Iowa Public Television

FUNDING FOR "IOWA PRESS" HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY FRIENDS HAVE OF IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION; AND BY THE IOWA BANKERS ASSOCIATION... FOR PERSONAL, BUSINESS, AND COMMERCIAL NEEDS, IOWA BANKS HELP IOWANS REACH THEIR FINANCIAL GOALS; BY THE ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY... THE VOICE OF IOWA BUSINESS, REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF OVER 1,500 IOWA BUSINESSES EMPLOYING 300,000 IOWANS; AND BY THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF IOWA... THE PUBLIC'S PARTNER IN BUILDING IOWA'S HIGHWAY, BRIDGE, AND MUNICIPAL UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE. THIS IS SUNDAY, MAY 6 EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS." HERE IS DEAN BORG.

Borg: TOMORROW THE FIRST SESSION OF THE 79TH IOWA GENERAL ASSEMBLY BEGINS ITS SECOND WEEK OF OVERTIME. THERE'S NO VISIBLE AGREEMENT YET BETWEEN DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR TOM VILSACK AND THE REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED GENERAL ASSEMBLY. FACED WITH LESS-THAN-EXPECTED REVENUE, THE GOVERNOR AND REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS HAVE SHARPLY DIFFERENT IDEAS ON WHAT AND HOW MUCH AND WHETHER OR NOT TO USE AN EMERGENCY FUND TO RELIEVE THE HEADACHE IN THE BUDGET. IN ADDITION, REDISTRICTING TO REFLECT POPULATION CHANGES IS STILL WAITING. THIS PAST WEDNESDAY, THE IOWA LEGISLATURE REJECTED THE FIRST REDISTRICTING PLAN FROM THE NONPARTISAN LEGISLATIVE SERVICE BUREAU, AND NOW THE BUREAU MUST SUBMIT A SECOND PROPOSAL. A SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE SESSION THIS SUMMER IS CERTAIN. WELL, THAT'S JUST THE TIP OF THE PROVERBIAL ICEBERG FACING SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE BRENT SIEGRIST. HE'S A REPUBLICAN FROM COUNCIL BLUFFS. WELCOME BACK TO "IOWA PRESS."

Siegrist: GOOD TO BE HERE. THANKS.

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

Glover: MR. SPEAKER, FOR SEVERAL WEEKS NOW, YOU'VE BEEN IN DISCUSSION, SHALL WE SAY, WITH THE GOVERNOR ABOUT THE BUDGET. YOU'RE COMING UP TO THE END OF THIS SESSION. WHERE DO THOSE DISCUSSIONS STAND? ARE YOU GOING TO GET AN AGREEMENT WITH THIS GOVERNOR?

Siegrist: I THINK DEAN MAY HAVE SAID IT RIGHT, THERE'S NO VISIBLE AGREEMENT AND THEN THERE IS NO AGREEMENT YET. WE THINK WE KNOW WHERE WE BOTH STAND, AND IT'S JUST A BRIDGE THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GAP YET. THE BOTTOM LINE IS: THE GOVERNOR WANTS SIGNIFICANT MORE MONEY TO SPEND. WE DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY TO SPEND UNLESS WE DIP INTO SOME FUNDS SUCH AS THE ECONOMIC EMERGENCY FUND, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO DIP INTO THE ECONOMIC EMERGENCY FUND, SO WE'RE STILL APART. I THINK THIS LEGISLATURE WILL ADJOURN IN TWO OR THREE DAYS, I THINK ON TUESDAY, AND WE'RE GOING TO GO HOME. IF SOMETHING BREAKS BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, MAYBE WE'LL CUT AN AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNOR, BUT RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE ONE, WHICH WOULD MEAN A SPECIAL SESSION ON THE BUDGET.

Glover: GIVE ME A PREDICTION. WILL YOU REACH ONE?

Siegrist: I DON'T THINK WE'LL REACH A FULL AGREEMENT. WE MAY BE ABLE --"MAY" BE ABLE TO BRIDGE THE GAP SUBSTANTIALLY BUT NOT ALL THE WAY, AND THEN IT MAY BE IN THE GOVERNOR'S COURT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE THINKS IT'S ENOUGH WHEN WE SEND HIM NEW BILLS.

Glover: LET ME BE KIND. ALL WINTER LONG AT THE LEGISLATURE, AT THE STATEHOUSE, THE MOOD HAS BEEN, SHALL WE SAY, HOSTILE. THE RHETORIC HAS BEEN HOT. THE EXCHANGES HAVE BEEN TEMPERED BY BRUTAL LANGUAGE ON BOTH SIDES. HOW DO YOU CUT A DEAL IN THAT ENVIRONMENT?

Siegrist: WELL, THE DEAL THAT WE WOULD CUT, IF WE WERE TO CUT A DEAL, WOULD BE BETWEEN THE MAJORITY PARTY IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE AND THE GOVERNOR. AND OUR CONVERSATIONS HAVE BEEN RELATIVELY CORDIAL. WELL, NOT RELATIVELY, THEY'VE BEEN VERY UP-FRONT. WE KNOW WHERE HE'S AT AND WE JUST HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT. SO THAT REALLY ISN'T INHIBITING US. THE NEGATIVE CRITICISM OF EACH OTHER HASN'T INHIBITED US. WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO PUT THAT BEHIND US, BUT IT'S JUST THAT FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE OF THE ECONOMIC BURDEN ARE IN FRONT OF US.

Glover: SO WE NEED AN ELECTION.

Siegrist: WELL, THE ELECTION, UNFORTUNATELY, WILL BE UPON US PRETTY SOON. BUT RIGHT NOW I'M JUST TRYING TO GET THE BUDGET SOLVED AND GO HOME.

Yepsen: WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE, WILL REPUBLICANS DIP INTO THE EMERGENCY FUND?

Siegrist: THAT IS NOT AN OPTION. WE WILL NOT DIP INTO THE EMERGENCY FUND.

Yepsen: MR. SPEAKER, DID YOU MAKE A MISTAKE IN PROMISING TEACHERS A $40-MILLION PAY RAISE BEFORE YOU HAD YOUR FIGURES ON THE BUDGET?

Siegrist: WELL, YOU COULD CONSTRUE IT AS A MISTAKE. IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. WE ARE STILL WORKING FEVERISHLY TO SEE IF WE CAN STILL MAKE THAT ACCOMPLISHED WITHIN THE BUDGET CONFINES. HOWEVER, I WOULD SAY THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, THE TEACHERS IN PARTICULAR, THAT WHEN WE CAME INTO SESSION -- AND THE REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE HAD JUST MET IN DECEMBER. I MEAN, IT WAS JUST -- THE DOWNTURN IN THE ECONOMY WAS SUDDEN AND ABRUPT. WHEN WE MADE THAT PROMISE IN MID-JANUARY, WE ANTICIPATED REVENUES DROPPING BUT NOT TO THE LEVEL THAT THEY DID. IN RETROSPECT, I WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT A LOCK BOX, NO. BUT WE'RE STILL GOING TO TRY TO MAKE THAT WORK.

Yepsen: MANY IN THE EDUCATION LOBBY ARE NOW SAYING YOU SHOULD JUST BACK OFF THIS WHOLE THING. IF YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH $40 MILLION, THERE'S NO POINT IN DOING THE WHOLE THING. THERE'S A LOT OF CONTROVERSY AND LET'S JUST SET IT ASIDE. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT IDEA?

Siegrist: I DON'T AGREE WITH IT BECAUSE THERE'S TWO PARTS TO THIS DEBATE, AND ONE PART IS THE TEACHER COMPENSATION POLICY PIECE WHICH DOES CHANGE THE WAY WE PAY TEACHERS IN THE STATE. IT DOES TAKE IT AWAY FROM A SENIORITY-BASED SYSTEM TO A SYSTEM THAT'S BASED MORE ON PERFORMANCE AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT, THINGS LIKE THAT. I THINK THAT IS WORTHY OF DOING, EVEN IF YOU CAN'T FULLY FUND IT. AND UNDERSTAND, THAT $40 MILLION IS AN ARBITRARY FIGURE. IT'S A FIGURE WE PULLED OUT OF THE AIR, AND THEN WE TRIED TO BUILD THIS POLICY PIECE AROUND IT. SO EVEN IF WE FUNDED IT AT SOMETHING LESS THAN THAT, THAT WOULD JUST MEAN IN THE OUTYEARS, YOU'D HAVE TO PICK UP MORE FUNDING TO MAKE IT WORK.

Yepsen: WHAT ABOUT THE LARGER PICTURE OF THIS TEACHER PAY QUESTION? $40 MILLION IS NOT GOING TO SOLVE ANYBODY'S PROBLEM. HOW MUCH SHOULD WE RAISE TEACHER PAY? HOW MUCH WILL IT COST? HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE? DOES THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR HAVE ANY IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING HERE FOR HOW LONG AND HOW MUCH?

Siegrist: I THINK IT'S A BROAD IDEA THAT WOULD TAKE AT LEAST FOUR YEARS AND A TOTAL OF $250 MILLION THEREABOUTS. AND SOME OF THAT WILL HAVE TO BE REINVESTED FROM WITHIN THE EDUCATIONAL FUNDING BUDGET. SO, THOSE ARE TENTATIVE FIGURES BECAUSE, UNTIL YOU GET INTO IT AND SEE HOW MANY TEACHERS ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO MOVE UP DIFFERENT LADDERS, IT'S HARD TO PEG IT. BUT IT WOULD TAKE THAT LONG AND REQUIRE SOME REINVESTMENT.

Glover: FORGIVE ME FOR ASKING A NAIVE QUESTION, BUT A REPUBLICAN RUN LEGISLATURE SET OFF DOWN A PATH TO GIVE A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY TO A DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUENCY, TEACHERS. WHAT AM I MISSING?

Siegrist: THE FACT THAT WE BELIEVE IN EDUCATION, ALTHOUGH THEY WOULD SCREAM AND YELL THAT WE DON'T, BECAUSE WE THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. BUT YOU ARE RIGHT, THERE ARE A LOT OF UNION ACTIVISTS, ISEA ACTIVISTS, THAT ARE STRONG, STAUNCH DEMOCRATS THAT WILL NEVER VOTE FOR US NO MATTER WHAT, BUT WE STILL THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. AND MY MEMBERS WANT TO DO IT, BUT WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT WORK FINANCIALLY.

Yepsen: EXCUSE ME. LET ME FOLLOW UP ON THAT POINT. YOU'RE A TEACHER. TEACHERS IN THE LAST CAMPAIGN ENDORSED 80 DEMOCRATS AND 8 REPUBLICANS. IS THE IOWA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION POLITICIZING EDUCATION WITH THE WAY IT RUNS ITS ELECTION PROCESS?

Siegrist: WELL, THEY WANT TO DO GOOD THINGS FOR IOWA'S KIDS, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE SOME UNION BACKGROUND. OBVIOUSLY AS A UNION, I THINK THAT THEY DO HURT OUR EFFORTS SOMETIMES IN ORDER TO GET SOME THINGS DONE, BECAUSE THEY DO LEAN ALMOST TOTALLY DEMOCRATIC. BUT WE CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM BECAUSE WE STILL THINK EDUCATION IS THE PROPER PLACE FOR US TO INVEST OUR MONEY.

Borg: I'LL FOLLOW UP WITH ANOTHER POLITICAL QUESTION. REDISTRICTING. IT'S BEEN ASSUMED THAT THE REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED LEGISLATURE REJECTED THE FIRST PLAN, NOT SO MUCH BECAUSE OF POPULATION VARIANCE AMONG THE DISTRICTS BUT BECAUSE OF POLITICAL MOTIVATION. IT JUST DIDN'T FAVOR REPUBLICANS THE WAY THAT YOU WANTED IT TO. SO POLITICALLY IN THE SECOND PLAN, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE, OR WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE IN THE FINAL PLAN IF THE COURTS DON'T WRITE IF FOR YOU?

Siegrist: WELL, I DON'T WANT THE COURTS TO WRITE IT. I DON'T WANT TO GO TO A THIRD PLAN. I'M HOPEFUL WE WON'T HAVE TO. THE FIRST PLAN, WHETHER PEOPLE BELIEVE IT OR NOT, HAD A LOT TO DO WITH POPULATION VARIANCE, WHICH IS SLIGHT. BUT IN '91 IT WAS EVEN SLIGHTER, AND WE HOPE THE SECOND PLAN IS GOING TO RATCHET-DOWN THAT POPULATION VARIANCE TO THE POINT THAT I'M HOPEFUL WE CAN TAKE IT. I HAVE TO SAY TWO THINGS RIGHT HERE IN REDISTRICTING: NUMBER ONE, WE ALL KNOW THAT I'M CONSIDERING LEAVING THE LEGISLATURE. I COULDN'T GET A BETTER CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT THAN THE ONE THAT WAS PUT IN THAT PLAN, BUT WE REJECTED THAT PLAN. AND SECONDLY, I AM FIRMLY CONVINCED UNDER THAT PLAN, WE WOULD HAVE STAYED IN CONTROL OF THE HOUSE AND SO WERE THE PEOPLE THAT LOOKED AT IT. BUT WE DID THINK THAT THERE WERE SOME THINGS THERE THAT MIGHT BE BETTER. AND SO WE DECIDED THAT WE WOULD TRY TO GET A BETTER PLAN, AND I AM HOPEFUL WE'LL PASS IT. IT WILL STILL BE A NONPARTISAN, NONPOLITICAL, NONAMENDABLE PLAN, AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING IT.

Glover: REPUBLICANS SAID THEY REJECTED THIS PLAN BECAUSE POPULATION VARIATION WAS TOO LARGE. IF POPULATION VARIANCE IS SMALLER IN PLAN TWO, WILL YOU SAY RIGHT NOW YOU'LL PASS IT?

Siegrist: I WON'T SAY THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT I SUSPECT IT WOULD HAVE A VERY SHOT.

Glover: IN OTHER WORDS, IF IT'S NOT REPUBLICAN ENOUGH, YOU'LL FIND ANOTHER EXCUSE TO BEAT IT.

Siegrist: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EXCUSE WOULD BE.

Glover: WELL, YOU COULD USE COMPACTNESS. YOU COULD USE --

Siegrist: WELL, AND IT COULD BE ODDLY SHAPED DISTRICTS. THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.

Glover: SO IF IT'S NOT REPUBLICAN ENOUGH, YOU'LL FIND ANOTHER EXCUSE TO BEAT IT.

Siegrist: I THINK THIS FIRST ONE WAS PROBABLY REPUBLICAN ENOUGH TO MAINTAIN CONTROL.

Glover: THEN WHY DIDN'T YOU PASS IT?

Siegrist: POPULATION VARIANCE WAS TOO HIGH.

Yepsen: WHAT ABOUT THE PROBLEM BY CREATING A WESTERN IOWA CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT? WE HEARD THAT FOR YEARS AROUND THERE, YOU WANTED ONE, A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE WANTED ONE. YOU GOT ONE. AND THEN THE REPUBLICANS FIGURED OUT, GEE, THAT PACKS AN AWFUL LOT OF REPUBLICANS INTO ONE DISTRICT. IT HAD ABOUT A 50,000 REPUBLICAN MAJORITY IN THAT WESTERN IOWA DISTRICT. WAS THAT A PROBLEM?

Siegrist: YOU KNOW, IT WAS A PROBLEM FOR SOME PEOPLE. IT WASN'T PARTICULARLY FOR ME, BUT WHEN SOME PEOPLE STARTED TO LOOK AT THOSE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS, THEY WERE CONCERNED. I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE ALL THE REPUBLICANS IN ONE AREA, BUT THERE IS SOME CONCERN THAT IT KIND OF ISOLATED WESTERN IOWA. THAT WASN'T A CONCERN I HAD PARTICULARLY, TO BE HONEST, BECAUSE I'M FROM COUNCIL BLUFFS AND I WOULD HAVE BEEN IN ONE OF THE MAJOR POPULATION CENTERS IN THAT DISTRICT. I SUSPECT, I DON'T KNOW THIS, BUT LOOKING AT -- EVERYBODY'S LOOKED AT DIFFERENT RUNS. I SUSPECT A SECOND MAP WILL STILL HAVE A WESTERN IOWA DISTRICT OF SOME TYPE.

Yepsen: WHEN DO YOU FIGURE YOU HAVE TO COME BACK? WHEN DO YOU EXPECT TO GET PLAN TWO FROM THE SERVICE BUREAU? WHEN WOULD YOU THEN TAKE IT UP?

Siegrist: I BELIEVE AS OF FRIDAY, MAY 4, THE SERVICE BUREAU GOT THE RESOLUTION SAYING THAT IT'S BEEN REJECTED FOR THESE REASONS. THEY HAVE 21 DAYS. THEY'VE INDICATED THEY'LL TAKE 21 DAYS, WHICH WOULD GET US TO MAY 25, AND THEN WE HAVE TO WAIT SEVEN DAYS. SO I WOULD SUSPECT THAT THE FIRST WEEK OF JUNE FOR REDISTRICTING, WE WOULD HAVE A ONE-DAY SESSION ON THAT. NOW, IF THE BUDGET FALLS APART AND THE GOVERNOR VETOES LARGE PARTS OF THAT, WE'LL TRY TO DO THOSE TWO TOGETHER AND THAT WOULD BE LATER, PROBABLY.

Glover: SO WE SHOULDN'T MAKE ANY VACATION PLANS.

Siegrist: FOR THE FIRST WEEK IN JUNE, WE MAY BE BUSY.

Yepsen: WELL, WON'T YOU BE BACK DOING A BUDGET IN MAY SOMETIME?

Siegrist: NOT NECESSARILY. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT RIGHT NOW. I'M HOPEFUL STILL THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO BRIDGE THE GAP SUFFICIENTLY THAT THE GOVERNOR WILL SIGN THE BUDGET.

Yepsen: SO ONE SPECIAL SESSION AS OPPOSED TO TWO.

Siegrist: I WOULD THINK SO, YES. I WOULD THINK SO. I CAN'T PREDICT IT BUT I WOULD THINK SO.

Glover: YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT REDISTRICTING, THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION OF YOUR FUTURE. THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION OF YOU LEAVING THE LEGISLATURE. THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION OF YOU RUNNING FOR CONGRESS, GETTING A JOB IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, AND I'VE HEARD DISCUSSION RECENTLY, YOU MAY RUN AGAIN. WHAT IS YOUR FUTURE?

Siegrist: SLEEP, I HOPE, ONCE WE GET OUT OF HERE. I DON'T KNOW. IT'S LIKE ANYBODY ELSE, IT'S A BAD TIME OF YEAR TO ASK ME ABOUT ANYTHING, BECAUSE I'D JUST RATHER GO HOME TO MY FAMILY AND BE WITH MY KIDS. YOU KNOW, I MAY RUN FOR THE LEGISLATURE AGAIN. I DON'T THINK I WILL BUT I HAVEN'T RULED THAT TOTALLY OUT. AND I'M HAVING A TOUGH TIME WHETHER OR NOT I'D WANT TO RUN FOR CONGRESS OR NOT. WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION BEFORE. I HAVE A YOUNG FAMILY. I'M NOT SURE. BUT I FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT AFTER ANOTHER YEAR, 18 YEARS IN THE LEGISLATURE, 10 AT ONE OF THE LEADERS, I KNOW WE'VE DONE SOME GOOD THINGS.

Glover: DID YOU MAKE A MISTAKE BEGINNING THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT YOUR FUTURE SO FAR OUT FROM THE ELECTION? AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LEADERSHIP FIGHT GOING ON. THERE'S SOME POLITICAL THINGS GOING ON IN COUNCIL BLUFFS, JOSTLING AROUND ABOUT YOUR SEAT. YOU BECAME A LAME DUCK THE FIRST TIME YOU SAID, "I MAY NOT RUN AGAIN."

Siegrist: SURE.

Glover: DID YOU MAKE A MISTAKE BY THROWING THAT --

Siegrist: NO, I DON'T THINK SO. I'VE ALWAYS TRIED TO BE HONEST WHEN PEOPLE ASK ME QUESTIONS, AND I WANTED TO BE HONEST ABOUT THAT. I WILL SAY THAT, WHILE THERE IS SOME LEADERSHIP, JOCKEYING FOR POSITION WITHIN MY CAUCUS, IT REALLY HAS NOT AFFECTED US THIS YEAR. NEXT YEAR IT MIGHT BUT THIS YEAR IT'S BEEN PRETTY MUCH A MOOT POINT. I'M STILL THE SPEAKER. I STILL CAN --

Glover: I HEARD NEXT YEAR.

Siegrist: WELL, YEAH, MAYBE. I'M STILL THE SPEAKER, COME ON.

Yepsen: MR. SPEAKER, I WANT TO GET AT SOME OF THE DETAILS IN THE BUDGET HERE... HIGHER EDUCATION. WHEN THE GOVERNOR CAME OUT WITH HIS BUDGET, THE UNIVERSITIES COMPLAINED. WHEN YOU FOLKS CAME OUT WITH YOUR BUDGET, THEY HOWLED. WILL THE BUDGET THAT'S FINALLY APPROVED FOR THE STATE UNIVERSITIES RESULT IN A TUITION INCREASE?

Siegrist: I THINK, YEAH, IT WILL. AND EVERY YEAR IT DOES, EVEN WHEN WE GIVE THEM KIND OF WHAT THEY WANT. IT'S JUST A NATURAL FACT OF LIFE. WE HAVE, AS I THINK MOST PEOPLE KNOW, SOME OF THE MOST REASONABLE TUITIONS IN THE NATION. THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE WANT THEM TO GO UP. BUT EVEN IN GOOD YEARS, WHEN WE WERE GIVING THEM SUBSTANTIALLY MORE MONEY THAN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, WHICH THIS YEAR WILL NOT BE ONE OF THOSE, TUITIONS WOULD GO UP. AND THEY WILL PROBABLY GO UP, I DON'T KNOW, 7 TO 10 PERCENT.

Yepsen: WE SPEND ABOUT SEVENTH HIGHEST PER CAPITA ON HIGHER EDUCATION OF ANY STATE IN THE COUNTRY. DO WE SPEND TOO MUCH ON HIGHER EDUCATION?

Siegrist: YOU KNOW, I WOULD NEVER CHARACTERIZE IT THAT WAY THAT WE SPEND TOO MUCH, BUT I'M NOT SURE WE ALWAYS GET THE BEST BANG FOR THE BUCK, BUT THAT'S TRUE OF MOST PROGRAMS. I THINK WE MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL COMMITMENT. WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO THAT, BUT IN YEARS LIKE THIS, IT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE LESS THAN NORMAL.

Glover: LET'S TURN YOUR TUITION PREDICTION AROUND ON ITS EAR. YOU SAY 7- TO 10-PERCENT INCREASE, GUESS, IN TUITION. ARE YOU WORRIED AT ALL ABOUT ACCESSIBILITY? ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT TUITIONS GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE TYPICAL EVERYDAY IOWANS CAN'T AFFORD HIGHER EDUCATION?

Siegrist: YOU KNOW, SURE WE WORRY ABOUT THAT BUT, AGAIN, WITH TUITIONS WHERE THEY'RE AT AND RISING ACROSS THE NATION, I STILL THINK WE'RE GOING TO REMAIN AMONGST THE MOST ACCESSIBLE IN THE STATES.

Glover: SO YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE RAISE?

Siegrist: I'M NOT GOING TO SAY I'M COMFORTABLE. I'D LIKE TO KEEP TUITIONS FROZEN, BUT I THINK ACCESSIBILITY IS STILL THERE VIA OUR ENTIRE EDUCATION SYSTEM, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND REGENTS. I THINK PEOPLE CAN GET THERE IF THEY NEED TO.

Glover: PERHAPS THE MOST DYNAMIC ISSUE OF THE LAST YEAR WAS THE BEATING DEATH OF A TWO-YEAR-OLD CHILD IN NORTHERN IOWA, SHELBY DUIS. EVERYBODY -- REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS, GOVERNOR, LEGISLATORS -- SAID WE'RE GOING TO COME IN, WE'RE GOING TO BOLSTER THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM AND MAKE IT BETTER IN THIS STATE. THERE'S NO SIGN THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THIS YEAR. WHAT HAPPENED?

Siegrist: WELL, I THINK THERE IS SOME SIGNS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES BUDGET, WE DID ADD NEW WORKERS, NEW CASE WORKERS. WE PULLED DOWN SOME ADDITIONAL FEDERAL FUNDING IN THAT. WE DID SOME THINGS SUCH AS "THE BOYFRIEND BILL," WHICH PUTS BOYFRIENDS OR GIRLFRIENDS THAT ARE LIVING IN THE HOUSE HAVING THE SAME LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES IF THEY ARE ABUSING KIDS. WE TOUGHENED SOME OF THOSE THINGS UP. WE DID MORE WORK ON A CENTRAL INTAKE SYSTEM, WHICH IS PART OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE SEEN WITH INTAKE OF CHILD ABUSE CALLS. SO I THINK WE MADE PROGRESS. DID WE MAKE AS MUCH PROGRESS AS EVERYBODY WANTS? PROBABLY NOT BUT THIS ISN'T ALL ABOUT WORKERS. IT IS ABOUT A BETTER SYSTEM, AND I THINK WE MADE GOOD CHANGES IN THAT AREA. WE DID ADD SOME WORKERS, NOT AS MANY AS THE GOVERNOR RECOMMENDED OR THE DIRECTOR RECOMMENDED, BUT A LOT OF THOSE WERE MIDSTAFF OR MIDLEVEL POSITIONS. SO WE PUT CASE WORKERS OUT IN THE FIELD. I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBER NOW, BUT I THINK IT WAS ABOUT HALF OF WHAT THE GOVERNOR REQUESTED, AND THEN WE MADE SOME REORGANIZATIONS AND SOME ELIMINATIONS THAT WE THINK WILL PUT MORE PEOPLE ON THE FRONT LINES.

Glover: ISN'T THE STATE REALLY IN A NO-WIN SITUATION IN THIS WHOLE CHILD PROTECTION SITUATION? IF THE STATE ACTS QUICKLY TO JERK A KID OUT OF A HOME, THE BOMB THROWERS IN YOUR PARTY ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT GOVERNMENT RUNNING FAMILIES. IF THE STATE DOESN'T ACT AND A SHELBY DUIS GETS KILLED, THE STATE IS GOING TO BE ACCUSED OF BEING INCOMPETENT, THEY CAN'T DO WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO. AREN'T THEY IN A NO-WIN SITUATION?

Siegrist: WELL, IT IS A VERY FINE LINE BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS. AFTER THE DUIS CASE, I THINK THE POLICY WAS "WHEN IN DOUBT TAKE THE CHILD OUT", AND YOU HAVE TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL WITH THAT. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE REACTED, WE THINK, WITH A BETTER ORGANIZATION OF HOW CHILD ABUSE CALLS COME IN AND THE INTAKE AND HOW THEY GET OUT TO THE CLUSTER OFFICES, I BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE CALLED LOCALLY, AND HOW WE FOLLOW UP WITH THAT. I THINK IMPROVEMENTS WERE MADE THERE, BUT IT'S A TOUGH JOB. THOSE SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE A VERY, VERY TOUGH JOB. WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE THEM MORE HELP, AND THEY NEED EVEN MORE. AND IN THIS BUDGET YEAR, I THINK WE DID A LOT. BUT WE'LL NEED TO DO MORE IN THE OUTYEARS.

Yepsen: ANOTHER BUDGET ISSUE IS A NEW LAB FOR THE STATE MEDICAL EXAMINER. LAST WEEK SHE THREATENED TO QUIT IF YOU DIDN'T BUILD ONE FOR HER. OTHER LOCAL MEDICAL EXAMINERS THREATENED TO QUIT TOO. WILL THE LEGISLATURE CAVE-IN TO THREATS?

Siegrist: NO, WE WILL NOT, BUT I THINK WHEN YOU SEE THE FINAL VERSION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE BILL, THERE WILL BE MONEY IN THERE FOR THE BEGINNING PROCESS OF A NEW LAB. IT WON'T BE AT THE LEVEL THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY WANTS, I THINK SOME $61 MILLION, WHICH I FIND TO BE A LITTLE BIT HIGH. BUT I BELIEVE WHEN WE GO HOME, WE'LL PROBABLY SEE AN INFRASTRUCTURE BILL WITH THE FIRST PORTION OF THAT, I'M GOING TO SAY MAYBE $5 TO $8 MILLION TO START THE PLANNING AND BUILDING OF A NEW LAB.

Glover: AND WHAT'S ALL THIS MESSING AROUND HERE, TURNING IT DOWN AT FIRST? IS THAT JUST POSTURING?

Siegrist: NO, IT'S THE FIRST SHOT IN TERMS OF MOVING THESE BUDGETS THROUGH, AND NOW THAT BUDGET IS IN THE SENATE. WE'VE HAD ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS. WE WERE LOOKING AT SOME OTHER OPTIONS. AND WHAT I'M BEING TOLD BY MY MEMBERS THAT ARE RUNNING THOSE THINGS IS THAT WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE, WE'LL HAVE MONEY IN THERE TO START THAT PROCESS.

Glover: ANOTHER CRIMINAL JUSTICE ISSUE THAT IS BUBBLING IN THIS LEGISLATURE: YOUR STATE CORRECTIONS OFFICIALS SAY THAT IF THE BUDGET AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED IS PASSED, THE FEDERAL COURTS, WITHIN A YEAR, WILL INTERVENE TO START RUNNING THE STATE'S PRISON SYSTEM AGAIN BECAUSE OF OVERCROWDING. ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT THAT?

Siegrist: YOU'RE ALWAYS WORRIED ABOUT THAT. WE HAVE MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEMS APPROPRIATION. WE WERE VERY CAREFUL ON THE CORRECTIONS SIDE. IF THERE WAS ANY DINGS OR REDUCTIONS BEING TAKEN IN THAT BUDGET, IT WAS MORE AT THE COMMUNITY-BASED LEVEL WHICH, WHILE YOU DON'T WANT TO DO IT, YOU HAVE TO FACE THE ECONOMIC REALITIES. SO WE HAVE LOOKED AT THAT. AND BEFORE WE LEAVE ON TUESDAY, THERE IS A SENTENCING REFORM BILL THAT I BELIEVE IS NOW IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WHICH WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT TO MOVE, WHICH WILL HELP A LITTLE BIT IN THAT AREA. SO WE ARE RESPONDING TO THAT, BUT IT'S STILL A DIFFICULT SITUATION.

Yepsen: WHEN THIS LEGISLATURE LEAVES ON TUESDAY, WILL STATE SPENDING INCREASE OR DECREASE FROM THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR?

Siegrist: IT WILL -- UNDER OUR TARGETS RIGHT NOW, WE'RE ABOUT, I BELIEVE, 3/10 OF A PERCENT UNDER LAST YEAR. WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE, IF WE FIND SOME MORE MONEY, IF IT INCREASES, IT WOULD BE LIKE 2/10. VIRTUALLY A STATUS QUO BUDGET FROM LAST YEAR.

Yepsen: SO NOT MUCH OF A CUT, THEN, EITHER?

Siegrist: NO, NO, NOT AT ALL. AND WITH THE BUILT-INS, WITH THE THINGS YOU HAVE TO DO IN MEDICAID AND SCHOOLS AND SO ON, IT'S HARD TO HAVE AN ACTUAL CUT.

Yepsen: ARE STATE AGENCIES PLAYING CHICKEN LITTLE GAMES HERE, SAYING WE HAVE TO LET PRISONERS OUT AND KIDS ARE GOING TO GET BEATEN UP AND TEACHERS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE LAID OFF? WE HEAR THAT ALL THE TIME, AND YET IT DOESN'T SEEM TO HAPPEN. ARE YOU WORRIED THAT THEY'RE PLAYING CHICKEN LITTLE WITH YOU?

Siegrist: CLEARLY THEY PLAYED CHICKEN LITTLE EARLY ON. WE SAW THIS PROBLEM COMING EARLIER. WE PASSED THE DEAPPROPRIATIONS BILL TO THE GOVERNOR WHICH, BY THE WAY, WAS $40 MILLION, WHICH IF HE WOULD HAVE SIGNED IT AND TAKEN THAT HIT LAST YEAR, THAT WOULD HAVE FREED UP $40 MILLION FOR, OH, TEACHER COMPENSATION, FOR EXAMPLE. YOU KNOW, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT HE SAID, "NO, NO, IT'S NOT THAT BAD," AND HE VETOED THAT. I THINK THAT WAS AN UNFORTUNATE VETO. BUT WHEN WE PUT THAT OUT FOR PUBLICATION, ALL THE TROOPERS ARE GOING TO BE LAID OFF AND OLD PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE THROWN IN THE STREET. SO THEY ARE PLAYING CHICKEN LITTLE TO AN EXTENT. WHAT I WANT TO SAY, THOUGH, DAVE, IS WE ARE MAKING REAL CUTS IN THIS BUDGET. THERE WILL BE PEOPLE LAID OFF. THAT'S NOT EASY FOR ME OR ANYBODY ELSE. SO WE ARE REACTING. IT IS NOT EASY BUT THEY DO PLAY CHICKEN LITTLE TO A DEGREE, BUT THERE ARE GOING TO BE PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT GOING TO RETURN TO JOBS.

Yepsen: AND THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT IS WILL YOU SOLVE THE PROBLEM THIS YEAR? WHEN YOU AND THE GOVERNOR ARE DONE NEGOTIATING, WILL PEOPLE WHO GET STATE MONEY BE ASSURED THAT THE WORST IS OVER AND THAT NEXT YEAR WE WON'T BE IN THE SAME SITUATION? A LOT OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE FEELING REALLY JERKED AROUND.

Siegrist: WELL, RIGHT NOW WITH BUILT-INS FOR NEXT YEAR, WITH US AND THE GOVERNOR THIS FAR APART OR WHATEVER IT IS, WE COME IN ALMOST IN DEBT NEXT YEAR. WE HAVE TOO MANY BUILT-INS. WE DO NOT -- WE HAVE A BAD YEAR NEXT YEAR -- POTENTIALLY NOT AS BAD AS THIS YEAR, BUT A BAD YEAR.

Glover: WELL, LET ME MAKE THE CASE THAT IT JUST MAY BE WORSE NEXT YEAR. YOU CAME IN THIS YEAR AND, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE RHETORIC, THE MOOD HAS BEEN SHARP. IT'S BEEN PARTISAN. YOU'VE BEEN AT EACH OTHER'S THROATS SINCE JANUARY, AND IT'S NOT AN ELECTION YEAR. YOU'RE GOING TO COME BACK NEXT YEAR WITH (A) A BUDGET PROBLEM AND (B) AN ELECTION YEAR. WHY IS IT GOING TO BE WORSE JUST BY DEFINITION?

Siegrist: I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS. [LAUGHTER]

Glover: WELL, HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THAT?

Siegrist: YOU KNOW, IT DOES REALLY TEST OUR ABILITIES. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM THIS YEAR IS WE CAME IN WITH EXPECTATIONS AND THEN WE HAD TO WAIT A COUPLE MONTHS TO FIND OUT WHAT THE REVENUES REALLY WERE GOING TO BE. WE'VE REALLY ONLY HAD THE GOVERNOR'S REVISED BUDGETS FOR ABOUT SIX AND A HALF WEEKS, AND THAT'S WHY THIS SHUTDOWN HAS BEEN SO DIFFICULT. I MEAN, HOPEFULLY THE REVENUES WILL BE AT LEAST STABLE, AND THEN WE'LL WORK THOSE PROBLEMS OUT. BUT THE GOVERNOR IS INSISTING ON MORE MONEY FOR VARIOUS THINGS: UNION SALARIES, HE NEGOTIATED THE LARGEST SALARY SETTLEMENT IN THE HISTORY OF IOWA, $91 MILLION. WHEN YOU FUND THAT AT ANYWHERE NEAR THAT LEVEL, THAT'S WHY OTHER AREAS OF GOVERNMENT, THERE ISN'T ANY MONEY FOR THEM, BECAUSE OF THAT SALARY SETTLEMENT. AND WE HAVE TO DO THAT AT, LIKE, $70 MILLION NEXT YEAR. YOU BUILD THOSE THINGS UP, WHEN WE COME IN, THERE HAVE TO BE CUTS OR REORGANIZATIONS NEXT YEAR.

Glover: WAS THAT PAYBACK FOR THE LAST ELECTION?

Siegrist: YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT BUT --

Glover: A LOT OF YOUR MEMBERS DO.

Siegrist: WELL, YEAH, SOME OF MY MEMBERS DO. I WOULD SAY IT WAS A VERY GENEROUS SETTLEMENT. THE 3-PERCENT RAISE IS A REASONABLE RAISE, BUT IT'S ALL THE OTHER THINGS IN THERE AS IT RELATES TO HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

Yepsen: ONE REASON, MR. SPEAKER, THAT REVENUES WENT SOUR IS ENERGY PRICES. WE'RE NOW LOOKING AT A SITUATION WHERE GASOLINE PRICES ARE RISING AND ENERGY COSTS ARE PROJECTED TO BE HIGH AGAIN THIS SUMMER AND WINTER. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT THE IOWA LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR CAN DO ABOUT, FIRST OF ALL, HIGH GASOLINE PRICES?

Siegrist: I'M NOT SURE THERE IS ON HIGH GASOLINE PRICES, ALTHOUGH WE'RE HOPEFUL HE WILL SIGN OUR ETHANOL INITIATIVE, WHICH WE ARE SENDING HIM, WHICH WILL PROVIDE FOR BETTER MARKETABILITY OF ETHANOL BY REIMBURSING RETAILERS FOR VARIOUS THINGS. THAT WILL HELP A LITTLE BIT. HIGH GAS PRICES, NO. NOW, ON THE ENERGY SIDE, WHEN WE LEFT LAST WEEK -- AND WE HOPE IN THESE NEXT TWO DAYS, WE WILL GET THE ELECTRICAL SITING BILL OUT OF THE SENATE, WHICH WILL TALK ABOUT POWER GENERATION IN THE STATE. WE HAVEN'T GOT A FIRM MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR HE'LL SIGN THAT, BUT WE'RE HOPING THE SENATE WILL PASS IT OVER TO US MONDAY OR TUESDAY, AND WE'LL PASS THAT DOWN TO GOVERNOR VILSACK BECAUSE WE DO NEED TO LOOK AT THAT AS IT RELATES TO ELECTRICAL GENERATION CAPACITY IN THE STATE. IT IS NOT DEREGULATION. THERE ARE GROUPS OUT THERE THAT ARE LITERALLY NOT TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT IT. WE'RE HOPEFUL IF THE SENATE CAN GET IT TO US IN THE HOUSE, WE'LL PASS IT.

Glover: DO YOU THINK THAT WILL HAPPEN?

Siegrist: IT'S VERY POSSIBLE, YES. THEY GOT IT OUT OF COMMITTEE THERE. THEY THINK THEY HAVE THE VOTES TO PASS IT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE GOVERNOR WILL DO WITH IT. BUT IF I'M DOWN THERE AND THINKING ABOUT AN ELECTION YEAR, THE LAST THING I WANT TO BE KNOWN AS IS TOM "GRAY DAVIS" VILSACK. I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT HE HAS INTEREST IN, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF HE'LL SIGN IT.

Glover: MR. SPEAKER, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS EARLIER. WE WERE LISTENING TO A RADIO PROGRAM THE OTHER DAY, AND IT WAS TALKING ABOUT THE FLOODS OVER IN DAVENPORT. AND ONE OF THE RADIO HOSTS SAID, "EVERY TIME THERE'S A FLOOD, I SEE THE SAME STADIUM UNDER WATER. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING ABOUT?" IS IT TIME FOR THE STATE TO STEP IN AND TELL THE PEOPLE IN DAVENPORT, "YOU JUST NEED TO BUILD A FLOOD WALL"?

Siegrist: NO, I DON'T THINK IT'S TIME FOR THE STATE TO STEP IN.

Glover: IT'S OKAY TO BE THE LAUGHING STOCK?

Siegrist: WELL, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE NOW AT LEAST SERIOUSLY TALKING ABOUT SOME TYPE OF PORTABLE WALL OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S FEASIBLE. I THINK IT'S JOHN ODONNELL STADIUM IS A BEAUTIFUL STADIUM DOWN BY THE RIVER THERE.

Glover: WHEN IT'S NOT UNDER WATER.

Siegrist: WHEN IT'S NOT UNDER WATER. AND IT IS A BEAUTIFUL AREA DOWN THERE, AND THEY'RE DOING A LOT. BETTENDORF DOESN'T GET FLOODED BECAUSE THEY HAVE A FLOOD WALL. THAT'S A DECISION THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO MAKE, BUT IT IS -- IT'S NOT A GOOD FEELING TO HEAR PEOPLE MAKE FUN OF YOU ON NATIONAL RADIO.

Glover: BUT MR. SPEAKER, YOU'RE SPENDING DAVID'S MONEY IN DAVENPORT TO REPAIR DAMAGE BECAUSE THEY WON'T BUILD A FLOOD WALL.

Siegrist: DAVID HAS PLENTY OF MONEY. [LAUGHTER]

Yepsen: SPEAKING OF MONEY, "VISION IOWA." THERE'S A PROGRAM THE STATE HAS TO AWARD GRANTS TO VARIOUS COMMUNITIES FOR RECREATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, YET IT DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY FOR ALL THE IDEAS THAT ARE FLOATING AROUND. WILL THE LEGISLATURE NEXT YEAR APPROPRIATE MORE MONEY TO THE VISION IOWA PROGRAMS SO THAT IT CAN SAY YES TO MORE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE ASKING FOR GRANTS?

Siegrist: WE WILL CONSIDER IT. OBVIOUSLY, THE GOVERNOR WANTED TO TAKE QUITE A BIT OF MONEY FROM OUR INFRASTRUCTURE FUND THIS YEAR AND PUT IT IN THE GENERAL FUND. THAT'S ONE OF THE SHIFTS WE WOULDN'T DO. WE DID TAKE THE INTEREST OUT FOR A ONE-YEAR PERIOD, WHICH IS A REASONABLE SHIFT, BECAUSE INTEREST MONEY USUALLY GOES INTO THE GENERAL FUND. WE INTEND TO LEAVE THE INTEREST MONEY THERE NEXT YEAR. IF THAT HAPPENS, WE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO FIND SOME ADDITIONAL MONEY. I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT. WHETHER OR NOT WE'LL HAVE THE RESOURCES NEXT YEAR AND COULD GET IT DONE REMAINS TO BE SEEN. BUT I THINK IT'S A GOOD PROGRAM, AND I THINK WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO BUILD ON IT.

Yepsen: ANY IDEA HOW MUCH? I MEAN, THEY'VE GOT ABOUT $180 MILLION TO HAND AROUND NOW. ANY IDEA HOW MUCH THE LEGISLATURE WILL COMMIT?

Siegrist: NO, THAT $180 MILLION COSTS ABOUT $15 MILLION A YEAR WITH SERVICE. SO I SUPPOSE IN THE BEST WORLD, IT MIGHT BE $5 MILLION MORE, MAYBE $10 MILLION, WHICH MIGHT LEVERAGE ANOTHER HUNDRED OR SO PERHAPS.

Glover: ONE OF THE CHARGES YOU HAVE FACED ALL YEAR LONG DURING THIS WHOLE BUDGET CRISIS IS THAT YOU'VE BROUGHT IT ON YOURSELF. YOU'VE CUT TAXES BY ABOUT $800 MILLION A YEAR. IN THE COURSE OF THIS WHOLE BUDGET FIGHT, JUST THIS PAST WEEK YOU WENT IN AND CUT ANOTHER FEW MILLION DOLLARS IN TAXES. HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO CHARGES THAT YOU'VE GIVEN UP THE STORE AND NOW YOU'RE OUT OF MONEY?

Siegrist: THAT THEY'RE RIDICULOUS CHARGES. IF WE WOULD NOT HAVE CUT TAXES OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS -- LET'S FACE IT, IF THERE'S MONEY ON THE TABLE, WE SPEND IT. AND SO WE WOULD HAVE SPENT THAT MONEY IN OUR BASE BUDGET, WHICH IS ABOUT $5 BILLION, WOULD BE $5.5 BILLION. THE PROBLEM WE FACE THIS YEAR WITH THE $300-MILLION SHORTFALL IS, TO ME, SIMPLY, AND TO PEOPLE THAT ARGUE, REVENUE STOPPED. WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY COMING IN. IF REVENUE IS COMING AT 2.5 OR 3 PERCENT OF THE PROJECTED 3.5 PERCENT, WE'D BE FUNDING THINGS. BUT IT'S MORE A SITUATION OF REVENUES JUST STOPPED COMING IN, AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN TRUE IF WE WOULDN'T HAVE CUT TAXES. WE'D STILL HAVE OUR BASE BUDGET. IT WOULD BE HIGHER. AND WHEN REVENUES STOP, YOU HAVE A SHORTFALL. SO I JUST DON'T BUY THAT. THE ISSUES WE ARE MOVING TO THE GOVERNOR NEXT WEEK -- THE ETHANOL INCENTIVES, SOME THINGS ON SUB CHAPTER S, AND THINGS THAT REALLY DO GROW THE ECONOMY -- THE GOVERNOR IS VERY INTERESTED IN THOSE. HE KNOWS THOSE WILL BE ISSUES THAT HELP STIMULATE THE ECONOMY. THEY'RE VERY TARGETED AND WE PUT A TRIGGER MECHANISM IN THERE THAT IS BASED ON THE FEDERAL TAX CUT BRINGING MORE MONEY BACK.

Yepsen: IS THE PROBLEM THAT YOUR TAX REVENUES AREN'T HIGH ENOUGH OR THAT YOU SPEND TOO MUCH?

Siegrist: CLEARLY, IT'S A COMBINATION OF BOTH THOSE. I DIDN'T MEAN TO INFER IT WAS ALL REVENUES. WE HAVE SPENT MONEY. WE HAVE PUT BUILT-IN INCREASES IN. AND WHEN YOU HAVE REVENUES STOP, THEN THOSE CATCH YOU INSTANTLY, AND I WOULD SAY WE HAVE SPENT TOO MUCH MONEY, YES.

Yepsen: LET ME FLIP MIKE'S QUESTION AROUND. HAVE YOU CUT TAXES ENOUGH? RECENT REPORTS SHOW THAT IOWA'S PROPERTY TAXES ARE STILL AMONG THE HIGHEST IN THE COUNTRY, PARTICULARLY FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. IF YOU'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP THE STATE'S ECONOMY, WHY AREN'T YOU DOING MORE TO LOWER PROPERTY TAXES?

Siegrist: IT WILL REQUIRE A FUNDAMENTAL OVERHAUL OF THE PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM. AND TO GET PROPERTY TAXES UNDER CONTROL, YOU HAVE TO GET THEM UNDER CONTROL FOR THINGS LIKE EDUCATION. AND TO BE VERY HONEST -- BECAUSE EDUCATION IS A BIG PART OF YOUR PROPERTY TAX AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, TO BE HONEST, WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THAT WORK YET. WE HAVE CUT PROPERTY TAXES BUT THEY CONTINUE TO GO UP. I THINK WE'VE SLOWED THE INCREASE, BUT THEY'RE STILL HIGH.

Glover: LET'S LOOK AHEAD TO WHAT YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT NEXT YEAR. IN THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS, WILL REPUBLICANS RETAIN CONTROL OF BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE?

Siegrist: I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE SO, BUT IT WILL BE DIFFICULT. IT'S DIFFICULT ANY YEAR YOU HAVE AN INCUMBENT GOVERNOR RUNNING AND, OBVIOUSLY, SENATOR HARKIN.

Glover: HOW MANY SPECIAL SESSIONS?

Siegrist: ONE.

Glover: ONLY ONE?

Siegrist: AND ON REDISTRICTING.

Borg: AND WHEN WILL THAT COME?

Siegrist: EARLY JUNE. HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL.

Borg: WE'RE OUT OF TIME HERE, AND YOU WISH YOU WERE AT THE LEGISLATURE.

Siegrist: EXACTLY.

Borg: ON OUR NEXT EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS," THE FOCUS REMAINS ON THE IOWA STATEHOUSE AND THE FIRST SESSION OF THE 79TH IOWA GENERAL ASSEMBLY. OUR TEAM OF IOWA STATEHOUSE REPORTERS WILL BE GATHERING HERE TO REVIEW THE IMPORTANT BUDGET AND REDISTRICTING ISSUES THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED AND ARE STILL ON THE TABLE AT THE LEGISLATURE. A REPORTERS ROUNDTABLE NEXT SUNDAY AT NOON AND 7:00. I HOPE YOU'LL WATCH. AND THAT'S IT FOR THIS WEEK'S EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS." I'M DEAN BORG. THANKS FOR JOINING US TODAY.