THEY HAD A GREAT PARADE I PARTICIPATED IN. IT WAS FUN. THE SECOND DAY, OR THE OTHER DAYS THERE WERE INVOLVED, INVOLVED RIOTS AND ROCK THROWING AND BOTTLES AND BURNING AND BREAKING STARBUCKS COFFEE WINDOWS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THESE WERE NOT PEOPLE WHO WERE CONCERNED ABOUT TRADE. THEY --

Glover: BUT IT JUST HAPPENED AGAIN IN WASHINGTON.

Nussle: BUT THEY WEREN'T CONCERNED ABOUT TRADE. THE LABOR FOLKS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT TRADE. THE OTHER FOLKS, I WOULD MAINTAIN TO YOU, WERE THERE TO GET THEIR PROTESTING MERIT BADGE. THEY HAD SEEN, MAYBE, THEIR PARENTS AT THE THE '68 CONVENTION GETTING THEIR MERIT BADGE, AND THEY WANTED TO GET THEIR GENERATION'S MERIT BADGE. MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE DIDN'T KNOW WHY THEY WERE THROWING THE ROCKS OR WHY THEY WERE PROTESTING. THE UNIONS DID. I THINK THEY WERE CONSTRUCTIVE. BUT THE OTHER KIDS THAT WERE OUT THERE JUST BREAKING WINDOWS, THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY WERE ARGUING ABOUT.

Glover: SO WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE DEBATE OVER THE ISSUE? THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE AFRAID TO BEGIN HAVING THIS DEBATE, BECAUSE EVERY TIME YOU HAVE A TRADE DEBATE, YOU HAVE 50,000 PEOPLE IN THE STREETS?

Nussle: I DON'T FEAR THE DEBATE. WE LIVE IN A FREE COUNTRY WHERE THAT'S NOT ONLY POSSIBLE, IT'S ENCOURAGED, AND IT HAS TO BE CONTROLLED. BUT I THINK THE DEBATE THAT OCCURRED IN WASHINGTON AND THE PROTESTS WERE NOT THE SAME PROTESTS THAT OCCURRED IN SEATTLE. THEY WERE CONTROLLED. THEY WERE CONSTRUCTIVE. AND THOSE WHO CAME OUT TO TRY AND GET THEIR VOICE HEARD, THEIR VOICES WERE HEARD, AND THEY NEED TO BE HEARD. THEY HAVE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS.

Yepsen: CONGRESSMAN, THERE ARE A LOT OF ISSUES FACING CONGRESS. WE WANT TO TOUCH ON SEVERAL OF THEM HERE. TAXES. YOU'RE ON THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. WHAT WILL THIS CONGRESS DO ABOUT AMERICA'S TAX POLICY? ANYTHING?

Nussle: A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE'VE PASSED ALREADY, THE MARRIAGE PENALTY REDUCTION, THE SOCIAL SECURITY EARNINGS LIMITATION. WE HAVE A SMALL-BUSINESS TAX PACKAGE THAT WE'VE ALREADY PASSED.

Yepsen: HOW MUCH OF THIS WILL THE PRESIDENT SIGN? HE SIGNED LIFTING THE SOCIAL SECURITY EARNINGS CAP. IS HE GOING TO BUY INTO ANYTHING ELSE?

Nussle: WELL, BUT THIS IS A PRESIDENT WHO SAID WE'RE NOT GOING TO LOWER TAXES. YOU KNOW, THE REPUBLICANS HAVE A RISKY TAX SCHEME. NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN HE'S STARTING TO SIGN THESE BILLS. IT'S KIND OF INTERESTING THAT WHEN THEY'RE SENT UP INDIVIDUALLY, THAT HE SEEMS TO LIKE THEM A LITTLE BIT MORE. THE BOTTOM LINE IS IT'S GOING TO BE INCREMENTAL. AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY AND YOU HAVE A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT AND WE ARE NOT SEEING EYE-TO-EYE ON TAXES, IT WILL BE INCREMENTAL AT BEST WHEN IT COMES TO TAX POLICY. WHAT I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT OVERALL TAX REFORM. I WOULD ENCOURAGE, NO MATTER WHETHER IT'S GORE OR WHETHER IT'S BUSH -- CERTAINLY, I HOPE IT'S BUSH -- THAT WE LOOK AT THROWING OUT THE CURRENT TAX CODE AND STARTING OVER AS OPPOSED TO JUST CHIPPING AROUND THE EDGES. BECAUSE I'LL ADMIT TO YOU WHEN I PASSED A BILL ON THE MARRIAGE PENALTY REFORM OR ON SOCIAL SECURITY EARNINGS LIMITATION, I'M ADDING 40 PAGES OF COMPLICATION TO THE CODE. THAT'S RIDICULOUS THAT WE CONTINUE TO ADD MORE COMPLICATION FORMS TO AN ALREADY-COMPLICATED TAX CODE.

Yepsen: WHERE ARE YOU IN THAT DEBATE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY? SOME IN YOUR PARTY WANT TO GO TO A NATIONAL SALES TAX. OTHERS WANT TO GO TO A FLAT TAX. GOVERNOR BUSH LOOKS LIKE HE WANTS TO ADJUST THE CURRENT SYSTEM. WHERE DO YOU COME DOWN ON THIS?

Nussle: WE'RE IN THE MIDST OF HOLDING HEARINGS RIGHT NOW ON THE TAX COMMITTEE. I HAVE TRIED TO NOT PICK SIDES IN A SLOGANEERING KIND OF WAY. STEVE FORBES WAS OUT DOING ONE. IT GOT INTO A REAL POLITICAL FREE-FOR-ALL THERE FOR A WHILE. AND SINCE I'M ON THE COMMITTEE THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION AND BECAUSE IT'S SO IMPORTANT FOR OUR FARMERS AND OUR STATE, BECAUSE AN ADJUSTMENT -- A SMALL ADJUSTMENT IN THE TAX CODE CAN BE DEVASTATING TO OUR SMALL-BUSINESS PEOPLE HERE IN THIS STATE, WHICH IS IMPORTANT FOR OUR JOBS. I DECIDED TO HOLD BACK, TO WAIT TO DECIDE. I'M NOT REALLY LEANING. THERE'S PLUSES AND MINUSES TO BOTH SYSTEMS. BUT I'LL TELL YOU, ALMOST EITHER SYSTEM RIGHT NOW, I WOULD MAINTAIN, OR I COULD ARGUE, IS BETTER THAN THE CURRENT SYSTEM. WHETHER IT'S A STRAIGHT SALES TAX REPLACEMENT OR SOME TYPE OF A FLAT-TAX REPLACEMENT, I SEE SO MANY BENEFITS TO EITHER ONE OF THOSE SYSTEMS OVER OUR CURRENT ONE, THAT I THINK I'D BE WILLING TO ALMOST PICK EITHER ONE. BUT RIGHT NOW, I WANT TO CONTINUE IN THESE HEARINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN HOLDING. THEY'VE BEEN VERY CONSTRUCTIVE, AND I WANT MY CONSTITUENT TO LET ME KNOW WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT THIS TOO.

Glover: THERE'S ANOTHER DEBATE WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, AND THAT'S WHAT TO DO WITH TAX CUTS VERSUS THE NATIONAL DEBT. A LOT OF REPUBLICANS SAY LET'S CUT TAXES VERY DEEPLY. THAT WILL STIMULATE THE ECONOMY. A LOT OF REPUBLICANS SAY LET'S KEEP TAXES WHERE THEY ARE AND USE THE SURPLUS TO PAY OFF THE DEBT. WHERE ARE YOU IN THAT DEBATE?

Nussle: NATIONAL DEBT. AND THAT'S WHY, TO SOME EXTENT, THE REASON WHY WE'VE HAD BUDGETS THAT HAVE DONE SUCH A GOOD JOB IN REDUCING THE NATIONAL DEBT IS THAT AS A SENIOR MEMBER OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, I FOUGHT TO MAKE SURE THE NATIONAL DEBT WAS LEADING IN OUR PLAN. AND AS A RESULT, OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO REDUCE THE NATIONAL DEBT NOW ALMOST $300 BILLION. OUR CURRENT PLAN IS GOING TO REDUCE IT OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, $3 TRILLION.

Glover: ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S HELPED THE BUDGET SURPLUS IS AN ECONOMY THAT'S BEEN ROLLING ALONG PRETTY GOOD. ARE YOU WORRIED THAT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE STOCK MARKET IS A SIGNAL THAT THINGS ARE STARTING TO GO SOUTH?

Nussle: I WAS UNTIL YESTERDAY WHEN ECONOMIC GROWTH WAS AT 5.4 PERCENT, WHICH WAS AN UNBELIEVABLE NUMBER THAT JUST ABOUT NOBODY PREDICTED WAS GOING TO BE THAT HIGH. SO I WAS WORRIED THAT POSSIBLY THERE WAS GOING TO BE A PRETTY MAJOR BUMP IN THE ROAD. BUT SEEING THAT FIGURE, I THINK, IS GOING TO GIVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF COMFORT TO THE ECONOMY. BY THE SAME TOKEN, YOUR QUESTION IS A VERY VALID ONE. ANY BUDGET THAT IS BASED ON UNREALISTIC ECONOMIC GROWTH FIGURES IS GOING TO FALL ON ITS OWN MERITS, AND THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY WE'VE BEEN SUCCESSFUL. THE LAST SIX YEARS, WE HAVE BEEN VERY, VERY CONSERVATIVE IN THE USE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH FIGURES AS A WAY TO DECIDE WHERE WE WERE GOING TO BE AT THE END OF THAT YEAR. AND AS A RESULT, WE'VE HAD SOME WINDFALL, WHICH WE HAVE APPLIED TOWARD NATIONAL DEBT -- THE SURPLUS TOWARD THE NATIONAL DEBT. THAT'S BEEN TO THE BENEFIT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Borg: YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THAT CONGRESS PASSED, THE PRESIDENT HAS SIGNED, ALLOWING SOCIAL SECURITY RECIPIENTS TO EARN AS MUCH AS THEY WANT TO AND STILL RECEIVE BENEFITS. BUT THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THAT WORD "SECURITY" IN SOCIAL SECURITY. IS IT SECURE AND WHAT MIGHT CONGRESS DO MORE?

Nussle: AGAIN, IT'S MORE SECURE TODAY THAN IT WAS SIX YEARS AGO. WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE SIX YEARS AGO, THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS WAS USING EVERY PENNY THAT WE PAID IN IN OUR FICA TAXES FOR EVERYTHING BUT SOCIAL SECURITY. AND I WAS PART OF A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT SAID, "WE'RE GOING TO TAKE SOCIAL SECURITY OFF BUDGET." WE'RE NOT GOING TO CLAIM WE HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET UNTIL SOCIAL SECURITY IS COMPLETELY SEPARATED. ALL OF THE MONEY THAT IS SENT IN AND ALL OF THE EXCESS MONEY, THE SURPLUS IN SOCIAL SECURITY, IS TOTALLY SET ASIDE FOR ONLY SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. THAT IS STEP ONE AND THAT HAS TO BE MAINTAINED. THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR WE'VE DONE IT. I THINK THAT HAS TO BE MAINTAINED FIRST. IF THE FUTURE, WHERE ARE WE GOING TO GO? ARE WE GOING TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS? IS IT GOING TO BE PARTIALLY MANAGED? IS IT GOING TO CONTINUE UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM? LET'S CONTINUE THE CURRENT SYSTEM, AT LEAST, UNTIL WE FIND A PLAN THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR MY GENERATION AND GENERATIONS TO COME. BUT I THINK THE MERE FACT THAT WE'VE SET THAT MONEY ASIDE MEANS THAT WE'VE INCREASED THE SOLVENCY OF SOCIAL SECURITY BY EIGHT YEARS JUST BY DOING THAT. EIGHT YEARS IS NOT ENOUGH TO SOLVE IT FOR EVERY GENERATION, BUT EVERY STEP IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

Yepsen: CONGRESSMAN, ANOTHER ISSUE FACING MANY IOWANS, SENIOR IOWANS: PRESCRIPTION DRUG COSTS. WILL THIS CONGRESS ENACT A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT? AND WILL IT BE ONE THE PRESIDENT WILL SIGN?

Nussle: AGAIN, THIS BUDGET SETS ASIDE $40 BILLION ONLY FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT, AND MEDICARE REFORM, WHICH IS SO IMPORTANT FOR OUR RURAL HOSPITALS IN THIS STATE. IN FACT, "THE DES MOINES REGISTER," AS YOU KNOW, HAS BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT OF RUNNING EDITORIALS LAMBASTING THE ADMINISTRATION FOR THEIR TREATMENT OF MEDICARE AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN OUR FAIR SHARE OF MEDICARE DOLLARS TO RURAL AREAS. I APPRECIATE THAT AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE RURAL HEALTH CARE COALITION. WE'VE GOT BOTH OF THOSE ISSUES FACING US, AND WE WILL DEAL WITH A PLAN. BUT IT ISN'T GOING TO BE A GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED PLAN. WE DON'T WANT A PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN THAT IS CONTROLLED BY CONGRESS OR BY THE ADMINISTRATION OR BY HCFA, THE HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION. WE WANT ONE THAT CAN BE CONTROLLED BY SENIORS.

Yepsen: EXCUSE ME. WILL THIS BE SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT WILL SIGN?

Nussle: I THINK IT CAN BE. NOW, IF HE CHOOSES TO MAKE THIS A POLITICAL ISSUE FOR THE ELECTION, WHICH HAS BEEN THE CHOICE OF THE DEMOCRATS MANY TIMES WITH REGARD TO MEDICARE, THEN THAT'S A CHOICE HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE. BUT I THINK WE CAN COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL LIKE, THAT'S AFFORDABLE, THAT'S VOLUNTARY, AND THAT WILL COVER THE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS THAT PEOPLE WANT.

Glover: CONGRESSMAN, YOU'LL FORGIVE US IF THERE ARE A COUPLE OF CYNICS IN THE ROOM.

Nussle: SURE! HEY!

Glover: WE'RE HEADING INTO AN ELECTION SEASON, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT NOT MUCH IS GOING TO HAPPEN FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS CONGRESS. THIS IS GOING TO BE PRETTY MUCH "DO-NOTHING" FROM HERE ON. AND HERE'S THE ARGUMENT THEY'LL MAKE. REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING WHILE BILL CLINTON IS PRESIDENT BECAUSE THEY THINK GORGE BUSH IS GOING TO WIN THE ELECTION. SO LET'S DON'T DO ANYTHING UNTIL GORGE BUSH GETS ELECTED. A LOT OF PEOPLE SAY DEMOCRATS DON'T REALLY WANT ANYTHING OUT OF THIS CONGRESS EXCEPT CAMPAIGN ISSUES BECAUSE THEY CAN GET CONTROL OF THE HOUSE.

Nussle: SURE.

Glover: WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT ARGUMENT?

Nussle: NOT MUCH WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SENATE. JUST TO BE VERY HONEST ABOUT IT, I THINK THAT'S THE SENATE ATTITUDE RIGHT NOW, AND IT DISTURBS ME, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE ATTITUDE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. WE HAVE BEEN PASSING LEGISLATION. WE DROVE THE BUDGET PROCESS. THERE WERE MANY WHO SAID, "WE'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO HAVE A BUDGET THIS YEAR. WHO NEEDS A BUDGET? LET'S JUST WAIT FOR BUSH'S BUDGET." WE PASSED A BUDGET, AND WE DID IT ON TIME. FOR ONLY THE SECOND TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE 1974 BUDGET ACT, WE HAD A BUDGET DONE ON TIME! WELL, IT WASN'T WITH THE HELP OF THE SENATE, I WILL TELL YOU. IT WAS DONE PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE LEADERSHIP OUT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SO I THINK YOUR ARGUMENT IS A VERY VALID ARGUMENT -- OR YOUR CYNICISM IS VERY VALID WITH REGARD TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE. BUT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS BEEN WORKING, PASSING LEGISLATION THAT WE THINK NOT ONLY CAN THE SENATE PASS, BUT THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN SIGN.

Yepsen: SPEAKING OF THE BUDGET, IF THE REPUBLICANS HOLD CONTROL OF THE CONGRESS IN THE ELECTION, YOU'VE BEEN MENTIONED AS A POSSIBLE CANDIDATE FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE. HAVE YOU GOT THE VOTES LINE UP?

Nussle: ACTUALLY, THERE'S ONLY ONE VOTE, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT VOTE, AND THAT IS THE VOTE OF THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE. AND I DON'T YET HAVE THAT VOTE LINED UP. THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT HAVE TO HAPPEN BEFORE THAT HAPPENS. NUMBER ONE, I'VE GOT TO GET REELECTED. NUMBER TWO, WE HAVE TO BE ELECTED AS A MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS. AND THEN WE HAVE TO COME BACK AND THEN WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THE BUDGET COMMITTEE. BUT I BELIEVE I'M IN A GOOD POSITION, BASED ON MY BACKGROUND, MY EXPERIENCE, MY SERVICE ON THE COMMITTEE. I BELIEVE I HAVE A GOOD RAPPORT WITH THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE. AND I THINK, AS A RESULT, I'LL BE IN A VERY GOOD POSITION TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT I'M THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB.

Glover: BEFORE WE SINK IRRETRIEVABLY INTO JUST PURE POLITICS, ONE MORE ISSUE.

Nussle: OKAY.

Glover: A LOT OF TALK IN THE WAKE OF THE COLUMBINE HIGH SCHOOL ANNIVERSARY ABOUT GUN CONTROL.

Nussle: RIGHT.

Glover: WHAT'S THIS CONGRESS GOING TO DO ABOUT GUN CONTROL?

Nussle: WELL, WE ALREADY PASSED, I THINK, A VERY MEANINGFUL JUVENILE JUSTICE BILL THAT DID INCLUDE SOME VERY MEANINGFUL GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION. IT ALSO APPEARS TO BE WEIGHED DOWN OVER IN THE SENATE. WE HOPE THAT WE CAN PASS LEGISLATION THAT NOT ONLY ADDRESSES COLUMBINE, BECAUSE THAT IS ONE INSTANCE -- A VERY SIGNIFICANT INSTANCE, DON'T GET ME WRONG. BUT IT IS ONLY ONE OF A VARIETY OF INSTANCES THAT IS DEALING WITH HIGH SCHOOLS RIGHT NOW. I JUST HAD A YOUTH SUMMIT UP IN WATERLOO, WHERE HIGH-SCHOOL STUDENTS -- 200 HIGH-SCHOOL STUDENTS FROM ALL OVER MY DISTRICT CAME IN TO TALK ABOUT THAT. THEIR ANSWER TO COLUMBINE WAS NOT ALWAYS MORE GUN CONTROL. THEY HAD A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT THEY BROUGHT UP. SOME OF THEM ARE IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BILL, BUT SOME OF THEM DON'T REQUIRE OR AREN'T NECESSARILY AT THE THRESHOLD OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS. A LOT OF IT IS WHAT HAPPENS LOCALLY, WHAT HAPPENS WITHIN FAMILIES. THESE ARE THINGS THAT CONGRESS, THANKFULLY, TO SOME EXTENT, DOESN'T CONTROL. BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE LEADERSHIP, AND THAT LEADERSHIP COMES FROM CONGRESS, COMES FROM THE PRESIDENT, COMES THROUGH THIS ELECTION. BUT, YES, I THINK WE SHOULD AND WILL PASS MEANINGFUL JUVENILE JUSTICE LEGISLATION THIS YEAR.

Yepsen: CONGRESSMAN, AS MIKE MENTIONED, WE ALWAYS LIKE TO TALK A LITTLE POLITICS OUT HERE. WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF MINUTES LEFT. IF GOVERNOR BUSH CALLED YOU UP AND ASKED YOU, "WHO SHOULD I PICK FOR A RUNNING MATE," WHAT WOULD YOU TELL HIM?

Nussle: I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT JUST YET, PRIMARILY BECAUSE I DON'T THINK HE'S READY TO MAKE THE PHONE CALL, SO I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO THINK ABOUT IT. MY SPECULATION WOULD BE THAT THE GOVERNOR WILL NOT PICK A CURRENT MEMBER OF CONGRESS BECAUSE WE'RE TOO INTERESTED IN BOTH THE MAJORITY IN THE SENATE AND THE MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE. SO I DON'T THINK IT WILL BE A CURRENT MEMBER. THERE'S A NAME THAT I WOULD JUST -- AND THE OTHER ANSWER TO THAT IS, I DO BELIEVE THAT THE CHOICE WILL BE PRO-LIFE, WHICH DOES TAKE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE OFF THE LIST THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED SUCH AS GOVERNOR CHRISTY TODD-WHITMAN AND GOVERNOR RIDGE OF PENNSYLVANIA. THERE'S ONE NAME THAT I BELIEVE HAS BEEN LEFT OFF THE LIST THAT HAS BEEN GETTING -- THAT HAS BEEN WORKING VERY HARD LATELY, AND THAT'S REPRESENTATIVE BILL PAXON FROM NEW YORK, THAT HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED, FORMER CONGRESSMAN, VERY HIGH-PROFILE CONGRESSMAN FROM NEW YORK. SO THE FACT THAT HE WAS IN THE LEADERSHIP, THE FACT THAT HE'S FROM NEW YORK, IT'S A NAME THAT I'VE HEARD KIND OF ON THE FRINGES BUT HASN'T BEEN MENTIONED. BUT I'LL TELL YOU, I REALLY DON'T HAVE A SUGGESTION JUST YET.

Glover: YOU MENTIONED THE FIGHT FOR THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY IN CONGRESS. IN THE HOUSE, THERE'S A SIX-SEAT DIFFERENCE. THE DEMOCRATS ARE PUTTING A BIG PUSH ON. HANDICAP THAT RACE FOR ME. HOW DO THE REPUBLICANS HOLD THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES?

Nussle: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WE HOLD IT BECAUSE WE HAVE THE MOST -- WE HAVE THE MOST VULNERABLE SEATS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY RIGHT NOW, IT APPEARS. DEMOCRATS THAT ARE HOLDING SOME VERY DIFFICULT SEATS THAT, ACCORDING TO EARLY POLLS, ARE HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME. SO ONE IS JUST WHERE ARE THE VULNERABLE SEATS -- AND THIS ISN'T MY INFORMATION, THIS IS -- CHARLIE COOK IS AN EXAMPLE THAT HAS ALREADY HANDICAPPED THAT. THE SECOND IS ON RESOURCES... RAISING MONEY THAT IS, OF COURSE, THE WAY YOU GET YOUR MESSAGE OUT. AND THE THIRD THAT I HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE IN IS I DID THE RECRUITING FOR THE MAJORITY CLASS OF 1994, AND THE DEMOCRATS RECRUITMENT HAS BEEN ABYSMAL. AND SO, AS A RESULT, I'M NOT SUGGESTING -- IF THE ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY, WE'D HOLD IT. THE ELECTION ISN'T HELD TODAY, SO THERE'S A LOT OF WATER THAT'S GOING TO GO UNDER THE BRIDGE. BUT I THINK RIGHT NOW WE'RE IN A VERY GOOD POSITION TO KEEP OUR MAJORITY IN BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE, AND THAT'S THE WAY I'D HANDICAP IT.

Borg: AS FAR AS THIS PROGRAM GOES, THE WATER IS UNDER THE BRIDGE. WE'RE OUT OF TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CONGRESSMAN NUSSLE.

Nussle: THANK YOU.

Borg: ON OUR NEXT EDITION OF IOWA PRESS, OUR FOCUS RETURNS TO THE IOWA STATEHOUSE AND THE JUST-COMPLETED 78TH IOWA GENERAL ASSEMBLY, WHICH CONCLUDED ITS WORK THIS PAST WEDNESDAY EVENING. JOINING US NEXT WEEK, TWO LEADERS FROM THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY. BRENT SIEGRIST, THE SPEAKER OF THE IOWA HOUSE, AND SENATOR STEWART IVERSON, HE'S THE MAJORITY LEADER IN THE SENATE. THEY'LL BE PROVIDING PERSPECTIVES ON THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION. THAT'S NEXT SUNDAY AT NOON AND 7:00. I HOPE YOU'LL WATCH. UNTIL THEN, I'M DEAN BORG. THANKS FOR JOINING US TODAY.

FUNDING FOR IOWA PRESS WAS PROVIDED BY FRIENDS OF IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION. AND BY THE IOWA BANKERS ASSOCIATION... FOR PERSONAL, BUSINESS, AND COMMERCIAL NEEDS, IOWA BANKS HELP IOWANS REACH THEIR FINANCIAL GOALS. AND BY THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF IOWA, THE PUBLIC'S PARTNER IN BUILDING IOWA'S HIGHWAY, BRIDGE, AND MUNICIPAL UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE.