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. 

 ON STATEWIDE  IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION,  THIS IS THE FRIDAY,  SEPTEMBER 6 EDITION  OF "IOWA PRESS."   HERE IS DEAN BORG. 

Borg: HELLO AGAIN AND WELCOME TO OUR WEEKLY EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS," OUR FIRST IN THE 2002-2003 BROADCAST SEASON.   AFTER A SHORT SUMMER HIATUS, WE'RE BACK NOW FOR OUR 32nd SEASON HERE ON STATEWIDE IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION.   THANKS FOR JOINING US.   FIFTY-NINE DAYS AND COUNTING;  THAT'S THE TIME REMAINING NOW BETWEEN THE NOVEMBER 5 GENERAL ELECTION AND TODAY.   THE HIGH-PROFILE CAMPAIGNS FOR GOVERNOR AND THE U.S. SENATE HAVE BEEN GETTING A LOT OF ATTENTION, BUT IOWA STATEHOUSE AND U.S. CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGNS ARE GAINING MOMENTUM AND ATTENTION TOO.   ALL FIVE OF IOWA'S SEATS IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE ON THE BALLOT, AS THEY ARE EVERY TWO YEARS.   AND TODAY WE'RE FOCUSING ON IOWA'S NEWLY RECONFIGURED FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.   THE INCUMBENT IS REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE JIM NUSSLE OF MANCHESTER.   HE'S SEEKING HIS SEVENTH TWO-YEAR TERM.   AND HIS DEMOCRATIC CHALLENGER IS ANN HUTCHINSON OF BETTENDORF, WHERE SHE HAS SERVED AS MAYOR SINCE 1988.   CONGRESSMAN NUSSLE,  MAYOR HUTCHINSON,  WELCOME BACK TO "IOWA PRESS." 

Nussle: THANK YOU. 

Hutchinson: THANK YOU. 

Borg: ALSO WITH US HERE AT THE TABLE, TWO FAMILIAR JOURNALISTS:   "DES MOINES REGISTER" POLITICAL COLUMNIST DAVID YEPSEN  AND "ASSOCIATED PRESS" POLITICAL WRITER MIKE GLOVER. 

Glover: MR. NUSSLE, WE LIKE TO GIVE CANDIDATES IN SHOWS LIKE THIS A CHANCE TO MAKE THEIR CASE, ASSUMING THEY WOULD DO IT ANYWAY, SO LET'S MAKE THE CASE.   WHAT'S THE CASE FOR ANOTHER TERM FOR JIM NUSSLE IN CONGRESS? 

Nussle: I WAS SENT TO WASHINGTON TO DO A NUMBER OF THINGS BY THE CONSTITUENTS THAT I REPRESENT IN IOWA.   THEY TOLD ME THEY WANTED ME TO BALANCE THE BUDGET.   IT'S SIX STRAIGHT BALANCED BUDGETS THAT I'VE WRITTEN, AS NOW THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, TO REDUCE THE PUBLICLY HELD DEBT, NOW REDUCED $453 BILLION;  TO REDUCE TAXES...   AND NOW EVERY IOWA TAXPAYER HAS HAD THEIR TAXES REDUCED AS A RESULT OF MY BUDGET;  TO FIX THE MEDICARE SYSTEM, MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT SYSTEM, PROVIDE A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT WHICH, AS A RESULT OF THE LEGISLATION THAT I DRAFTED, WE'VE SUCCESSFULLY SHEPHERDED THROUGH THE HOUSE AND NOW AWAIT ACTION IN THE SENATE.   THEY'VE EXPECTED ME TO GET SOME THINGS DONE.   WE HAVE GOTTEN THOSE THINGS DONE, BUT THERE'S MORE TO WORK ON AND I HOPE THEY'LL SEND ME BACK TO GET THAT JOB DONE. 

Glover: MS. HUTCHINSON, YOUR TURN.  MAKE THE CASE THAT IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE IN THE FIRST DISTRICT. 

Hutchinson: WELL, MIKE, I THINK THAT THE PEOPLE IN THE FIRST DISTRICT DON'T BELIEVE THAT THINGS ARE GETTING DONE IN WASHINGTON D.C.  I'VE BEEN CAMPAIGNING NOW FOR ALMOST 450 DAYS AND TALKING TO PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT.   I THINK THEY'RE CONCERNED.   I THINK THEY'RE CONFUSED.   AND I THINK IN A LOT OF CASES, THEY'RE JUST DOWNRIGHT ANGRY.   THEY'RE VERY WORRIED ABOUT THE ECONOMY.  THEY'RE VERY WORRIED ABOUT THE STATE OF ECONOMY.   THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE BUDGET.   THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE SPENDING OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS.   THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT HEALTH CARE ISSUES AND THEIR FAMILY ISSUES IN GENERAL.   THEY'RE PARTICULARLY WORRIED ABOUT PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.   AND I THINK THAT THEY WANT A VOICE IN WASHINGTON, AND THEY FEEL THAT THE SPECIAL INTERESTS HAVE TOO MUCH VOICE IN WASHINGTON.   I WANT TO BE THAT VOICE FOR EASTERN IOWA.

Glover: MR. NUSSLE, I CAN'T LET YOU GET AWAY WITH THE OPENING STATEMENT WITHOUT RAISING A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. 

Nussle: SURE. 

Glover: YOU TALKED ABOUT THE BALANCED BUDGET.   WE'VE GOT A DEFICIT THIS YEAR.   WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PRETTY BIG DEFICIT THIS YEAR. 

Nussle: FIRST TIME IN SIX YEARS. 

Glover: YEAH.   YOU TALK ABOUT A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT.   WE DON'T HAVE ONE. 

Nussle: WE PASSED ONE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

Glover: BUT WE DON'T HAVE ONE. 

Nussle: BUT WE DID PASS ONE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND IT'S AWAITING ACTION IN THE SENATE THAT SEEMS CONFUSED, BEFUDDLED, AND UNABLE TO GET ANYTHING DONE THIS YEAR AT ALL. 

Glover: AND IOWA RANKS FIFTIETH AMONG THE STATES IN MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT DESPITE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FROM ALL OF ITS POLITICIANS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.   WHY? 

Nussle: WELL, BECAUSE A COUPLE OF THINGS.   FIRST OF ALL, IT WAS WRITTEN BY DEMOCRATS IN 1965, WHICH LOCKED IN A FORMULA THAT FAVORED BIG CITIES AND BIG-CITY MEDICINE.   IT, AS A RESULT, UNDERCUT RURAL AREAS, PARTICULARLY IN STATES LIKE IOWA.   THOSE FORMULAS HAVE NOT BEEN CHANGED AFTER FORTY YEARS OF CONTROL BY THE DEMOCRATS UNTIL FINALLY THIS YEAR WHEN, AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, I PUT NEW RESOURCES INTO THE BUDGET FOR THAT PURPOSE.   IT WAS ALWAYS A ZERO-SUM GAME IN THE PAST WHERE IOWA HAD TO TAKE FROM NEW YORK OR FLORIDA OR CALIFORNIA TO BE SUCCESSFUL.   THE ONLY WAY TO SOLVE THAT IS TO PUT NEW RESOURCES INTO THE BUDGET TO FIX IT.   WE PUT IT IN THE BUDGET.   I DRAFTED THE AMENDMENT TO FIX IT.  IT PASSED THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND IT MEANS $123 MILLION TO IOWA'S HOSPITALS AND PROVIDERS. 

Glover: MS. HUTCHINSON, BEFORE WE GET OFF THIS --  HE HASN'T MADE THE CASE DIRECTLY, BUT MAKE THE CASE FOR OUSTING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE, A VERY IMPORTANT POSITION IN THE HOUSE. 

Hutchinson: WELL, IT'S AN ISSUE I THINK THAT PEOPLE IN IOWA TALK ABOUT AND LOOK AT MY EXPERIENCE AND SAY, YOU KNOW, I'M ALSO CHAIR OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE IN THE CITY OF BETTENDORF AND HAVE BEEN FOR FIFTEEN YEARS AND HAVE PRODUCED 15 BALANCED BUDGETS.   AND I THINK THAT MY EXPERIENCE AND I THINK THAT MY BUSINESS EXPERIENCE AND MY POLITICAL EXPERIENCE, MY GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE HAVE PREPARED ME WELL FOR THIS POSITION. 

Yepsen: MAYOR HUTCHINSON, IRAQ.   IT'S POSSIBLE THE NEXT CONGRESS MAY HAVE TO VOTE ON GOING TO WAR WITH IRAQ.   HOW WOULD YOU VOTE? 

Hutchinson: WELL, I THINK AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I'M VERY RELIEVED TO SEE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DECIDED TO BRING HIS CASE FORWARD TO CONGRESS.   I THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE DIALOGUE WITH CONGRESS.   I'VE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT.   I THINK THAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC NEEDS TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS AND NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON.   I THINK FROM HEARING PEOPLE IN THE DISTRICT, AGAIN, THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS.  THEY WANT TO KNOW THAT THERE IS A PLAN.   THEY WANT TO KNOW THAT THERE'S AN EXIT STRATEGY.   THEY WANT TO KNOW THAT, IF IN FACT THAT REGIME IS TO BE OVERTHROWN, WHAT THAT NEW COALITION GOVERNMENT WILL LOOK LIKE.   AND CERTAINLY THEY'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE THE SUPPORT OF OUR ALLIES.   SO I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS.   AND I THINK, AGAIN, I'M RELIEVED THAT PRESIDENT BUSH HAS DECIDED TO COME FORWARD. 

Yepsen: BUT HOW WOULD YOU --  EXCUSE ME.   HOW WOULD YOU VOTE?

Hutchinson: UNTIL I HEAR THE PRESIDENT'S -- UNTIL I HEAR THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL, I WOULD WITHHOLD JUDGMENT.

Yepsen: YOU DON'T THINK PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW HOW THEIR CONGRESSMAN WOULD VOTE BEFORE THEY ELECT THEM? 

Hutchinson: WELL, I THINK WHAT PEOPLE ARE TELLING ME IN THE DISTRICT IS THAT THEY WANT TO HEAR -- THEY WANT TO HEAR THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL AND THEY WANT TO HEAR THE PRESIDENT'S CASE.   AND THEY DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT THEY'VE HEARD, AND I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT I'VE HEARD AT THIS POINT IN TIME. 

Yepsen: MR. NUSSLE, THERE'S A POSSIBILITY YOU MAY BE VOTING ON THIS REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION.   THERE'S SOME --  ARI FLEISCHER SAID EARLIER THIS WEEK THAT THIS VOTE MAY COME UP IN THIS SESSION OF CONGRESS.   HOW WILL YOU VOTE? 

Nussle: MAYOR HUTCHINSON MAKES A GOOD CASE.   I WOULD DEFEND HER ON THE ISSUE OF NOT YET BEING READY TO MAKE THAT DECISION.   WE HAVE NOT HAD THE CASE MADE BY THE PRESIDENT DIRECTLY TO THE CONGRESS OR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND I'VE ASKED HIM TO DO THAT.   I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT HE NEEDS TO DO IN ORDER TO GET THE SUPPORT NOT ONLY OF THE CONGRESS BUT THE PEOPLE.   I BELIEVE HE CAN.   IT'S CLEAR FROM THE INFORMATION THAT I'VE SEEN, AS WELL AS INFORMATION NOW THAT IS AVAILABLE EVEN AS LATE AS TODAY IN THE MEDIA, THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN IS AMASSING THE WHEREWITHAL TO CREATE CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS AND POSSIBLY EVEN NUCLEAR WEAPONS, AS WELL AS THE MEANS TO DELIVER THOSE WEAPONS NOT ONLY WITHIN HIS OWN THEATER OF INFLUENCE BUT ALSO AROUND THE WORLD.   HAVING SAID THAT, THOUGH, IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHAT THE PLAN IS, KNOW WHAT THE EXIT STRATEGY IS, UNDERSTAND THAT BEING FOR A REGIME CHANGE IS ONE THING BUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE NEW REGIME WOULD MEAN NOT ONLY TO THE REGION BUT TO THE REST OF THE WORLD IS IMPORTANT.   SO I HAVE NOT YET DECIDED UNTIL I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THAT PLAN AS WELL. 

Yepsen: SO YOU REJECT MY INNUENDO THAT YOU'RE DUCKING THE QUESTION. 

Nussle: I DON'T THINK YOU DUCK THE QUESTION WHEN YOU NEED TO GET THE FACTS AND YOU NEED TO GET THE INFORMATION.   I'VE HAD TO MAKE THIS DECISION ONE OTHER TIME.   MY VERY FIRST VOTE IN THE CONGRESS WAS WHETHER TO USE FORCE IN THE PERSIAN GULF WAR.   I WENT BACK TO MY CONSTITUENTS.   I GAVE THEM THE INFORMATION THAT I HAD TO MAKE THAT DECISION AND THEY HELPED ME MAKE THAT DECISION AND I INTEND TO DO THE SAME THING AGAIN THIS TIME. 

Borg: MAYOR HUTCHINSON, I LISTENED CAREFULLY AS YOU TICKED OFF -- YOU SAID PEOPLE ARE WORRIED ABOUT -- YOU WENT THROUGH A WHOLE LITANY, 10 OR 12 THINGS.   YOU DIDN'T MENTION THE QUESTION I'M GOING TO ASK HERE ABOUT CIVIL LIBERTIES AS IT RELATES TO THE WAR ON TERRORISM.   THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE CONCERNED THAT WE HAVE GONE TOO FAR.  WHAT DO YOU THINK?   HAVE WE?   AND NUMBER TWO, WHAT'S THE OVERSIGHT ROLE OF CONGRESS, IF YOU WERE THERE, TO ALLAY THAT CONCERN? 

Hutchinson: I THINK YOU'RE VERY RIGHT, DEAN, THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE DISTRICT, THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF IOWA WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOSS OF CIVIL LIBERTIES.   THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF CONCERN THAT MR. ASHCROFT HAS GONE TOO FAR.  AND I THINK THAT IT'S --  I THINK THAT IT'S AN ISSUE THAT WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL OF, WE HAVE TO BE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT.   CERTAINLY THE WAR ON TERRORISM IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE.   DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE TOGETHER ON THE WAR ON TERRORISM AND WE BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE BEHIND THE PRESIDENT AND THEY BELIEVE IN WHAT WE ARE DOING.   BUT AGAIN, I THINK WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL OF CROSSING THAT LINE.   WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL OF OVERSTEPPING. 

Borg: HAVE WE OVERSTEPPED YET? 

Hutchinson: I BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THE PROPOSALS GIVE PEOPLE CONCERN.   THEY GIVE ME SOME CONCERN BUT, AGAIN, I THINK THAT --  I THINK THAT THE WAR ON TERRORISM IS THE OVERRIDING FACTOR HERE, AND WE HAVE TO STAND BEHIND THE PRESIDENT. 

Borg: CONGRESSMAN, HAVE WE STEPPED OVER THAT LINE AND GONE TOO FAR IN SACRIFICING CIVIL LIBERTIES?   AND WHAT'S THE ROLE OF CONGRESS?   HOW ARE YOU GOING TO SAFEGUARD IT? 

Nussle: WELL, THE ROLE OF CONGRESS IS TO SAFEGUARD CIVIL LIBERTIES.   THAT IS THE FIRST ARTICLE OF OUR CONSTITUTION WITH THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY TO ENFORCE THAT.   HAVE WE STEPPED OVER THAT LINE?   NO ONE WOULD HAVE EVER THOUGHT THAT SEPTEMBER 11 WOULD HAVE EVEN PROVIDED THAT CHALLENGE.   SO TO START WITH, WE'RE NOT READY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN TOTAL.   I DO REMEMBER THE FAMOUS QUOTE THAT MAYBE OTHERS REMEMBER ABOUT -- I THINK IT WAS BENJAMIN FRANKLIN WHO SAID THAT THOSE WHO WOULD BE WILLING TO TRADE LIBERTY FOR SECURITY MAY END UP WITH NEITHER.   AND THAT'S WHAT WE RUN THE RISK OF DOING, GIVING UP A LITTLE FREEDOM HERE, GIVING UP A LITTLE FREEDOM THERE IN ORDER TO HAVE SECURITY WHEN, IN FACT, WE MAY END UP WITH NONE OF THE ABOVE.   I THINK PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING CONGRESS CAN DO IS TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE OVERSIGHT IT ALREADY HAS AND WILL CONTINUE.   BUT ONE OTHER THING WE NEED TO DO IS WE NEED TO ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO BETTER COORDINATE THE SERVICES SO THAT FREEDOM IS NOT TAKEN AWAY.   AND ONE WAY TO DO THAT IS TO PASS THE HOMELAND SECURITY LEGISLATION THAT THE HOUSE HAS PASSED AND THE SENATE NEEDS TO ACT ON SO THAT WE CAN COORDINATE THE INTELLIGENCE AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITIES OF OUR GOVERNMENT IN A MORE EFFECTIVE WAY.   THAT WILL ALSO HELP PROTECT OUR FREEDOM. 

Glover: MAYOR HUTCHINSON, THERE'S A BIG EVENT COMING UP THIS WEEK, THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS.   THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF ATTENTION PAID TO THAT ANNIVERSARY, A LOT OF FOCUS ON THAT IN THE MEDIA AND OTHER PLACES.   THERE ARE SOME WHO SUGGEST THAT ANNIVERSARY AND THE HUBBUB THAT SURROUNDS IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY GOING TO RESHAPE THE TENOR OF THIS CAMPAIGN.  DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT OR DO YOU THINK THE ISSUES THAT VOTERS WORRY ABOUT ARE GOING TO STAY WHERE THEY ARE, IN THE ECONOMY AND THE POCKETBOOK? 

Hutchinson: I THINK THE PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY ARE WANTING TO TAKE THE TIME TO HONOR THOSE WHO WERE KILLED, TO HONOR THOSE WHO HAVE HELPED IN AMERICA, THE HEROES ON THE FRONT LINE, AND TO TAKE THE TIME OFF AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO HONOR THOSE MEMORIES AND HONOR THE MEMORY OF SEPTEMBER 11.   BUT I THINK --  I STRONGLY HEAR IN THE DISTRICT THAT PEOPLE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT ISSUES THAT ARE OF CONCERN THAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE HOMELAND SECURITY ISSUES HERE.   ECONOMIC SECURITY IS AN ISSUE FOR THEM.   FAMILY SECURITY IS AN ISSUE FOR THEM.   SOCIAL SECURITY IS AN ISSUE FOR THEM.   HEALTH CARE ISSUES ARE ISSUES FOR THEM.   I DON'T THINK, MIKE, THAT THIS WILL CHANGE THE TENOR OF THE CAMPAIGN BECAUSE I THINK PEOPLE ARE REALLY FOCUSING ON THOSE ISSUES THAT ARE DIRECTLY AFFECTING THEM HERE AT HOME. 

Glover: MR. NUSSLE, YOUR VIEW OF THAT.   DO THE EVENTS OF THE COMING WEEK FUNDAMENTALLY RESHAPE THE CAMPAIGN, OR ARE THE BASIC POPULAR ISSUES GOING TO BE IN PLACE? 

Nussle: IT DOESN'T NEED TO.   IT DOESN'T NEED TO.   I DON'T THINK POLITICS SHOULD ENTER INTO THAT AT ALL WHEN IT COMES TO SEPTEMBER 11.   I DON'T THINK IT HAS YET, AND I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD.   HAVING SAID THAT, I DO BELIEVE THAT AMERICA'S FUTURE AND THE SECURITY OF AMERICA'S FUTURE DOES RIDE ON THE BACK OF OUR ABILITY TO PREVENT ATTACKS FROM OCCURRING IN THE FUTURE, WHICH MEANS WE DO HAVE TO HAVE BETTER COORDINATION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL FOR HOMELAND SECURITY.   IT DOES RIDE ON THE BACK OF WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN SUCCESSFULLY ROOT OUT TERRORISM AROUND THE WORLD AND PROSECUTE THIS WAR AGAINST TERRORISM SUCCESSFULLY.   MAYOR HUTCHINSON MENTIONED BEFORE THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN FAVOR OF THE WAR ON TERRORISM.   THAT'S TRUE UP UNTIL THE POINT IN TIME WHERE WE OPEN UP OUR CHECKBOOKS.   THE DEMOCRATS DON'T SEEM TO BE AS SUPPORTIVE OF FUNDING THE WAR ON TERRORISM, FUNDING OUR DEFENSE SECURITY, FUNDING HOMELAND SECURITY, AND GIVING THE PRESIDENT THE ABILITY TO COORDINATE THOSE SERVICES UNDER A NEW HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT. 

Yepsen: MAYOR, I WANT TO CUT TO THE CHASE HERE A LITTLE BIT AND TRY TO HELP THE VOTER OUT.   WHAT'S THE BIG DIFFERENCE THAT YOU HAVE WITH JIM NUSSLE IN THIS CAMPAIGN?

 Hutchinson: WELL, I THINK THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE COMES BACK AGAIN TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE, TO MY DESIRE TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE, TO BE ACTIVELY INVOLVED WITH THE PEOPLE HERE IN THE DISTRICT.   I THINK THAT, AGAIN, THE ISSUE THAT I HEAR MORE AND MORE AND MORE FROM PEOPLE IN THE DISTRICT IS THAT THEY'RE VERY CONCERNED, THAT THEY FEEL THAT SPECIAL INTEREST HAS TOO MUCH CONTROL IN WASHINGTON D.C., THAT THEY WANT SOMEBODY WHO UNDERSTANDS THEM, AND THEY WANT SOMEBODY WHO IS USED TO REPRESENTING THEM.   YOU KNOW, AS MAYOR OF BETTENDORF FOR FIFTEEN YEARS, I ANSWER EVERY DAY ON THE STREETS TO THOSE FOLKS.   I'M IN THE GROCERY STORE EVERY WEEK.   I HEAR FROM THEM.   AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE MY CONSTITUENTS AND THAT I'M THERE TO SERVE THEM.

Yepsen: CONGRESSMAN, SAME QUESTION TO YOU.   WHAT'S THE BIG DIFFERENCE THAT YOU HAVE WITH THE MAYOR? 

Nussle: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I'VE SPENT HALF MY TIME IN IOWA DURING THE YEAR.   I LIVE HERE TOO AND THIS IS WHERE MY FAMILY SHOPS, WHERE MY KIDS GO TO SCHOOL.   I HOLD MORE TOWN MEETINGS THAN ANY OTHER IOWA REPRESENTATIVE AROUND MY DISTRICT, LISTENING TO THE CONCERNS OF THE PEOPLE THAT I REPRESENT.   THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US IS OUR BELIEF ABOUT THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT, NUMBER ONE.   MOST DEMOCRATS THAT I RUN ACROSS SEEM TO THINK THAT IF ALL WE WOULD DO IS RAISE TAXES A LITTLE BIT MORE OR, FOR THAT MATTER, SUNSET THE TAX CODE THAT -- OR SUNSET THE TAX CUTS THAT WE HAVE NOW, SOMEHOW THE MONEY WILL FLOW TO WASHINGTON, WE'LL BE ABLE TO CREATE MORE PROGRAMS AND MORE DEPARTMENTS AND MORE ABILITIES TO SOLVE THOSE PROBLEMS IN WASHINGTON, AS OPPOSED TO RECOGNIZING THAT CURRENTLY OUR TAX CODE IS STRANGLING US, THAT OUR GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, CALLED MEDICARE, IS BANKRUPTING IOWA'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, THAT WE HAVE A SYSTEM CALLED SOCIAL SECURITY THAT SOME PEOPLE, INCLUDING MY OPPONENT, HAVE SAID THEY ARE WILLING TO CONSIDER PRIVATIZING, THAT WE HAVE A SITUATION INVOLVING JOB CREATION AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR KIDS IN THE FUTURE THAT ARE BEING STRANGLED BY THE LACK OF SUPPORT FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, WHICH IS THE INCUBATOR FOR OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE FUTURE.   THOSE ARE THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCES, I THINK, THIS YEAR BETWEEN MYSELF AND MAYOR HUTCHINSON. 

Yepsen: I WANT TO FOLLOW UP WITH YOU, CONGRESSMAN, ON ONE PART OF THAT, AND THAT IS THIS TAX QUESTION.   THE WAR ON TERRORISM HAS ALTERED THE FEDERAL SPENDING.   IT'S CHANGED THE ECONOMY.   I THINK EVERYONE AGREES ON THAT.   HOW DO YOU PAY FOR THE WAR ON TERRORISM?   YOU'VE ALREADY RUN UP A PRICE TAG WHETHER WE GO INTO IRAQ OR NOT.   YOU'RE CHAIRMAN OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE.   WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN?   HOW SHOULD WE PAY FOR THIS? 

 Nussle: WELL, WHAT WE'VE DONE ALREADY IN A BIPARTISAN WAY --  FIRST OF ALL, LET'S GET TO THE ISSUE OF TAXES, SINCE YOU SAID THAT.   YOU DO NOT RAISE TAXES IN A RECESSION.   AND THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT I UNDERSTAND --  AND I HOPE THE MAYOR, WHO HAS AN OPPORTUNITY HERE WHEN IT COMES TO THE TAX QUESTION IN HER OWN CITY, DOESN'T RAISE TAXES ON HER OWN CITIZENS.   I MEAN TAXES IN A RECESSION ARE NOT WHAT YOU RAISE.   YOU LOOK FOR WAYS TO TRIM GOVERNMENT SPENDING.   IT'S THE SPENDING THAT WE CAN CONTROL.   EVEN WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT RAISING TAXES, IT DOESN'T CONTROL REVENUE.   REVENUE IS CONTROLLED BY THE ECONOMY, AND THE ECONOMY IS CONTRACTING.   THAT'S THE REASON WHY REVENUE IS NOT COMING INTO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW. 

Yepsen: MAYOR, WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT THE FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICIT IF YOU GET ELECTED? 

Hutchinson: WELL, I THINK THE WHOLE ISSUE IS THE ISSUE OF BUDGETING.   IT'S NOT A MATTER OF RAISING TAXES.   NOBODY LIKES TO RAISE TAXES.   NOBODY WANTS TO RAISE TAXES IN THIS COUNTRY, BUT THE ISSUE IS CREATING BALANCED BUDGETS.  BY CREATING BALANCED BUDGETS, WHAT I MEAN IS NOT SPENDING EVERY DIME THAT COMES IN THE DOOR AND SPENDING THAT OUT THE DOOR.   IN BETTENDORF, WE'VE CREATED FIFTEEN YEARS OF BALANCED BUDGETS.   I STARTED IN BETTENDORF FIFTEEN YEARS AGO WITH A $4.5-MILLION DEFICIT IN THE GENERAL FUND.   AT THE END OF OUR LAST FISCAL YEAR, WE WERE AT A $4.2-MILLION SURPLUS IN THE GENERAL FUND.   THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.   THAT HAPPENS OVER A FIFTEEN-YEAR PERIOD OF TIME.   YOU ESTABLISH POLICIES AND YOU ESTABLISH RESERVES SO THAT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO DEAL WITH ISSUES AND TO DEAL WITH PROBLEMS AND TO DEAL WITH CRISES AS THEY HAPPEN.   THAT'S WHAT A GOOD BUDGET IS ALL ABOUT.   IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT SPENDING EVERYTHING THAT'S AVAILABLE TO YOU.   IT'S ABOUT CREATING RESERVES AND PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE. 

Glover: AND CONGRESSMAN NUSSLE JUST SUGGESTED THAT YOU WOULD PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY.   HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT?

Hutchinson: I AM ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED TO THE PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY.   I'VE SAID THAT OVER AND OVER AND OVER DURING THE PRIMARY CAMPAIGN.   DURING THE GENERAL CAMPAIGN, I WILL CONTINUE TO SAY THAT.   I BELIEVED THAT IT WAS PRUDENT AT THE TIME THAT I ANSWERED A QUESTION ABOUT PRIVATIZATION TO SAY THAT I WOULD EXAMINE IT WHEN THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT CAME OUT.   I DID EXAMINE THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT WHEN IT CAME OUT.   I READ ALL OF IT.  IT'S NOT A GOOD PROGRAM.   IT'S NOT A SOUND PROGRAM.  IT'S NOT A WISE PROGRAM FOR THE PEOPLE IN THIS DISTRICT OR FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.   I'M OPPOSED TO PRIVATIZATION. 

Nussle: AND IT WAS NOT THE PRESIDENT'S PROGRAM.   IT WAS THE COMMISSION APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT TO GIVE RECOMMENDATIONS --

Glover: DO YOU SUPPORT IT? 

 Nussle: -- ALL RECOMMENDATIONS.   AND, NO, I DON'T SUPPORT PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY.   I SUPPORT A GOVERNMENT-RUN SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM WITH A GUARANTEED BENEFIT.   AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO FOR SOCIAL SECURITY.   BUT HAVING SAID THAT, WE NEED TO GO FURTHER AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A TAX SYSTEM THAT PROTECTS SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT IN THIS COUNTRY SO THAT SOCIAL SECURITY CAN BE HELPFUL IN RETIREMENT, NOT THE ONLY THING THAT SENIORS HAVE TO RELY ON. 

Glover: THERE'S A LOT OF EMOTIONAL SOCIAL ISSUES THAT LAY OUT THERE.   PERHAPS ATOP OF THE HEAP IS ABORTION RIGHTS.   MR. NUSSLE, UNDER WHAT CONDITION SHOULD A WOMAN BE ALLOWED TO OBTAIN AN ABORTION? 

Nussle: WELL, I AM PRO-LIFE AND I WILL CONTINUE TO VOTE THAT WAY. 

Glover: THAT'S A SLOGAN.  UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS SHOULD A WOMAN --

Nussle: I DON'T FEEL IT'S A SLOGAN AT ALL.   I FEEL IT'S A PRETTY IMPORTANT POLICY.

Glover: LIST THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH A WOMAN SHOULD BE ABLE TO --

Nussle: I DON'T HAVE CONDITIONS.   MY OPPONENT HAS SWITCHED HER POSITION ON THAT. 

Glover: SO YOUR POSITION IS THAT A WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO OBTAIN AN ABORTION? 

Nussle: THAT'S CORRECT. 

Glover: MAYOR HUTCHINSON, WHAT'S YOUR POSITION? 

Hutchinson: MY POSITION IS THAT THE DECISION TO HAVE AN ABORTION SHOULD BE MADE BETWEEN A WOMAN AND HER DOCTOR AND HER GOD.   THAT IS MY POSITION.   IT HAS BEEN MY POSITION.   IT HAS NOT CHANGED. 

Glover: DURING YOUR TENURE AS MAYOR OF BETTENDORF, YOU HELPED BLOCK A PLANNED PARENTHOOD CLINIC FROM COMING INTO THE CITY.   HOW DOES THAT SQUARE WITH WHAT YOU JUST SAID? 

Hutchinson: MIKE, IT'S A MISNOMER TO SAY THAT I HELPED BLOCK A PLANNED PARENTHOOD CLINIC FROM COMING INTO THE CITY OF BETTENDORF.   PLANNED PARENTHOOD BOUGHT A PIECE OF PROPERTY.   THERE WERE ZONING ISSUES THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.   IT BECAME A ZONING ISSUE IN FRONT OF THE COMMUNITY, AND THE CITY COUNCIL STAYED FOCUSED ON THE ISSUE OF ZONING.   THE COMMUNITY, UNFORTUNATELY, FOCUSED ON THE ISSUE OF ABORTION.   WE DID NOT BLOCK THE CLINIC FROM BEING BUILT.   THE CLINIC WAS SUBSEQUENTLY BUILT AND IS OPERATING. 

Yepsen: MR. NUSSLE, POLLS SHOW THE BIGGEST ISSUE IN ALMOST EVERY RACE IN AMERICA IS HEALTH CARE, ISSUES RELATED TO HEALTH CARE POLICY.   AMERICANS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IT.   YOU HAVE TWO ISSUES HERE:   MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT AND PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT, BOTH OF WHICH WILL COST MONEY.   WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT?   CAN YOU DO BOTH? 

Nussle: GOOD QUESTION.   I WOULD SAY FOR IOWA THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO DO IMMEDIATELY IS THE REIMBURSEMENT SYSTEM, AND IT'S FOR THIS REASON.   IF WE DON'T FIX REIMBURSEMENTS, THE MANCHESTER HOSPITAL, WHERE I WOULD HAVE TO GO IF I NEEDED HEALTH CARE ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS, WOULD CLOSE.   ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW WE WOULD HAVE A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT FOR IOWANS, AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO DRIVE TO CEDAR RAPIDS TO GET THE BENEFIT BECAUSE THE DOCTOR WOULD HAVE LEFT, THE PHARMACIST WOULD HAVE LEFT, THE HOSPITAL WAS CLOSED.   SO THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR US TO FOCUS ON IS THE REASON WHY I FOCUSED ON IT IN THE BUDGET AND IT'S THE REASON I FOCUSED ON IT IN MY OTHER COMMITTEE OF JURISDICTION, THE TAX WRITING COMMITTEE THAT HAS JURISDICTION OVER MEDICARE.   THE REASON WE GOT THAT AMENDMENT THROUGH FOR IOWA'S HOSPITALS  -- AND IT EVEN HAD LEONARD BOSWELL'S SUPPORT FOR IT --  IS BECAUSE IT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO FIX THE FOUNDATIONAL ISSUE OF MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT THAN ANY OTHER HEALTH CARE ISSUE THAT FACES IOWA TODAY.   BUT WE ALSO PASSED A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT, BECAUSE I ALSO BELIEVE THAT MODERNIZES MEDICARE FOR THE FUTURE. 

Yepsen: MAYOR, WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON THESE TWO ISSUES? 

Hutchinson: WELL, I THINK IT'S INTERESTING THAT MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT HAS BECOME AN ISSUE JUST IN THE PAST FEW MONTHS FOR THE CONGRESSMAN.   IT'S BEEN AN ISSUE FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF IOWA FOR AN AWFUL LONG TIME, AND IT JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.   WE DIDN'T BECOME FIFTIETH IN THE NATION OVERNIGHT.   CERTAINLY WE HAVE GOT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT.   IT IS ONE OF THE TOP THINGS THAT ARE ON PEOPLE'S MINDS AS YOU GO AROUND THE DISTRICT.   AND AS YOU TALK TO PEOPLE IN THE STATE, THEY ARE ANGRY ABOUT IT, THEY ARE UPSET ABOUT IT, AND IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.   I GO BACK TO THE SAME THING THAT I'VE SAID BEFORE, THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE OF BUDGETING.  WHEN YOU PREPARE BALANCED BUDGETS, WHEN YOU HAVE RESERVES, WHEN YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO DEAL WITH ISSUES AS THOSE ISSUES COME UP, THEN THIS COUNTRY CAN HAVE MEDICARE -- FAIR AND EQUITABLE MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT, WE CAN HAVE FAIR AND EQUITABLE SOCIAL SECURITY, WE CAN HAVE PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE. 

Yepsen: CAN WE DO ALL OF THAT?   I MEAN HOW MUCH --  WE ALREADY HAVE A DEFICIT. 

Hutchinson: I BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN.   BUDGETING IS A MATTER OF PRIORITY.   BUDGETING IS A MATTER OF SETTING YOUR PRIORITIES AND ESTABLISHING THOSE PRIORITIES.   IN THE CITY OF BETTENDORF, WE'VE DONE FIFTEEN CONSECUTIVE BALANCED BUDGETS.   WE ADDRESSED OUR PRIORITIES AND THOSE PRIORITIES FOR THE PEOPLE IN BETTENDORF WERE SAFETY, THEY WERE ISSUES OF QUALITY OF LIFE.   WE'VE DONE THAT.   WE'VE EXPANDED OUR POLICE COVERAGE.   WE'VE EXPANDED OUR FIREFIGHTERS IN THE CITY.   WE'VE ALSO DEALT WITH QUALITY-OF-LIFE ISSUES.   WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO ALL OF THAT BECAUSE WE BALANCE OUR BUDGET AND WE ADHERE TO THOSE POLICIES. 

Yepsen: ANYTHING IN MIND SPECIFICALLY YOU WOULD GIVE UP IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PAY FOR ALL THIS?

Hutchinson: AGAIN, IT'S AN ISSUE OF PRIORITIES. 

Yepsen: WELL, WHAT IS YOUR PRIORITY? 

Hutchinson: MY PRIORITIES ARE PRESERVING SOCIAL SECURITY.   MY PRIORITIES ARE ADEQUATE MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT.   MY PRIORITIES ARE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND HEALTH CARE. 

Yepsen: WHAT DO YOU CUT TO PROTECT THOSE PRIORITIES? 

Hutchinson: YOU KNOW, I'M NOT HERE TO SAY THAT I WOULD CUT THIS NUMBER OF DOLLARS OUT OF THIS PLAN OR THIS NUMBER OF DOLLARS OUT OF THIS PLAN.   WHAT I'M SAYING IS I THINK OUR PRIORITIES ARE OUT OF WHACK WITH WHAT THE PEOPLE IN THIS STATE WANT. 

Glover: MR. NUSSLE, THE SUGGESTION IS THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE IN OFFICE OUGHT TO BEAR SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FACT THAT IOWA'S GOT A LOUSY MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT --

Nussle: YES. 

Glover: WHETHER THE HOUSE OR THE SENATE HAS PASSED IT, THERE'S NOT A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT.   TO WHAT EXTENT DOES THE IOWA DELEGATION BEAR SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS?   THAT DELEGATION HAS BEEN PRETTY SENIOR.   THEY'VE BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME, AND THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING ABOUT THESE THINGS.   CAN'T SOMEBODY MAKE A CASE IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE?  

Nussle: WELL, IT'S NOT TRUE THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING.   LET ME GO BACK JUST FIVE YEARS.   IT DIDN'T COME UP TWO MONTHS AGO.  I'VE BEEN CHAIRMAN OF THE RURAL HEALTH CARE COALITION, BUILDING THE COALITION AROUND THIS ISSUE, NUMBER ONE.   NUMBER TWO, WE PASSED THE CRITICAL ACCESS HEALTH CARE FOR HOSPITALS, WHICH RAISED ALL OF THE REIMBURSEMENT FOR A NUMBER OF IOWA HOSPITALS IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE JUST FIVE YEARS AGO.   THE THIRD THING WE DID THIS YEAR WAS NOT ONLY PUT INTO THE BUDGET FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT, WHICH WE DID FIND PRIORITIES WITHIN OUR BUDGET.   THE REASON THERE ISN'T A BUDGET IN THE SENATE IS BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A DEMOCRAT IN THE COUNTRY THAT HAS YET PUT THEIR MARKER ON THE TABLE OF WHAT THEY WOULD CUT AND WHAT PRIORITIES THEY HAVE.   WE PASSED A MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT WITH $123-BILLION RECOUPMENT FOR IOWA'S HOSPITALS THAT NOW FINALLY SENATOR GRASSLEY AND SENATOR HARKIN ARE GOING TO SHEPHERD THROUGH THE UNITED STATES SENATE.   WE HAVE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.   THE REASON THIS HASN'T GOTTEN DONE IS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS AN URBAN BODY.   IT TRAMPLES OVER THE RURAL AREAS ALL THE TIME.   IT'S THE SENATE THAT'S THE RURAL BODY THAT HAS TO PROTECT PLACES LIKE IOWA AND OTHER RURAL AREAS OF THE COUNTRY.   THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE TRADITION. 

Yepsen: I WANT TO FLIP MIKE'S QUESTION AROUND.   WE DO HAVE A PROBLEM AND AREN'T WE BETTER OFF SOLVING IT WITH MORE SENIOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO HAVE GOT SOME CLOUT TO GET SOMETHING DONE?   WHY DO YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM? 

Hutchinson: WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT IT NECESSARILY TAKES SENIOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO SOLVE ISSUES AND SOLVE PROBLEMS.   IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THEN OBVIOUSLY THOSE PROBLEMS WOULD BE SOLVED.   THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT'S BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME.   AS YOU POINT OUT VERY VALIDLY, WE DO HAVE A LOT OF SENIOR MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THEY HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE.   AND THE PEOPLE IN THIS DISTRICT KNOW THEY HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE.   THEY ARE ANGRY ABOUT IT AND THEY ARE CONCERNED. 

Borg: MS. HUTCHINSON, LET'S SWITCH TO A RURAL QUESTION HERE.   PACKER OWNERSHIP OF LIVESTOCK, IN FAVOR OR NOT? 

Hutchinson: I AM IN FAVOR OF THE PACKER BAN, YES. 

Borg: PACKERS CANNOT OWN LIVESTOCK. 

Hutchinson: YES. 

Borg: CONGRESSMAN? 

Nussle: AND I'VE INTRODUCED THE LEGISLATION ON THAT BILL AND WISH THAT WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN SENATOR HARKIN TO AGREE TO THAT WHEN WE PUSHED THAT THROUGH THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE FOR THE AGRICULTURE BILL.

Borg: MIKE. 

Glover: LET'S TURN TO THE FARM BILL.   CONGRESS HAS JUST PASSED THE FARM BILL.   THE PRESIDENT HAS PRAISED IT AS A GOOD BILL, A BILL THAT'S GOOD FOR FARMERS AND GOOD FOR AMERICA.   WHAT'S YOUR VIEW?

Nussle: I'M NOT SURE WE'D CALL IT A GOOD BILL.   IT WAS A NECESSARY BILL. 

Glover: YOUR PRESIDENT CALLED IT A GOOD BILL.

 Nussle: WELL, WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE.   THE PRESIDENT AND I DON'T AGREE ON EVERYTHING, I'M SURE.   IT WAS A NECESSARY BILL FOR IOWA FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS;  FIRST, WE'RE IN A TRADE WAR.   THE REASON THAT WE -- THAT FREEDOM TO FARM FAILED MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE IS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE EUROPEAN UNION IS BLOCKING, THROUGH NONTARIFF BARRIERS, ALL OF OUR PRODUCTS FROM GOING INTO THEIR COUNTRIES.   AND WE HAD A TOTAL COLLAPSE OF THE PACIFIC RIM CURRENCIES, PARTICULARLY IN JAPAN.   AS A RESULT IT BOUGHT UP THE PRICE OF OUR PRODUCTS AND, AS A RESULT, WE NEED A SAFETY NET.   THIS IS THE BEST WE COULD GET THROUGH CONGRESS, BUT I WOULD NEVER CALL IT A GOOD BILL.   IT WAS A NECESSARY BILL FOR IOWA'S FARMERS. 

Glover: MAYOR HUTCHINSON, YOU DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO VOTE ON THIS FARM BILL.   HAD YOU BEEN GIVEN THAT CHANCE, HOW WOULD YOU HAVE VOTED AND WHAT'S YOUR ASSESSMENT OF IT? 

Hutchinson: I THINK THAT THERE ARE GOOD THINGS IN THE FARM BILL, AND I THINK THAT IT GOES IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.   FROM WHAT I AM TOLD BY TALKING WITH FARMERS IN THE DISTRICT, MANY OF THEM FEAR -- MANY OF THEM FEEL THAT IT DOESN'T GO AS FAR AS IT NEEDS TO GO.   I FOUND --  I'VE TALKED TO AN AWFUL LOT OF FARMERS THROUGH THE LAST 450 DAYS, AND YOU'LL GET DIFFERENT IDEAS FROM EVERYBODY BECAUSE NO FARM IS EXACTLY ALIKE AND NO TWO FARMERS ARE EXACTLY ALIKE.   THEIR CONCERNS ARE CERTAINLY WITH ISSUES OF CONSERVATION.   THEY'RE PLEASED THAT THERE ARE CONSERVATION MEASURES IN THIS BILL.   THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM GO FURTHER.   THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT PRICE SUPPORTS.   THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE LOWERED, AND THEY'RE CERTAINLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE ISSUE OF THE PACKER BAN. 

Yepsen: MAYOR, WE'VE GOT ABOUT THIRTY SECONDS LEFT.   YOU GET FIFTEEN OF IT.   WHAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU WANT TO DO IF YOU GET ELECTED TO CONGRESS, THE ONE THING YOU WANT TO DO? 

Hutchinson: THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT I WANT TO DO IS I WANT TO GO TO CONGRESS TO REPRESENT OF THE PEOPLE, TO REPRESENT THEIR INTERESTS, TO PRESERVE THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, TO HELP WITH ISSUES OF HEALTH CARE, AND PARTICULARLY TO GET THAT PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN PASSED. 

Yepsen: CONGRESSMAN, SAME QUESTION TO YOU. 

Nussle: WITH THIS LAST YEAR, THERE'S ONLY ONE ISSUE AND THAT'S SECURING AMERICA'S FUTURE.  WE HAVE GOT TO GET BACK ON THE ROAD TOWARD SECURITY AT ALL LEVELS:   HOMELAND SECURITY,  ECONOMIC SECURITY,  AND SECURITY FOR IOWA'S OPPORTUNITIES. 

Borg: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR SHARING YOUR VIEWS WITH US TODAY.   ON OUR NEXT EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS," WE'LL CONTINUE WITH OUR CANDIDATES FOR CONGRESS.   NEXT WEEK, THE NEWLY REDRAWN SECOND DISTRICT.   JOINING US, THE MAJOR-PARTY CANDIDATES THERE:  INCUMBENT JIM LEACH,  HE'S A REPUBLICAN FROM IOWA CITY NOW;  AND CITY RAPIDS DEMOCRAT  DR. JULIE THOMAS.   AS USUAL, YOU WILL SEE "IOWA PRESS" FRIDAY EVENING AT 6:30 AND AT NOON ON SUNDAY.   AND THAT'S IT FOR THIS FIRST EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS" IN THE 2002-2003 BROADCAST SEASON.   I'M DEAN BORG.   THANKS FOR BEING WITH US TO BEGIN OUR THIRTY-SECOND SEASON HERE ON STATEWIDE IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION.