Iowa Public Television

ANNOUNCER: FUNDING FOR "IOWA PRESS" HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY "FRIENDS" OF IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION; BY THE IOWA BANKERS ASSOCIATION... FOR PERSONAL, BUSINESS, AND COMMERCIAL NEEDS, IOWA BANKS HELP IOWANS REACH THEIR FINANCIAL GOALS; BY THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF IOWA... THE PUBLIC'S PARTNER IN BUILDING IOWA'S HIGHWAY, BRIDGE, AND MUNICIPAL UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE; AND BY IOWA NETWORK SERVICES AND YOUR LOCAL INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE COMPANY... IOWA NETWORK SERVICES, YOUR CLOSEST CONNECTION.

STATEWIDE IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION IS CELEBRATING THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF "IOWA PRESS," NOW SERVING THE STATE AS IOWA'S LONGEST RUNNING NEWS INTERVIEW PROGRAM. THIS IS THE FRIDAY, MARCH 22 EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS." WITH THIS WEEK'S EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS," HERE IS DEAN BORG.

Borg: THE 90-DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION OF 2002 IS IN THE HOMESTRETCH. APRIL 13 IS THE ADJOURNMENT TARGET DATE. THAT'S THE LEGISLATORS' FINAL PAYDAY FOR THE SESSION. BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, 150 SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES MUST DEVELOP A NEW STATE BUDGET, THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 2003, EFFECTIVE THIS JULY 1. WELL, THIS BEING AN ELECTION YEAR AND A YEAR WITH THE LOWEST STATE REVENUES IN THIRTY YEARS PRODUCES TENSIONS AND CREATIVE COMPROMISE. OUR GUESTS TODAY PERSONIFY THE POLITICAL POLARIZATION ON SETTING SPENDING PRIORITIES AND WHERE TO GET THE MONEY THAT'S NEEDED TO OPERATE STATE GOVERNMENT. COUNCIL BLUFFS REPUBLICAN BRENT SIEGRIST IS SPEAKER OF THE IOWA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. IN THE SAME CHAMBER, DICK MYERS OF IOWA CITY LEADS THE MINORITY DEMOCRATS. GENTLEMEN, WELCOME BACK TO "IOWA PRESS."

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, DEAN.

Borg: AND ALSO HERE AT THE "IOWA PRESS" TABLE: "DES MOINES REGISTER" POLITICAL COLUMNIST DAVID YEPSEN AND "ASSOCIATED PRESS" STATEHOUSE REPORTER MIKE GLOVER.

Glover: MR. SPEAKER, SOMETIME IN THE NEXT THREE WEEKS, THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PRODUCE A BUDGET FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR. THE DOCUMENT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE. IT HAS TO BE SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR. GIVE US A REPORT ON WHERE THE NEGOTIATIONS ARE.

Siegrist: OH, THEY'RE NOT VERY FAR ALONG. IT'S GOING TO BE A DIFFICULT SITUATION FOR US TO COME TO A REAL AGREEMENT. THE GOVERNOR HAS TAKEN HIS BUDGET AND DECIDED WHAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SPEND MONEY ON AND THEN MADE THE REVENUES FIT THAT. WE'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM A LITTLE DIFFERENT SITUATION. WE'RE GOING TO SEE HOW MUCH MONEY WE THINK IS AVAILABLE AND THEN BUILD OUR SPENDING AROUND IT. SO THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME SIGNIFICANT DISAGREEMENTS DUE TO THE FACT, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE GOVERNOR WOULD LIKE TO DIVERT $60 MILLION FROM THE ROAD FUND AND SPEND IT IN THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH NEITHER PARTY WANTS TO DO. SO I WOULD SAY, IN ALL HONESTY, WE'RE QUITE A DISTANCE AWAY FROM EACH OTHER, AND IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO COME TO A CONSENSUS.

Glover: REPRESENTATIVE MYERS, GIVE US YOUR ASSESSMENT. IS THIS GOVERNOR AND THIS LEGISLATURE GOING TO BE ABLE TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON A BUDGET?

Myers: WELL, I CERTAINLY HOPE SO, BUT I WOULD AGREE WITH THE SPEAKER THAT WE'RE QUITE A WAYS APART RIGHT NOW. BUT I ALSO THINK THAT WE NEED TO OPEN UP THE PROCESS, AND WE'RE NOT DOING THAT EITHER. I KNOW THAT WE'RE FINALLY HOLDING BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME THOSE TARGETS ARE OUT FOR EACH CATEGORY. AND I HEAR TALES THAT WE'RE JUST GOING TO WRAP EVERYTHING UP INTO ONE BILL AND PASS IT THROUGH ON SORT OF A DUMP-AND-RUN STRATEGY, AND I HOPE WE DON'T DO THAT. I THINK THAT IS A FORMULA FOR HAVING A SPECIAL SESSION THIS SUMMER.

Glover: MR. SPEAKER, WE HEAR THAT QUITE OFTEN, THAT THE LEGISLATURE IS JUST GOING TO DUMP SOME KIND OF A BUDGET ON THE GOVERNOR, HE'S GOING TO VETO IT AND BRING YOU BACK INTO SPECIAL SESSION. REALISTICALLY, WHAT IS THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT HAPPENING?

Siegrist: I'M NOT SURE I CAN ANSWER THAT. IT IS NOT A HIDDEN TRICK THING HERE. WE ARE GOING TO ROLL MOST OF THE BUDGET INTO ONE BUDGET BILL, BUT IT'S GOING TO GO THROUGH THE SUBCOMMITTEE PROCESS FIRST. THEN IT WILL GO THROUGH THE APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE, AND THERE WILL BE PLENTY OF TIME FOR PEOPLE TO REACT TO IT. WE'LL CONTINUE TO TALK TO THE GOVERNOR. ULTIMATELY, THOUGH, IN THREE WEEKS, IF WE DON'T COME TO A TACIT AGREEMENT, WE WILL PASS THE BUDGET AND GO HOME. FRANKLY, WE DID THAT LAST YEAR. WE DIDN'T HAVE FULL AGREEMENT LAST YEAR WHEN WE WENT HOME.

Glover: AND CAN'T HE, IN FACT, USE HIS VETO PEN TO ACCOMPLISH MUCH OF WHAT HE WANTS ANYWAY?

Siegrist: HE COULD -- EXCUSE ME. THE PROBLEM WE'RE FACING WITH THE GOVERNOR RIGHT NOW IS THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SPEND MORE MONEY THAT WE DON'T THINK IS REALLY AVAILABLE TO SPEND, SO HE CAN'T USE HIS VETO PEN FOR THAT. BUT WE WILL TRY TO GET IT DONE IF WE CAN.

Glover: ONE OF THE THINGS HE WANTS TO DO IS GET INTO THE CASH RESERVE. HE DID THAT LAST YEAR. COULDN'T HE IN FACT VETO SOME OF YOUR RESTRICTIONS THIS YEAR AND DIP INTO IT AGAIN?

Siegrist: NO, HE REALLY CAN'T BECAUSE OF SOME CHANGES WE MADE DURING THE SPECIAL SESSION THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW HIM TO VIOLATE THE 99-PERCENT SPENDING LEVEL BY ITEM VETO. SO HE DID SIGN THAT BILL, AND WE'RE PROTECTED FROM THAT. THE BOTTOM LINE AGAIN, THOUGH, IS HOW MUCH MONEY YOU CAN OR SHOULD TAKE OUT OF THE RAINY DAY FUND.

Myers: I DON'T THINK THE GOVERNOR INTENDS TO DO THAT EITHER. AFTER ALL, HE DID SUPPORT THE CHANGE IN THE LAW THAT WE PASSED IN THE SPECIAL SESSION, SO THE GOVERNOR IS WELL AWARE OF HIS OWN RESTRICTIONS. BUT I THINK WE NEED WORK TOGETHER, AND I'M NOT SURE WE'RE DOING THAT.

Yepsen: HOW DO THE LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRATS FEEL ABOUT THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL TO DIP INTO THE ROAD FUND TO BALANCE THE BUDGET?

Myers: THE ROAD FUND? WELL, WE HAVE SOME DISAGREEMENTS WITH THAT. WE VIEW THE ROAD FUND AS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOL, AS A TOOL THAT CREATES JOBS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WHEN THERE IS A SHORTFALL IN REVENUES, WE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER. AND I'M NOT SURE THAT WE'RE DOING THAT.

Yepsen: I WANT TO SWITCH GEARS AND MOVE TO THE HOG LOT CONTROVERSY IN IOWA. MR. MYERS, LAST WEEK A GROUP OF 12 OF YOUR COLLEAGUES -- YOU APPOINTED SOME OF THEM -- UNVEILED A PACKAGE DESIGNED TO DEAL WITH THE WHOLE ISSUE OF ANIMAL CONFINEMENTS. I'D LIKE YOUR ASSESSMENT, FIRST OF ALL, OF WHAT THEY CAME UP WITH. AND SECONDLY, DO YOU THINK THIS WILL PASS?

Myers: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THIS THING GOES BACK TO WHAT WE CALL THE ORIGINAL HOUSE FILE 519. AND THE MANTRA FOR THE LAST SEVEN YEARS OR SO HAS LET 519 WORK. WELL, 519 DOES NOT WORK. THEY'VE COME UP WITH SOME SOLUTIONS TO A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CONCERNS ME IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS SUFFICIENT MEANINGFUL LOCAL CONTROL IN THIS BILL, BECAUSE THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN SOMETHING THAT DEMOCRATS WANTED. IF IT'S NOT IN THERE, I WON'T VOTE FOR IT. NOW, THERE'S SOME OTHER THINGS IN THERE THAT ARE GOOD. THEY'VE MADE PROGRESS. THERE ISN'T ANY QUESTION ABOUT THAT, AND I APPLAUD THEM FOR THAT. BUT THERE'S STILL SOME WAYS TO GO. I BELIEVE PEOPLE IN THIS STATE NEED TO HAVE A SAY ABOUT THE CONDITIONS AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

Yepsen: BILL WITT, A STATE REPRESENTATIVE FROM CEDAR FALLS, ONE OF YOUR MEMBERS, PROBABLY THE LEADING ENVIRONMENTALIST IN THE LEGISLATURE, WAS ON THAT COMMITTEE, SAYS IT'S A GOOD BILL. IF HE GIVES IT THE HOUSEKEEPING SEAL OF APPROVAL, MR. MYERS, WHY DON'T YOU?

Myers: WELL, IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT DOESN'T MEAN WE COULDN'T AMEND THE BILL. I RESPECT THE WORK THAT REPRESENTATIVE WITT HAS DONE, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE WILL AGREE WITH EVERYTHING. AND I THINK THE MEMBERS OF OUR CAUCUS WANT TO DISCUSS IT. WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE DETAILS YET. NEITHER HAS ANY CAUCUS, AS I UNDERSTAND. SO LET'S LOOK AT THE DETAILS. I HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A DOCUMENT TO START THE DISCUSSION ON, BUT I'M NOT WILLING TO SAY THAT IT IS THE FINAL THING THAT I WOULD APPROVE.

Yepsen: MR. SPEAKER, SAME QUESTION TO YOU: WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE BILL; AND SECONDLY, WILL IT PASS?

Siegrist: YEAH, IT WILL PASS AS SOON AS WE GET IT SIGNED. AND I HOPE DICK DIDN'T REALLY MEAN THAT IF THERE ISN'T MORE LOCAL CONTROL IN THERE HE WOULDN'T SUPPORT THE BILL, BECAUSE EVEN IF WE DISAGREE ON ONE PORTION OR ANOTHER PORTION, THIS BILL DOES TAKE SIGNIFICANT STEPS TOWARDS IMPROVING AIR AND WATER QUALITY. IT MAY NOT GO AS FAR AS SOME PEOPLE WANT AS IT RELATES TO TOTAL LOCAL CONTROL, WHICH A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK WOULD BE A MISTAKE, BUT IT'S A GOOD BILL THAT WE HAVE TAKEN A POLITICAL RISK TO BUILD UP. AND WE'VE DONE IT IN A BIPARTISAN MANNER, AND I THINK THEY DID GREAT WORK.

Yepsen: YOU KNOW, MR. SPEAKER, THIS ISSUE IS RIPPING UP RURAL IOWA BIG TIME. IS THIS GOING TO TAKE THE EDGE OUT OF THAT ISSUE? ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A MORE NEIGHBORLY STATE AS A RESULT OF THIS BILL? ARE WE GOING TO GET BACK TO BEING IOWANS? IS THIS BILL STILL GOING TO -- ARE WE STILL GOING TO HAVE THESE FIGHTS?

Siegrist: YOU'LL PROBABLY STILL HAVE SOME FIGHTS, BUT I THINK THIS GOES A LONG WAY. IT TALKS ABOUT SEPARATION DISTANCES AWAY OF WATER BODIES. IT TALKS ABOUT NO LAGOONS IN FLOODPLAINS AND A VARIETY OF OTHER THINGS TO HELP DNR MONITOR AIR AND WATER QUALITY. HOWEVER, YOU DO HAVE A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT DO NOT WANT IT TO GO AWAY. THEY WANT TO CONTINUE TO BEAT THE BANDWAGON, SO YOU'LL STILL HAVE SOME ANIMOSITY. BUT I THINK IT GOES A LONG WAYS TO HELPING TAKE SOME OF THE PRESSURE OFF.

Borg: MR. SPEAKER -- GO AHEAD.

Myers: PEOPLE ARE SAYING THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A SAY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS AND IN THEIR COMMUNITIES, AND I THINK THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO THAT. SO LET'S SEE WHAT THAT BILL SAYS ABOUT THE ISSUE OF LOCAL CONTROL. I CALL IT SIGHTING CONTROL. AND IF WE CAN SATISFY THAT, THEN I'LL SUPPORT THE BILL. IF IT DOESN'T DO THAT, THEN I WON'T.

Borg: MR. SPEAKER, THIS WEEK, YOU USED THE WORD "PREEMPTIVE" FOR SOMETHING THE GOVERNOR DID. AND THAT WAS ON LEGISLATION THAT'S PENDING IN THE LEGISLATURE RIGHT NOW CONCERNING ABORTION INFORMATION AND THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE, BY DOCTORS, ALTERNATIVES TO WOMEN WHO ARE SEEKING ABORTIONS UNDER CRIMINAL PENALTY. AND THE GOVERNOR SAID, "I'M GOING TO DIRECT THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HEALTH TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION, BUT NO CRIMINAL PENALTY." DOES THAT KILL THE LEGISLATION?

Siegrist: I DOUBT THAT -- EXCUSE ME. I DOUBT THAT IT DOES. I DON'T THINK IT WAS ME THAT USED THE WORD "PREEMPTIVE," BUT THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. I THINK THE SENATE WILL PASS THAT BILL. IT GOT, I BELIEVE, 71 VOTES IN THE HOUSE. I THINK IT HAS VERY STRONG BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, SO I BELIEVE THE SENATE WILL PROBABLY STILL PASS IT DOWNSTAIRS, I DON'T THINK FOR POLITICAL REASONS BUT I THINK BECAUSE THEY TRULY BELIEVE THAT WAS A GOOD BILL. I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'LL PASS IT FOR A FACT, BUT I SUSPECT THAT. BUT I THINK THE GOVERNOR IS REACTING TO THE FACT THAT THAT IS A PRETTY REASONABLE BILL THAT HE SHOULD SIGN.

Borg: MR. MYERS, THE DEMOCRATS?

Myers: WELL, I THINK MOST OF US FELT THAT, THOSE OF US THAT VOTED AGAINST THE BILL, THAT IT SHOULDN'T HAVE THOSE PENALTIES IN THERE FOR DOCTORS. SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THEY VOTED AGAINST IT. AS FAR AS THE INFORMATION ISSUE IS CONCERNED, THE GOVERNOR IS SAYING THAT BY DIRECTIVE HE CAN PROVIDE NOT ONLY THAT INFORMATION BUT EVEN MORE DETAILED INFORMATION. PEOPLE SHOULD BE INFORMED ABOUT THE DECISIONS THEY MAKE ABOUT THEIR HEALTH, SO I SUPPORT THAT. BUT I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A PROFESSION OF CRIMINALS JUST BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE SEEMS TO MAKE A POLITICAL STATEMENT WITH THE LAW.

Glover: MR. SPEAKER, THERE WAS AN ISSUE THAT THE GOVERNOR PUSHED HARD IN HIS CONDITION OF THE STATE SPEECH THIS YEAR, AND THERE'S BEEN A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. IT'S CALLED MENTAL HEALTH PARITY... REQUIRING INSURANCE COVERAGE -- HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE TO INCLUDE COVERAGE FOR MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT. IS THAT GOING TO PASS IN THIS YEAR'S LEGISLATURE?

Siegrist: THAT IS IN THE SENATE AND THEY ARE STILL WORKING ON IT. AND I HOPE THAT THEY DO PASS THIS OUT OF BILL. AS PEOPLE WILL RECALL, I THINK THREE YEARS AGO WE PASSED A MODEST VERSION OF THE MENTAL HEALTH PARITY IN THE HOUSE. THE GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SAID THEY DIDN'T WANT IT, THAT IT WASN'T FAR ENOUGH. AND AS A RESULT, THAT BILL DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE. IF WE WERE RIGHT ON OUR BILL BACK THEN, THAT IT WOULDN'T HAVE RAISED INSURANCE PREMIUMS AND WE WOULD -- THEY WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THAT AND WE'D HAVE PASSED IT, AND WE'D PROBABLY BE TALKING ABOUT FURTHER EXPANSION NOW. SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO TAKE SMALL STEPS. I HOPE THE SENATE TAKES A SMALL STEP AND SENDS US A BILL TO THE HOUSE. IF THEY DO, WE'LL PASS IT.

Glover: REPRESENTATIVE MYERS?

Myers: WELL, I CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF MENTAL HEALTH PARITY FOR A LONG TIME, AND I THINK IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ONE OF OUR PRIORITIES THAT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING ALL ALONG IN THIS SESSION. WE'LL SEE WHAT THE BILL -- HOW IT COMES OUT OF THE SENATE. I KNOW THAT THE HOUSE, IN A BIPARTISAN MANNER, HAS SUPPORTED THIS BEFORE, AND I WOULD TAKE EXCEPTION THAT IF WE REALLY WANT THE BILL, THEN LET'S GET BUSY AND GET IT DONE. THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT'S BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG, LONG TIME. WE HAVE SOME OF THE FINEST HEALTH CARE FACILITIES. WE'RE A PRETTY SMART GROUP OF FOLKS. WE'RE A PRETTY HEALTHY GROUP OF FOLKS. WE ALSO ARE THE HOME OF THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY IN THIS COUNTRY -- OR IF NOT "THE" HOME, SECOND RANKING HOME AT LEAST. SO WE HAVE A LOT OF EXPERTISE HERE. DON'T YOU THINK WE CAN GET TOGETHER AND GET OUR ARMS AROUND THIS ISSUE? WE NEED TO TREAT MENTAL ILLNESS PROPERLY, AND THAT MEANS LIKE ANY OTHER ILLNESS.

Yepsen: MR. MYERS, IT'S A SCALED DOWN BILL THAT'S BEING TALKED ABOUT IN THE SENATE.

Myers: YES.

Yepsen: THE GOVERNOR SAID ON THIS PROGRAM LAST WEEK THAT THAT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT? IS HALF A LOAF BETTER THAN NONE, OR DO YOU JUST SIMPLY SET ASIDE THE WHOLE THING AND WAIT TILL ANOTHER DAY?

Myers: I VOTED FOR WHAT I WOULD CALL A SIXTEENTH OF A LOAF BEFORE, WITHOUT GETTING TOO TRITE ABOUT IT. BUT NEVERTHELESS, I VOTED FOR A LESSER BILL BEFORE. I WANT US TO GET IT ON THE ROAD. I DO. I WANT TO START IT. I AGREE WITH THE GOVERNOR THAT IT'S NOT FAR ENOUGH. I WANT SUBSTANCE ABUSE COVERAGE IN THERE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE IN THERE IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS. BUT REGARDLESS, WE NEED TO START WORKING ON THIS PROCESS. AND IF IT HAS TO BE DONE INCREMENTAL, WELL, IT WON'T BE THE FIRST SUBJECT THAT'S DONE INCREMENTALLY.

Yepsen: MR. SPEAKER, IS THERE A TRADEOFF GOING ON HERE ON THIS BILL WITH THE INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX ISSUE? THERE'S A PROPOSAL THAT WE LOWER INSURANCE PREMIUM TAXES, AND THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION THAT THE GOVERNOR WILL NOT SIGN THAT BILL UNLESS HE GETS A MENTAL HEALTH PARITY BILL. WILL REPUBLICANS DO THAT?

Siegrist: THAT HASN'T BEEN ANY PART OF MY DISCUSSION WITH THE GOVERNOR OR ANY OF THE LEADERSHIP. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE TIED TOGETHER. I THINK THE GOVERNOR UNDERSTANDS THAT BOTH ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES AND THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS BOTH OF THEM. I HOPE THAT WE WILL.

Yepsen: MR. SPEAKER, NEXT WEEK ON THURSDAY, I BELIEVE, THE IOWA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS GOING TO CONSIDER A TAX INCREASE, RAISING THE STATE SALES TAX TO PROVIDE PROPERTY TAX RELIEF AND MAYBE SOME MONEY FOR LOCAL SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE. WILL THAT BILL PASS?

Siegrist: I DON'T KNOW, TO BE REAL HONEST. FIRST OFF, IT IS GOING TO BE AN AMENDMENT TO A BILL, AND IT WILL HAVE TO FIRST PASS A TEST CALLED SUSPENSION OF THE RULES TO ACTUALLY GET IT CONSIDERED. I DO THINK YOU HAVE SOME POWERFUL INTEREST GROUPS LINED UP AGAINST THOSE PARTICULAR BILLS, INCLUDING THE UNIONS AND THE IOWA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION. SO I'M NOT SURE THAT IT WOULD EVEN GET TO THE POINT WHERE THE SUSPENSION OF THE RULES TAKES PLACE. IF IT DOES, I THINK IT WOULD BE A CLOSE VOTE. I WOULD SAY THIS: I DON'T SUSPECT THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN THIS YEAR. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LOT OF SUPPORT IN THE SENATE, AND I DON'T THINK THE GOVERNOR SUPPORTS IT.

Yepsen: MR. MYERS, WHAT'S YOUR HANDICAP ON THAT?

Myers: I DON'T BELIEVE IT WILL PASS BUT, REGARDLESS, I AM NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE OUGHT TO BE RAISING TAXES THIS YEAR UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, WITH THE DOWNTURN IN THE ECONOMY AND PEOPLE LOSING THEIR JOBS AND PEOPLE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR THE FUTURE. I DON'T THINK WE OUGHT TO RAISE TAXES. BUT THIS PARTICULAR BILL IS EVEN WORSE THAN THAT BECAUSE IT PURPORTS TO DO MORE THAN ONE THING. IT TALKS ABOUT PROPERTY TAX RELIEF AND AID TO SCHOOLS. WELL, THE WAY THEY'RE DOING IT, IT CAN'T DO BOTH. SO I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A CLEAR DEBATE ON JUST WHAT THIS BILL WOULD DO. I THINK FOLKS ARE USING IT FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES. AND THERE'S ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT I DON'T THINK REALLY WANTS TO SEE THEIR TAXES INCREASE, AND THAT'S THE TAXPAYERS OF THIS STATE.

Yepsen: MR. MYERS, WHAT ABOUT THE MERITS OF THIS ISSUE? YOU GO OUT INTO RURAL IOWA AND, AFTER HOG LOTS, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE ARE MOST UPSET ABOUT IS THIS NOTION THAT THEY LIVE IN RURAL IOWA, THEY COME AND SHOP IN THE BIG CITIES, THEY PAY A TAX TO HELP FIX SCHOOLS IN OUR LARGER COMMUNITIES, AND THEY DON'T GET ANY MONEY OUT THERE. HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THAT PROBLEM?

Myers: WELL, I'M A PERSON WHO VOTED AGAINST THE LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX TO BEGIN WITH. I HAVE NEVER BELIEVED IN LOCAL OPTION TAXES. I THINK IF YOU DO SOMETHING, IT OUGHT TO BE STATEWIDE AND IT OUGHT TO AFFECT EVERYONE EQUALLY. IN THE FIRST PLACE, I DON'T LIKE SALES TAXES BECAUSE I BELIEVE THEY ARE REGRESSIVE, ESPECIALLY FOR LOWER AND MODERATE INCOME PEOPLE WHO ARE RAISING CHILDREN. SO I DO NOT SUPPORT SALES TAX INCREASES.

Siegrist: AND I WOULD ONLY ADD HOW HOT IT IS. AS YOU KNOW, I'M RUNNING FOR CONGRESS. THANK YOU, I NEEDED TO GET THAT PLUG IN. AND I'M THE BEST GUY, BUT THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. AND IN WESTERN IOWA, WHERE I'M RUNNING, THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARILY HOT ISSUE. PEOPLE FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT IT. AND IT'S NOT FELT THAT WAY STATEWIDE, AND SO WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO IN THE HOUSE IS AT LEAST GIVE PEOPLE A VOICE TO AT LEAST HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT IT. SO I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO DO.

Glover: AREN'T THE NUMBERS WORKING AGAINST YOU, BECAUSE IN THE PLACES IN THIS STATE WHERE THIS ISSUE IS HOT ARE RURAL AREAS WHERE THEY PAY THE TAXES TO THE URBAN AREAS WHERE NOBODY LIVES ANYMORE?

Siegrist: WELL, THAT IS PART OF THEIR CONCERN. THEY THINK THE MONEY IS BEING FUNNELED OUT OF RURAL IOWA INTO URBAN IOWA. I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THAT, BUT THAT IS THEIR FEELING. SO AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS AT LEAST WE'RE GOING TO GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE IF THE LEGISLATURE WANTS TO DEBATE THE -- THE HOUSE WANTS TO DEBATE THE ISSUE.

Yepsen: OKAY, MR. SPEAKER, BUT YOU BOTH HAVE SAID YOU DON'T THINK THIS THING IS GOING TO FLY.

Siegrist: NO, I DO NOT.

Yepsen: GIVEN THAT, THEN WHAT DO WE -- WE'RE BACK TO THE PROBLEM AT HAND, WHICH IS A LOT OF LITTLE RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT NEED HELP FIXING UP THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE. WHAT'S THE SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?

Siegrist: WELL, I MEAN WE HAVE DONE SOME THINGS IN TERMS OF THE VISION IOWA PLAN THAT HAD $50 MILLION IN THERE FOR SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH I THINK HAS BEEN AT LEAST A SMALL STEP IN THAT DIRECTION. I DON'T THINK THIS ISSUE IS GOING TO GO AWAY THIS YEAR OR NEXT YEAR, SO I THINK IT WILL COME BACK TO SEE US, AND REVISIT IT NEXT YEAR IF IT DOESN'T PASS THIS YEAR.

Myers: BUT REMEMBER HOW THIS BILL IS BEING SOLD. IN A LOT OF PARTS OF RURAL IOWA, IT'S BEING SOLD AS "THE LARGEST PROPERTY TAX DECREASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE STATE." AND IN OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS AND FOLKS ARE ASKING FOR SUPPORT FOR EDUCATION. IT CANNOT DO BOTH AND IT'S BEING SOLD BOTH WAYS TO TRY TO GARNER SUPPORT. SO I BELIEVE THE BILL IS AN EXERCISE IN MISDIRECTION.

Glover: MR. SPEAKER, LET'S SWITCH TOPICS AGAIN. LAST WEEK THE HOUSE WAS SCHEDULED TO DEBATE A BILL ON HUMAN CLONING. PART OF THE ISSUE IS DEALING WITH FERTILIZED EMBRYOS AND WHETHER THEY CAN BE USED FOR RESEARCH OR NOT. THE BILL SORT OF BROKE DOWN IN THE FACE OF WARRING AMONGST ANTI-ABORTION GROUPS. IS THAT DEAD FOR THE YEAR?

Siegrist: I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S DEAD FOR THE YEAR. I THINK MOST EVERYBODY SUPPORTS A BAN ON HUMAN CLONING. OBVIOUSLY IT GETS INTO THE EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH AND EMBRYONIC CLONING. AND I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE UPCOMING WEEK IN THE IOWA LEGISLATURE. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF AGREEMENTS THAT WE THOUGHT WERE PRETTY MUCH PUT TOGETHER THAT I KNOW REPRESENTATIVE MYERS WAS A PART OF, TRYING TO FIND SOME COMMON MIDDLE GROUND SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE SOME RESEARCH IN IOWA. A COUPLE OF THE AMENDMENTS AS I READ THEM WOULD BASICALLY REINFORCE WHAT PRESIDENT BUSH HAD TO SAY ABOUT STEM CELL RESEARCH, USING ONLY EXISTING LINES. AND I PERSONALLY THINK THE PRESIDENT MADE THE RIGHT DECISION THERE. SO WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO SEE IF WE CAN FIND A MIDDLE GROUND. IF NOT, THE BILL COULD BE IN TROUBLE.

Glover: I WAS GOING TO SAY, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, YOU'VE GOT A BIG BUDGET PROBLEM TO DEAL WITH. YOU'VE ONLY GOT ABOUT THREE WEEKS OF THIS SESSION LEFT. AREN'T YOU GOING TO HAVE TO START DUMPING SOME OF THESE THINGS?

Siegrist: WELL, WE WILL IF WE CAN'T COME TO SOME AGREEMENT. AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THAT BILL. WE ARE DOWN TO A FEW ISSUES: BUDGET, HOGS BEING TWO MAJOR ONES. AND I'D SAY BY MONDAY OR TUESDAY, THE CLONING ISSUE WILL BE SETTLED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

Glover: REPRESENTATIVE MYERS?

Myers: I AM A COAUTHOR OF AN AMENDMENT THAT SEEKS TO COMPROMISE ON THAT ISSUE, AND I'M STILL HOPEFUL WE'RE GOING TO GET AN AGREEMENT. I RESPECT THE VIEWS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CLONING THING, AND I'M CERTAINLY OPPOSED TO HUMAN CLONING. I WOULD VOTE FOR A BAN FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN A MINUTE. BUT ALSO, THIS RESEARCH IS IMPORTANT. IF WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT AND STILL RESPECT THE VIEWS OF THOSE FOLKS THAT ARE WORRIED ABOUT WHETHER THIS COULD LEAD TO THAT OR NOT, THEN I THINK WE CAN GET AN ARRANGEMENT. AND I AM PLEDGED TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT RESEARCH IS IMPORTANT.

Borg: YOU WANT COMPROMISE MORE THAN YOU WANT THE BILL KILLED, THEN?

Myers: THAT'S RIGHT, I DO. I WANT TO WORK TO GET A SOLUTION. I THINK THIS RESEARCH IS IMPORTANT, AND I WANT TO RESPECT THE VIEWS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CLONING ISSUE AND WHERE IT COULD LEAD TO.

Glover: WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT COMPROMISE? IT WAS AGREED TO AND THEN IT FELL APART. OR IS IT TOO ARCANE TO EVEN TRY TO EXPLAIN?

Myers: CLEARLY THERE'S SOME DIFFERENCES IN DEFINITIONS ABOUT WHAT WOULD LEAD TO MORE HUMAN CLONING AND WHAT ACTUALLY DOES BAN IT. WHETHER THE BILL OR THE AMENDMENT THAT WE -- THE AMENDMENT THAT REPRESENTATIVE HANSEN AND BODDICKER AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON BANS CLONING. NOW, THERE'S A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS. I THINK WE NEED TO RESOLVE THAT. MAYBE IT CAN'T BE RESOLVED, BUT I INTEND TO CONTINUE TO TRY.

Siegrist: AND I THINK PART OF IT'S AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL. YOU SAW WHEN PRESIDENT BUSH ISSUED HIS DECISION, DIVISIONS WITHIN THE PRO-LIFE COMMUNITY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE DID TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE, AND I THINK YOU'RE SEEING THE SAME THING UP THERE. I THINK THERE'S A DIVISION AMONGST PRO-LIFE GROUPS AS TO WHAT A GOOD COMPROMISE IS OR IF THERE IS ANY COMPROMISE. AND I THANK DICK FOR HIS WORK AND DAN BODDICKER, WHO HAS IMPECCABLE PRO-LIFE CREDENTIALS. HE'S TRYING TO PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER SO WE CAN BAN HUMAN CLONING IN THE STATE OF IOWA. SO AGAIN, WE'LL SEE --

Myers: AT THE SAME TIME, THIS MEDICAL RESEARCH IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE SUFFERING FROM PARKINSON'S DISEASE AND DIABETES AND CANCER. AND I THINK WE NEED TO CONTINUE ON THAT LINE AS WELL.

Yepsen: MR. SPEAKER, LAST WEEK THE GOVERNOR VETOED A BILL THAT YOU FOLKS PASSED THAT OUTLAWED PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS. WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

Siegrist: WELL, THERE WON'T BE A VETO OVERRIDE ON THAT. THERE IS ANOTHER BILL THAT IS OUT THERE IN BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE WHICH WOULD OUTRIGHT BAN PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS. THE ONE THAT HE VETOED HAD TO DO WITH VISION IOWA MONEY AND SPECIFICALLY POLK COUNTY. WE CONTINUE TO THINK THAT WHAT POLK COUNTY DID IS ANTI-COMPETITIVE BIDDING LAW. IN PARTICULAR, WE THINK THAT'S THE MOST ONEROUS PART OF IT.

Yepsen: IS WHAT YOU'RE WORKING ON, THIS SECOND BILL, IS THAT A COMPROMISE LANGUAGE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO WORK OUT WITH THE GOVERNOR, OR ARE YOU JUST PLAYING A POLITICAL GAME WITH HIM?

Siegrist: NO, NO, NO. WE HAVE TRIED TO WORK OUT WITH THE GOVERNOR SOME DETAILS ON THAT AND THE UNIONS, AND I DON'T THINK THE GOVERNOR COULD CRITICIZE US FOR THAT. BUT WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND A COMPROMISE.

Yepsen: MR. MYERS, IS THIS SECOND BILL A COMPROMISE?

Myers: NO, IT'S NOT. FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THE ISSUE WAS ABOUT WAGES. I THINK THAT'S WHY THE PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT WAS PUT TOGETHER IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT WAS TO GUARANTEE HIGHER WAGES. THE GOVERNOR HAS TALKED ABOUT, IN HIS VETO MESSAGE, ABOUT HE PREVAILING WAGES AND THINGS HE'D LIKE TO SEE IN THERE, AND THAT WAS NOT IN THERE. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S EVEN MORE THAN THAT. WHY SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE BE INVOLVED IN MEDDLING AROUND IN EVERY CONTRACT OR ANY CONTRACT THAT CITIES AND COUNTIES AND SCHOOL BOARDS DECIDE TO GET INVOLVED IN? YOU CAN GET ANY GROUP OF ACTIVISTS THAT YOU MIGHT DESCRIBE IN THE IOWA LEGISLATURE TO DECIDE, "WELL, HEY, THIS COUNTY DID SOMETHING I DON'T LIKE AND I'M GOING TO PASS A BILL TO ADVOCATE THAT 2080 AGREEMENT OR THAT COUNTY AGREEMENT." I DON'T SEE ANY SENSE IN THAT.

Yepsen: WHEN IT'S STATE MONEY, WHY SHOULDN'T THE STATE GET INVOLVED IN ISSUES OF HOW IT'S SPENT?

Myers: WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN ARGUE THAT FOR EVERYTHING THAT WE DO. THERE'S STATE MONEY ALL OVER THE PLACE FOR EVERY CONTRACT WE WRITE. THE POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS THAT IF YOU WERE SO INTERESTED IN HOW TO RUN A COUNTY OR A CITY, RUN FOR THE JOB.

Siegrist: MY POINT WOULD BE WHEN WE THINK SOMETHING VIOLATES THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING LAW IN THE STATE, THE LEGISLATURE OUGHT TO BE INVOLVED, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.

Yepsen: SO I GATHER NOTHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THIS SESSION.

Myers: ALSO ONE MORE POINT ABOUT THIS YOU NEED TO RECOGNIZE. THIS THING IS IN COURT RIGHT NOW. WHY SHOULD WE BE WRITING LEGISLATION WHEN THERE'S A COURT DECISION YET TO BE RENDERED? I'D LIKE TO SEE HOW THAT COMES OUT FIRST.

Yepsen: ONE LAST QUESTION ON THIS ISSUE. I HEAR MEMBERS SAYING THAT IF WE DON'T RESOLVE THIS ISSUE, PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY MORE MONEY FOR VISION IOWA PROGRAMS. IS THAT YOUR READ OF THIS, MR. SPEAKER?

Siegrist: I THINK IT HURTS. I STILL WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF CONTINUING TO LOOK AT WAYS TO GROW IOWA, BUT I THINK IT WOULD CAUSE SOME PEOPLE SOME SECOND THOUGHTS IF PLAs ARE PART OF THAT.

Myers: I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY SHORT SIGHTED, VERY SHORT SIGHTED. VISION IOWA IS A MUCH MORE -- AND CATEGORICAL GRANTS ARE MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN AN AGREEMENT IN POLK COUNTY. AND I COULD BELIEVE RIGHT NOW THAT IF THE LEGISLATURE DID THAT, I THINK IT WOULD DO SO AT ITS PERIL. WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THOSE COMMUNITY PROJECTS.

Glover: MR. SPEAKER, YOU'RE A FORMER TEACHER. YOU WERE A TEACHER FOR A LOT OF YEARS. YOU'RE BEING CRITICIZED -- YOU, BEING A REPUBLICAN IN THE LEGISLATURE -- FOR CUTTING BACK ON A TEACHER PAY INCREASE THAT WAS APPROVED LAST YEAR, ONLY FUNDING ABOUT A FOURTH OF IT. WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE?

Siegrist: THE RESPONSE IS THIS: THAT'S A GREAT BILL. WE -- AND DICK VOTED FOR IT LAST YEAR, ONE OF ONLY A FEW DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE THAT SUPPORTED IT. WE BORROWED MONEY LAST YEAR TO DO THAT PROJECT, HOPING THAT THE ECONOMY WOULD TURN AROUND. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THE ECONOMY DIDN'T TURN AROUND. AND SO NOW THE GOVERNOR IS SUGGESTING WE BORROW MORE MONEY, AND WE THINK THAT WOULD NOT BE PRUDENT. I AM SENSITIVE TO THOSE COMPLAINTS. I UNDERSTAND THEM BUT WE ARE GOING TO BRING IN AN ADDITIONAL $30 MILLION IN NEW REVENUE NEXT YEAR, AND WE SIMPLY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO FULLY FUND THAT. AND WE NEED TO SUSPEND THE LAW AND NOT HAVE ANY MORE REGULATIONS GO INTO EFFECT AND THEN HOPE NEXT YEAR WE CAN PICK UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF.

Glover: MR. MYERS?

Myers: WELL, YOU KNOW, I VOTED FOR THAT LAW FOR -- NOT ONLY DID I WANT TO RAISE STANDARDS IN QUALITY IN EDUCATION, BUT I ALSO WANTED TO RAISE THE PAY OF TEACHERS. AND WE PASSED THE MONEY BILL FIRST, AND THEN WE PASSED THE BILL THAT PUT THAT THING IN PLACE. NOW THE MONEY IS NOT THERE. I THINK IT'S A STEP BACKWARDS FOR EDUCATION IN THIS STATE. WE STARTED DOWN THIS PATH. WE'RE NOT DOING EVERYTHING THAT WE REALLY NEED TO DO IN THAT TEACHER COMPENSATION BILL, BUT THE GOVERNOR SAID LET'S KEEP THE STATUS QUO AND PUT ANOTHER $40 MILLION IN THERE. I SUPPORT THE GOVERNOR'S POSITION.

Glover: MR. SPEAKER, IF YOU WOULD LOOK -- STEP BACK MORE BROADLY AND LOOK AT ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION. THERE ARE PEOPLE, SOME AT THIS TABLE, WHO HAVE SUGGESTED YOU'RE PLAYING WHAT'S CALLED A SHELL GAME, THAT YOU'RE INCREASING BASIC SPENDING TO LOCAL SCHOOLS BY $59 MILLION, AT THE SAME TIME CUTTING OTHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS BY $53 MILLION, AND KIND OF PULLING A HOAX ON FOLKS.

Siegrist: WELL, IT'S NOT A HOAX, BECAUSE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS FULLY WHAT IS HAPPENING. AND THAT IS, WE HAVE HEARD TIME AND TIME AGAIN THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY WOULD BE FOR ALLOWABLE GROWTH AND WE WERE TRYING TO PUT AS MUCH MONEY IN THERE AS WE POSSIBLY COULD. IT IS A NET GAIN OF NOT VERY MUCH MONEY FOR K-12 EDUCATION. THE ONLY THING I CAN TELL YOU IS THIS: THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IS WE DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY. THIS FISCAL YEAR WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW, YOU REMEMBER A COUPLE WEEKS AGO WE DID A $121-MILLION FIX TO MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T CUT K-12. WE TOOK $45 MILLION OUT OF THE RAINY DAY FUND SO WE DIDN'T HAVE TO CUT K-12 THIS YEAR. THE PROBLEM IS THAT'S ONE-TIME MONEY FOR ONGOING PROGRAMS. I HAVE TO FIND 45 MILLION BUCKS JUST TO GET BACK TO ZERO, AND I ONLY HAVE $30 MILLION OF ADDITIONAL MONEY NEXT YEAR. THIS BUDGET YEAR WE'RE IN, WE SPENT $200 MILLION OF ONE-TIME MONEY, AND THAT MEANS YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE IT UP NEXT YEAR. WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DO EVERYTHING WE WOULD LIKE TO DO.

Myers: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE IT UP ALL TOGETHER NEXT YEAR. YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE TO DO THAT. YOU CAN DECIDE WHAT YOUR RESERVE LEVEL IS AND YOU CAN LOWER THAT RESERVE LEVEL IN TOUGH TIMES. THAT'S WHAT THE ECONOMIC EMERGENCY FUND IS FOR, BY THE WAY, IN MY JUDGMENT. IT'S WHEN YOU HAVE A DIP IN THE ECONOMY, YOU CAN SEE YOUR IMPORTANT PROGRAMS THROUGH. THAT MEANS YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A PRIORITY. YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, WE'RE REDUCING -- THE COLLEGE WAS ASKING, LIKE, FOUR MILLION BUCKS. YOU CAN'T GET A GOOD JOB COMING OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL WITHOUT GOING TO EXTRA SCHOOLING NOWADAYS. COMMUNITY COLLEGES NOW HAVE THE HIGHEST TUITION IN THE COUNTRY IN THIS STATE. THAT'S WRONG. THAT MEANS WE DON'T HAVE A PRIORITY FOR EDUCATION, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

Yepsen: MR. MYERS, WE'VE GOT JUST A COUPLE MINUTES LEFT. ECONOMIC GROWTH... YOU HAVE SAID YOU WANT TO KEEP THE FOCUS ON ECONOMIC GROWTH IN THIS SESSION. NOW, THE LEGISLATURE HAS APPROVED A VENTURE CAPITAL PROGRAM.

Myers: THAT'S RIGHT.

Yepsen: WILL THERE BE ANYTHING ELSE THAT COMES OUT UNDER THE RUBRIC OF ECONOMIC GROWTH HERE IN THE NEXT COUPLE WEEKS IN THE SENATE?

Myers: I DON'T SEE IT. I DON'T THINK WE WILL. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WE DO ABOUT WORKERS. YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVEN'T EVEN TALKED ABOUT IS WHETHER OR NOT WE OUGHT TO RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE IN THIS STATE. YOU KNOW, FOR MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS, THE GAPS BETWEEN THE HIGHER WAGE FOLKS AND THE LOWER WAGE FOLKS HAS BEEN WIDENING. IT'S TIME THAT THE PEOPLE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCALE GOT A RAISE. AND I THINK THAT WOULD DO SOMETHING TO HELP ECONOMIC GROWTH. ONE OF THE REASONS WHY PEOPLE LEAVE THIS STATE IS NOT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE MOUNTAINS OR SEASHORES, OR BAD WEATHER, IT'S BECAUSE OUR WAGES AREN'T HIGH ENOUGH.

Yepsen: MR. SPEAKER, SAME QUESTION. ANYTHING MORE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH?

Siegrist: WELL, IT'S AN INTERESTING THING TO LOOK AT THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET. THE BIGGEST CUT IN ANY DEPARTMENT IS TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. HE CUTS THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ABOUT 20 PERCENT. WE ARE GOING TO ADD SOME MORE MONEY BACK INTO THAT. THE VENTURE CAPITAL AND THE ANGEL INVESTOR ARE PROBABLY THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT THINGS WE'RE GOING TO DO. FROM MY VIEWPOINT, THE FACT THAT WE'VE ALREADY SPENT -- ALREADY SPENT $136 MILLION OF ONE-TIME RAINY DAY FUND MONEY THIS YEAR, NOT GOING INTO THAT ANY FURTHER, AND NOT PUTTING OUR BUDGET FURTHER INTO THE DIFFICULT SITUATION NEXT YEAR WILL HAVE AS MUCH TO DO WITH ECONOMIC GROWTH AS ANYTHING ELSE.

Glover: MR. SPEAKER, IT WOULDN'T BE AN OFFICIAL "IOWA PRESS" SHOW IF WE DIDN'T JUST TALK ABOUT POLITICS. AND I'LL TAKE YOUR --

Siegrist: I LOVE DICK MYERS; HE'S A GREAT GUY. [ LAUGHTER ]

Glover: AND I'LL TAKE YOUR COMMERCIAL OUT OF IT. YOU'RE RUNNING FOR CONGRESS SO YOU DON'T CARE WHO'S CONTROLLING THE LEGISLATURE NEXT YEAR.

Siegrist: YEAH.

Glover: WHO CONTROLS THE LEGISLATURE NEXT YEAR? ASSUMING YOU SAY REPUBLICANS, WHY?

Siegrist: WELL, I THINK REPUBLICANS FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. ONE, THIS ALL COMES DOWN TO RECRUITMENT OF CANDIDATES. AND I KNOW DICK RECRUITED GOOD CANDIDATES. SO DID WE. WE FEEL COMFORTABLE IN OUR OPEN SEATS THAT WE RECRUITED HIGH QUALITY CANDIDATES THAT FIT THE DISTRICT. WE THINK WE'LL BE FINANCED PROPERLY, AND WE THINK WE'LL HAVE THE ISSUES ON OUR SIDE.

Glover: MR. MYERS, 56/44 IN THE HOUSE, 29/21 IN THE SENATE. THOSE ARE BIG MARGINS. HOW DO YOU MAKE THEM UP IN ONE ELECTION?

Myers: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, IT STARTS WITH RECRUITING GOOD CANDIDATES AND HAVING A GOOD PLAN AND A GOOD PROGRAM JUST TO DEBATE WITH THE PEOPLE OF IOWA. AND I'M VERY CONFIDENT OF THE CANDIDATES THAT WE RECRUITED. WE HAVE 80 FOLKS ANNOUNCED AND SIGNED UP, AND 76 OF THEM HAVE ACTUALLY FILED. WE HAVE FOUR MORE WE'RE GOING TO FILE BY CONVENTION. YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, WE'VE REALLY TRIED TO GET SOME PEOPLE WITH INTERESTING BACKGROUNDS: FARMERS, BUSINESSPEOPLE, TEACHERS. WE'VE RECRUITED 31 WOMEN ON OUR BALLOT, AND MAYBE THAT WILL RAISE THE INTELLIGENCE LEVEL. [ LAUGHTER ]

Yepsen: WILL WE BE CALLING YOU MR. SPEAKER?

Myers: I'M SORRY.

Yepsen: WILL WE BE CALLING YOU MR. SPEAKER NEXT YEAR?

Myers: RIGHT NOW I'D LIKE TO GET THROUGH THIS SESSION.

Siegrist: YOU WON'T BE CALLING ME MR. SPEAKER.

Borg: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THANKS FOR LIVING UP TO THE ADVANCED BILLING OF POLITICAL POLARIZATION VIEWS. [ LAUGHTER ] AND THAT'S IT FOR THIS WEEK'S EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS." I HOPE YOU'LL WATCH "IOWA PRESS" NEXT WEEKEND. IT'S FRIDAY AT 6:30, SUNDAY AT NOON. UNTIL THEN, I'M DEAN BORG. THANKS FOR JOINING US TODAY.

ANNOUNCER: FUNDING FOR "IOWA PRESS" HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY "FRIENDS" OF IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION; BY THE IOWA BANKERS ASSOCIATION... FOR PERSONAL, BUSINESS, AND COMMERCIAL NEEDS, IOWA BANKS HELP IOWANS REACH THEIR FINANCIAL GOALS; BY THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF IOWA... THE PUBLIC'S PARTNER IN BUILDING IOWA'S HIGHWAY, BRIDGE, AND MUNICIPAL UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE; AND BY IOWA NETWORK SERVICES AND YOUR LOCAL INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE COMPANY... IOWA NETWORK SERVICES, YOUR CLOSEST CONNECTION.