Iowa Public Television

Borg: WITH THE 2002 GENERAL ELECTION ONLY A MONTH AWAY NOW, IOWANS ARE DECIDING WHO'LL GET THEIR VOTES. WE'LL QUESTION THE MAJOR-PARTY CANDIDATES TO REPRESENT IOWA'S FIFTH U.S. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT -- REPUBLICAN STEVE KING AND DEMOCRAT PAUL SHOMSHOR -- ON THIS EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS."

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, OCTOBER 4 EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS." HERE IS DEAN BORG.

Borg: "IOWA PRESS" OPENED ITS THIRTY-SECOND SEASON HERE ON IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION IN EARLY SEPTEMBER WITH PREELECTION COVERAGE OF THE MAJOR-PARTY CAMPAIGNS TO REPRESENT IOWA IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. AS WE INTERVIEWED THE CANDIDATES FROM EACH DISTRICT, WE'VE NOTED EACH DISTRICT'S NEW BOUNDARIES, THE CHANGES MADE TO REPRESENT POPULATION SHIFTS RECORDED IN THE 2000 CENSUS. SO FAR THERE'S BEEN AN INCUMBENT CONGRESSMAN SEEKING ELECTION IN A DISTRICT WITH NEW BOUNDARIES AND NEW CONSTITUENTS. IN WESTERN IOWA, SPRAWLING 32-COUNTY FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, THOUGH -- THAT EXTENDS FROM MINNESOTA TO MISSOURI -- THERE IS NOT AN INCUMBENT. IT'S AN OPEN SEAT. THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE IS STATE SENATOR STEVE KING OF KIRON, WHO HOPES TO MOVE FROM THE IOWA STATEHOUSE TO THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. HIS DEMOCRATIC CHALLENGER IS CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT PAUL SHOMSHOR, WHO IS ALSO A FORMER COUNCIL BLUFFS CITY COUNCILMAN. GENTLEMEN, WELCOME TO "IOWA PRESS."

THANK YOU.

Borg: LOOK FORWARD TO TALKING WITH YOU IN THE NEXT HALF HOUR. ALSO WITH US HERE AT THE "IOWA PRESS" TABLE: "DES MOINES REGISTER" POLITICAL COLUMNIST DAVID YEPSEN AND "ASSOCIATED PRESS" SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER MIKE GLOVER.

Glover: MR. SHOMSHOR, ON PROGRAMS LIKE THIS, WE LIKE TO GIVE CANDIDATES THE CHANCE TO GIVE THEIR OWN COMMERCIAL, ASSUMING THEY KIND OF WOULD ANYWAY WHETHER WE DECIDED TO OR NOT. SO GIVE US YOUR COMMERCIAL. WHY SHOULD PAUL SHOMSHOR GO TO CONGRESS, PARTICULARLY FROM A DISTRICT THAT'S SO REPUBLICAN LEANING?

Shomshor: I GREW UP IN CRESTON, IOWA, A SMALL RURAL TOWN, WENT TO SCHOOL IN COUNCIL BLUFFS, WENT OUT OF STATE AT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY IN WACO, TEXAS, TO GRADUATE WITH BACHELORS AND MASTERS DEGREES IN ACCOUNTING, CAME HOME TO IOWA. I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO ATTRACT PEOPLE BACK TO IOWA. I'M A CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT AND I'VE WENT OUT AND WORKED HARD IN THIS DISTRICT TO LEARN THE ISSUES AND UNDERSTAND THE PEOPLE OF WESTERN IOWA. I THINK PEOPLE ARE INDEPENDENT MINDED. THEY WANT THREE THINGS: THEY WANT QUALITY JOBS, GOOD HEALTH CARE, AND A SOUND RETIREMENT SYSTEM. AND VOTERS ARE WILLING TO LOOK INDEPENDENTLY AT CANDIDATES, ASIDE FROM PARTY REGISTRATION.

Glover: MR. KING, SAME QUESTION TO YOU. WHAT'S THE COMMERCIAL? WHY SHOULD STEVE KING GO TO CONGRESS THIS YEAR?

King: WELL, ONE THING I THINK THAT VOTERS SHOULD LOOK AT IS MY BACKGROUND. I LIVE AND WORK IN IOWA. I'VE STARTED A BUSINESS HERE IN 1975. I OPERATE THAT BUSINESS AFTER TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS. I MET PAYROLL 1,400 AND SOME CONSECUTIVE WEEKS. I'M MARRIED FOR THIRTY YEARS, HAVE RAISED THREE CHILDREN, AND MY OLDEST SON IS TAKING OVER THE BUSINESS AND HIS WIFE IS RUNNING THE OFFICE. I SERVED, ALSO, SIX YEARS IN THE IOWA SENATE, WHERE I'M CURRENTLY A STATE SENATOR. I'VE CHAIRED THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AND I CURRENTLY CHAIR THE STATE GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE. I'VE BEEN A LEGISLATIVE LEADER. I'VE PROVEN I CAN GET THINGS DONE. I MADE THE PLEDGE IN '96 THAT I WOULD SEEK TO ENACT 14 DIFFERENT PIECES OF POLICY. OF THOSE 14, 12 HAVE PASSED THE SENATE; 10 ARE IN LAW TODAY. SO I'M A PERSON WHO HAS PROVEN THEIR LEADERSHIP AND SOMEONE WHO HAS ARTICULATED THE VISION THAT I HAVE FOR WESTERN IOWA AND FOR ALL OF IOWA IN THIS COUNTRY. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO SERVING WESTERN IOWANS IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS.

Yepsen: MR. SHOMSHOR, HELP THE VOTER OUT HERE. WHAT'S THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCES -- WHAT'S THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE YOU HAVE WITH SENATOR KING?

Shomshor: I THINK IT COMES DOWN TO ISSUES. ONE, I'M A CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT. I UNDERSTAND TAX POLICY. I BELIEVE INCOME TAXES ARE IMPORTANT. MY OPPONENT IS FOR A NATIONAL SALES TAX. HE WANTS TO ELIMINATE THE MINIMUM WAGE. I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE 100,000 IOWANS WORK AT MINIMUM-WAGE JOBS. AND I DO NOT SUPPORT PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY, WHERE SENATOR KING DOES. THOSE ARE THREE IMPORTANT ISSUES.

Yepsen: SENATOR KING, SAME QUESTION. WHAT ARE THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCES YOU HAVE --

King: WELL, TWO OF THE THREE --

Yepsen: -- WITH MR. SHOMSHOR?

King: EXCUSE ME, DAVE. TWO OF THE THREE ARE MISCHARACTERIZATIONS OF MY POSITION. THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCES THAT I HAVE LAID OUT HERE ARE MY LEADERSHIP THAT I HAVE DEMONSTRATED. I'M A PROVEN LEADER AND IOWA NEEDS A PROVEN LEADER TO GO TO WASHINGTON AND GET THINGS DONE. MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT RATES, WE'RE LAST IN THE NATION. AND I HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE ABILITY TO USE THAT LEVERAGE. IF IT'S THERE IN WASHINGTON, I'LL FIND THE LEVERAGE AND I'LL USE IT.

Yepsen: HOW DID HE MISCHARACTERIZE YOUR POSITION?

King: WELL, ON SOCIAL SECURITY, THE ONLY PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THE PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY ARE DEMOCRATS ALLEGING THAT, SO THAT'S ONE PIECE; AND ELIMINATION OF THE MINIMUM WAGE WOULD BE ANOTHER. I'VE NEVER ADVOCATED FOR THE TOTAL ELIMINATION OF THE MINIMUM WAGE.

Yepsen: WHAT DO YOU SAY ABOUT THAT?

Shomshor: THERE ARE DIRECT QUOTES IN "THE DES MOINES REGISTER" THAT INDICATE THAT HE WOULD HAVE ADVOCATED ELIMINATING THE MINIMUM WAGE. AND SENATOR KING WAS ON THIS PROGRAM ON JULY 5, AND HE'S ALSO ANSWERED QUESTIONNAIRES FROM THE CHRISTIAN COALITION THAT DIRECTLY AND SPECIFICALLY USE THE WORD "PRIVATIZATION."

King: AND IF YOU'D CHECK THE TRANSCRIPT OF THIS PROGRAM, YOU'D NOTICE THAT I SAID PARTIAL PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY.

Glover: SO YOU WANT TO PRIVATIZE IT A LITTLE BIT.

Yepsen: WELL, WHAT ABOUT THAT, MR. SHOMSHOR? I MEAN THE ISSUE HERE IS PERSONAL ACCOUNTS, IT'S WHETHER SOMEONE INSIDE THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DIRECT A PART OF THEIR CONTRIBUTION. NOW, YOU'RE AN ACCOUNTANT. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?

Shomshor: WE SHOULD HAVE A SOLID GUARANTEE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY, AND IF WE MOVE TOWARD PRIVATE ACCOUNTS CURRENTLY, THAT WILL CREATE A TRILLION-DOLLAR HOLE FOR CURRENT BENEFICIARIES, AND I WILL NOT CREATE THAT TRILLION-DOLLAR HOLE.

Yepsen: SO YOU THINK SOCIAL SECURITY IS A GOOD RETURN ON THE INVESTMENT, THEN.

Shomshor: I THINK IT'S A SAFETY NET AND IT'S BEEN A GOOD SAFETY NET SINCE 1933 WHEN IT WAS CREATED.

Yepsen: MR. KING, WHAT ABOUT THE PERSONAL ACCOUNTS PART OF THAT? WOULD YOU LIKE SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

King: I'LL CERTAINLY LOOK AT THAT. I THINK WE NEED TO SIT DOWN AND LOOK AT THE ACTUARIAL TABLES ON WHAT KIND OF A BENEFIT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO YIELD. WE NEED TO PROMISE YOUNGER PEOPLE MORE OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL SOME OF THEIR OWN RETIREMENT, AND WE ALSO NEED TO MAINTAIN, WHAT I HAVE CALLED FOR MONTHS AND YEARS, A SACRED COVENANT WITH OUR SENIORS TO GUARANTEE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. SO WE CAN DO BOTH THINGS. AND TO NOT ADDRESS SOCIAL SECURITY AT THIS POINT I BELIEVE IS IRRESPONSIBLE. SOCIAL SECURITY GOES INTO THE RED IN 2016. I'M NOT WILLING TO WAIT TILL 2016 AND THEN REALIZE THAT THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE.

Borg: HERE'S ONE THAT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO WAIT ON. IT'S AN ISSUE THAT'S PENDING RIGHT NOW IN THE CONGRESS, AND IF YOU WERE THERE, I'D BE INTERESTED IN HOW YOU GENTLEMEN WOULD VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION CONCERNING IRAQ. HOW WOULD YOU?

Shomshor: WELL, YESTERDAY THE RESOLUTION PASSED THE HOUSE, AND I WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE RESOLUTION. I THINK THERE'S SOME VERY IMPORTANT THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO AND COMMITMENTS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE BEFORE WE ENTER INTO WAR. ONE OF THEM IS WE NEED TO HAVE U.N. SUPPORT. ONE REASON THE GULF WAR WAS SO IMPORTANT IN 1991 IS WE HAD SUPPORT THAT WAS MORE THAN UNILATERAL. I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THE SECURITY COUNCIL IN AGREEMENT WITH US. WE NEED TO HAVE COOPERATION FROM CHINA, RUSSIA, AND FRANCE, OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL.

Borg: SO IF YOU HAD BEEN THERE YESTERDAY, YOU WOULD HAVE VOTED --

Shomshor: I WOULD HAVE VOTED YES.

Borg: MR. KING?

King: WHAT I'VE ASKED FOR IS THAT, FIRST OF ALL, THE HYPOTHETICAL OF "IF I HAD BEEN THERE," IF I HAD BEEN THERE, I WOULD HAVE MORE ACCESS TO MORE INFORMATION THAN WE HAVE ACCESS TO BY READING THE NEWSPAPER. SO THIS IS A VERY PROFOUND DECISION, AND IT'S A DIFFERENT THING TO PUT UP A VOTE THAT AFFECTS PEOPLE'S LIVES THAN IT IS TO HAVE AN OPINION IN THE COFFEE SHOP. SO I WOULD WANT TO SEE WHAT ARE THOSE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, WHAT IS THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, OR THE DELIVERY SYSTEM THAT THEY HAVE, WHAT'S THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO. WE HAVE TO REALLY SIT DOWN AND WEIGH THE LIVES OF YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN THAT ARE IN UNIFORM VERSUS PEOPLE THAT ARE WORKING FOR GOLDMAN SACHS AND MORGAN STANLEY. SO I'M LIKELY TO SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT, BUT I'M GOING TO SEE THE INFORMATION FIRST. I THINK THAT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A CONGRESSMAN.

Glover: MR. KING, YOU CALL YOURSELF A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE. SHOULD WAR BREAK OUT WITH IRAQ, IT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY DARN EXPENSIVE. HOW DO YOU PAY FOR IT?

King: WE'LL HAVE TO ADJUST THOSE PRIORITIES, MIKE, AND IT WILL BE SOME VERY TOUGH DECISIONS --

Glover: SO WHAT DO YOU CUT?

King: I DON'T BELIEVE I CAN TELL YOU EXACTLY WHERE WE WOULD GO TO CUT.

Glover: DO YOU RUN UP THE DEFICIT FURTHER?

King: THERE WILL BE A DEFICIT THAT GOES UP. WE'VE MOVED INTO THAT DIRECTION NOW.

Glover: HOW DOES A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE JUSTIFY RUNNING UP A BUDGET DEFICIT TO PAY FOR A WAR?

King: AS I WAS TO SAY, THAT WILL BE SOME OF THE MOST DIFFICULT DECISIONS I WOULD HAVE TO MAKE ON THAT MEASURE OF WHAT WE MIGHT HAVE TO CUT VERSUS LOOKING AT THE DEFICIT. BUT I WILL SAY THIS, THAT THERE IS NO TRAINING OR NO EQUIPMENT THAT'S TOO GOOD FOR OUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN WHEN THEY'RE IN THE ARMED SERVICES IN HARM'S WAY.

Glover: MR. SHOMSHOR, SAME QUESTION TO YOU.

Shomshor: I'M ALSO FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. BEING A CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, I GIVE -- I BELIEVE THAT GIVES ME EXPERTISE. THE WAR IS GOING TO COST BETWEEN $100- AND $200 BILLION. I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE COMMITMENTS BEFOREHAND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO CUT. WE NEED TO BALANCE PRIORITIES, BUT IF I HAD TO NAME SPECIFIC THINGS, WE SPENT $120 BILLION ON SDI CURRENTLY AND I'M NOT SURE WE'RE TECHNOLOGICALLY READY FOR THAT. I WOULD PUT OFF SOME OF THAT SPENDING. I WOULD MAKE SURE THAT IF WE HAD OPPORTUNITIES TO LOOK AT OTHER AREAS SUCH AS WHERE WE GIVE FOREIGN AID TO COUNTRIES THAT DO NOT SUPPORT US -- HAITI, SOMALIA -- I WOULD LOOK AT CUTS IN THOSE AREAS. AND I ALSO THINK THAT WE NEED TO RETURN TO A COMPETITIVE BIDDING SITUATION IN CONGRESS REGARDING PROJECTS WE GIVE OUT. CURRENTLY WE DO NOT HAVE THAT AS GOVERNMENTAL STREAMLINE DURING 1990S.

Glover: MR. KING, MR. SHOMSHOR SAID THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO ENLIST THE ASSISTANCE OF OTHER COUNTRIES, SHOULD HOSTILITIES BREAK OUT TOWARDS IRAQ. YOU'VE NOT ADDRESSED THAT. CAN THE UNITED STATES DO THIS ON ITS OWN, OR SHOULD IT SEEK TO ALIGN ITS ALLIES WITH IT?

King: IF WE HAVE TO DO IT AND WE HAVE THE CAPABILITIES TO DO IT ON OUR OWN, WE SHOULD NOT RELY ON THE UNITED NATIONS OR ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE -- WHO HAVE DIFFERENT MOTIVES THAN WE HAVE. OUR FOREIGN POLICY SHOULD BE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WE'RE A SOVEREIGN NATION AND WE SHOULDN'T BE SUBSERVIENT TO THE INTERESTS OF OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD.

Shomshor: I ALSO THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE MAY BE INVOLVED IN IRAQ FOR ONE YEAR, FIVE YEARS, TEN YEARS. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE COMMITMENTS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD BECAUSE, IF WE DO OVERTHROW IRAQ, THERE'S GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE COSTS AFTERWARDS AND I THINK WE WANT SOME SHARING COMMITMENTS IN BOTH THOSE COSTS AND THE REGION FROM OUR ALLIES.

Yepsen: THIS IS THE ONLY RACE FOR CONGRESS IN IOWA WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A NEW MEMBER, WE KNOW FOR SURE. AND A LOT OF VIEWERS MAY BE WONDERING WHAT KIND OF CONGRESSMAN YOU WOULD MAKE. SO SENATOR KING, WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU GOT TO CONGRESS? WHAT WOULD YOU SPECIALIZE IN? WHAT COMMITTEES WOULD YOU MAKE? AS A LEGISLATOR, YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN ALL KINDS OF SOCIAL ISSUES, LIKE ENGLISH ONLY, SOME OF THESE HOT-BUTTON ISSUES. WOULD YOU GET INTO THAT? TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT KIND OF CONGRESSMAN YOU'D BE.

King: ONE THING IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, I'VE NEVER HAD DISCIPLINE TO STICK WITH ANY PARTICULAR SUBJECT MATTER. I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL BE ABLE TO DISCIPLINE MYSELF IN WASHINGTON D.C. THE THRUST OF THIS SEAT, THE WESTERN IOWA, IS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. I HAVE ASKED FOR AND I'VE BEEN PROMISED A SEAT ON THE HOUSE AG COMMITTEE. I'LL BE AN EFFECTIVE PLAYER THERE, I BELIEVE, IN SHAPING AG POLICY IN THE UPCOMING YEARS. AND THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE TO ALL OF IOWA AND MUCH OF THE MIDWEST. ALSO ON THE FISCAL-YEAR ISSUES, YOU'LL SEE ME SEEKING TO GET A SEAT EVENTUALLY ON THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. BUT ALSO, I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE THE LAST SIX YEARS IN THE IOWA SENATE, SO I'VE TAKEN A REAL INTEREST IN ECONOMIC ISSUES. I THINK WE NEED TO PROMOTE TRANSPORTATION AND EDUCATION, HIGH-SPEED TELECOMMUNICATIONS. WE NEED TO DO THAT WITH THIS FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURE THAT VALUE ADDS AS CLOSE TO THE CORNSTALK AS WE CAN AND AS MANY TIMES AS WE CAN, AND THAT FLOWS FROM OUR FARMS TO OUR TOWNS AND TO OUR CITIES.

Yepsen: MR. SHOMSHOR, SAME QUESTION. WHAT KIND OF CONGRESSMAN ARE YOU GOING TO BE? YOU'VE NOT HELD STATE PUBLIC OFFICE. YOU'VE HELD LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICE. SO WHAT COULD WE EXPECT TO SEE OUT OF YOU?

Shomshor: WELL, I THINK LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICE IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT GIVES YOU A CHANCE TO BUILD COALITIONS, AND I WOULD DO THE SAME THING IN WASHINGTON, D.C. I WOULD GO TO WASHINGTON, D.C., TO BUILD COALITIONS, TO GET THINGS DONE, NOT TO WORK ON FRINGE POLICIES. COMMITTEES THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SERVE ON, FIRST OF ALL, WAYS AND MEANS. BEING A CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, HAVING PRACTICED IN TAX LAW, I THINK I WOULD BE A GREAT FIT FOR THAT COMMITTEE. SECONDLY, APPROPRIATIONS IS VERY IMPORTANT. THAT GIVES YOU CONTROL OVER PROJECTS AROUND THE COUNTRY. AND AGRICULTURE IS ALSO A VERY IMPORTANT COMMITTEE, WITH 32 COUNTIES THAT ARE LARGELY RURAL.

Yepsen: MR. KING, I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON SOMETHING. YOU SAY YOU MIGHT HAVE TROUBLE USING SOME DISCIPLINE TO FOCUS YOURSELF. THAT STRIKES ME AS A MINUS IN A MEMBER OF CONGRESS. YOU CAN'T BE ALL OVER THE MAP ON THINGS IF YOU GO TO CONGRESS.

King: THEY ADVISED ME WHEN I CAME INTO THE SENATE THAT I HAD TO FOCUS ON TWO OR THREE ISSUES THAT I WOULD HOPE TO GET DONE. AND OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS, I'VE FOCUSED ON A GREAT NUMBER OF ISSUES AND HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT AREAS. SO WHAT I WILL DO IS I'LL ADDRESS THESE ISSUES AS THEY ARE PRIORITIZED BY THE PEOPLE FROM THE DISTRICT, AND I'LL ADDRESS AS MANY AS A POSSIBLY CAN. AND I THINK I CAN BE EFFECTIVE IN MORE THAN ONE AREA.

Yepsen: SPECIFICALLY, WHAT ABOUT THIS CRITICISM THAT'S MADE OF YOU? IT WAS MADE DURING THE PRIMARY; IT'S MADE HERE IN THIS CAMPAIGN: YOU'RE JUST TOO DARN CONSERVATIVE, TOO MUCH OF A RIGHT-WING LOON. YOU'RE INTO ENGLISH ONLY. YOU'RE INTO ALL OF THESE SOCIAL ISSUES THAT DIVIDE IOWANS. HOW WILL YOU HANDLE THOSE QUESTIONS IN CONGRESS?

King: WELL, I'D LOOK AT IT THIS WAY, THAT EVERY TIME I'VE BEEN ON THE BALLOT, I'VE WON BY A MORE THAN 2:1 MARGIN WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FOUR-WAY PRIMARY. AND IT WAS A VERY TOUGH PRIMARY AND MAYBE THE MOST HOTLY CONTESTED CONGRESSIONAL PRIMARY IN AMERICA. THE CONSTITUENTS THAT I SERVE IN MY SENATE DISTRICT VOTED FOR ME WITH 76 PERCENT. NOW, IF THEY THOUGHT I FIT THAT LABEL, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE SHOWN THAT KIND OF LOYALTY AND SUPPORT. SO I THINK IT'S UP TO THE CRITICS TO SUPPORT THAT STATEMENT, NOT ME.

Glover: MR. SHOMSHOR, WE'RE ALL REALISTS AROUND THIS TABLE.

Shomshor: RIGHT.

Glover: WE KNOW THE MAKEUP OF THE FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. THERE ARE ABOUT 58,000 MORE REPUBLICANS THAN THERE ARE DEMOCRATS. GIVE US A CREDIBLE CASE FOR PAUL SHOMSHOR IN ONE MONTH WINNING THAT DISTRICT.

Shomshor: THERE NEEDS TO BE GOOD DEMOCRATIC TURNOUT IN THE DISTRICT. SECONDLY, THERE ARE 35 PERCENT OF THE DISTRICT ARE REGISTERED INDEPENDENTS. THAT'S 128,000 INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE REGISTERED NO PARTY, AND THAT CLEARLY OUTNUMBERS THE REGISTRATION DISADVANTAGE IN REPUBLICANS. I DON'T THINK PEOPLE ARE POLITICAL IDEOLOGUES. THEY LOOK AT ISSUES AND WHERE INDIVIDUALS STAND ON THE ISSUES. I'VE BEEN A COMPROMISER. I'VE BEEN ABLE TO GET THINGS DONE IN THE COMMUNITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS, AND I'M NOT WILLING TO DRIVE SPLITS BETWEEN DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES WITHIN THIS CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.

Glover: MR. KING, A VERSION OF THAT QUESTION TO YOU. IT'S A HEAVILY REPUBLICAN DISTRICT. YOU'RE FAVORED TO WIN THE DISTRICT. HOW DO YOU GET REPUBLICAN TURNOUT STRONG ENOUGH IN THAT DISTRICT TO HELP OTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES ON THE TICKET?

King: I MADE THE PLEDGE WELL BEFORE LAST CHRISTMAS THAT WHOEVER WON THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION HAD AN OBLIGATION TO TURN OUT THE VOTE IN THE NEW FIFTH DISTRICT. WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS WE'VE BUILT ORGANIZATION INTO ALL 32 COUNTIES. WE HAVE KING FOR CONGRESS PEOPLE WORKING IN MOST OF THE PRECINCTS, AND WE'RE WIRED INTO THE GROSS, GANSKE, AND PARTY PEOPLE IN THOSE PRECINCTS. THEN WE SENT OUT A PLEDGE THAT SAID THE COUNTY THAT IMPROVES THEIR REPUBLICAN ELECTION RESULTS THE MOST AS COMPARED TO PREVIOUS ELECTIONS, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THE COUPLE IN THAT COUNTY A TRIP TO WASHINGTON D.C. AND A TOUR THROUGH THE CITY. AND I'M GOING TO HOOK ONTO MY PIG ROASTER AND GO TO ANY PRECINCT THAT TURNS OUT 100 PERCENT OF THE REPUBLICANS, AND WE'RE GOING TO COOK SOME IOWA ETHNIC FOOD THERE.

Glover: MR. SHOMSHOR, HOW DO YOU GET DEMOCRATS AND INDEPENDENTS EXCITED IN THAT DISTRICT? I MEAN, THERE IS A FEELING AMONGST A LOT OF THEM THAT THEY JUST CAN'T WIN. HOW DO YOU GET THEM EXCITED?

Shomshor: SURE. THIS IS THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY IN A LONG TIME THAT, IN SOUTHWEST OR NORTHWEST IOWA, THE DEMOCRATS HAD A CHANCE AT WINNING CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION. BERKELEY BADELLE WAS A GREAT EXAMPLE IN THE MID 1970S. HE WON A SEAT IN THE SOUTH THAT'S BEEN REPRESENTED BY A DEMOCRAT. AND I BELIEVE THAT I HAVE GOTTEN INDIVIDUALS EXCITED IN THE DIFFERENT COUNTIES BY GOING AROUND AND TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUES.

Yepsen: MR. SHOMSHOR, I'M TOLD THAT YOU'RE PRO-LIFE.

Shomshor: CORRECT.

Yepsen: I'M TOLD THAT YOU FAVOR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

Shomshor: CORRECT.

Yepsen: WELL, WHAT KIND OF DEMOCRAT ARE YOU? I MEAN HARRY TRUMAN ONCE SAID IN A RACE BETWEEN A REPUBLICAN AND A REPUBLICAN, THE REPUBLICAN WILL WIN EVERY TIME. HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO ENERGIZE THE DEMOCRATIC BASE WITH POSITIONS ON ISSUES LIKE THAT?

Shomshor: THERE ARE MANY ISSUES THAT DEFINE US. SENATOR KING SUPPORTS A NATIONAL SALES TAX. THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT ON MIDDLE-CLASS AMERICANS AND AMERICANS WHO LIVE AT THE LOWER END OF THE POLITICAL SECTOR. THAT WOULD BE CRUSHING TO PEOPLE WITHIN THE MIDDLE CLASS.

Yepsen: WHY DO YOU FAVOR THAT IDEA?

King: I DON'T FAVOR THE IDEA DESCRIBED BY --

Yepsen: BUT YOU DO FAVOR A NATIONAL SALES TAX --

King: ABSOLUTELY. I FAVOR ONE THAT HAS A REBATE CHECK THAT GOES INTO EVERY HOUSEHOLD TO COMPENSATE EACH HOUSEHOLD FOR THE TAXES ON THEIR NECESSITIES, SO IT COMPLETELY ELIMINATES THE REGRESSIVE NATURE OF THE TAX. IT WOULD ELIMINATE THE TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY, WHICH DEMOCRATS, BY THE WAY, INITIATED, AND THE TAX ON INTEREST AND DIVIDENDS. RETAIL PRICES WOULD GO DOWN 15 TO 30 PERCENT BECAUSE OF THE BUILT-IN TAXES THERE, BECAUSE OF CORPORATE INCOME TAX. ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S UP TO A 700- AND MAYBE, SOME SAY, EVEN A TRILLION-DOLLAR BURDEN ON OUR ECONOMY BY THE EXISTING TAX STRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE. I DO NOT SUPPORT THE CURRENT PROGRAM THAT WE HAVE. IT'S SOCIAL ENGINEERING AND IT'S A TERRIBLE WEIGHT ON OUR ECONOMY. WE NEED TO LOOK AT TAX REFORM. I'M NOT A DEFENDER OF WHAT WE HAVE IN POLICY TODAY.

Yepsen: LET'S TALK ABOUT SOME SPECIFIC ISSUES. MR. SHOMSHOR, WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO MAKE THE MEDICARE SYSTEM SOUND?

Shomshor: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WE NEED TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. I WOULD WORK TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE SURPLUSES OVER THE NEXT THIRTY TO FORTY YEARS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MEDICARE SYSTEM IS SOUND. WE NEED TO SHORE UP MEDICARE OVER THE NEXT TWENTY TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.

Yepsen: ANY REIMBURSEMENTS?

Shomshor: REIMBURSEMENTS, THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT SUBJECT. IOWA IS LAST IN THE MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT RATE. I WOULD WORK TO BRING IOWA TO THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.

Yepsen: IF YOU HAD ONE DOLLAR TO SPEND, DO YOU SPEND IT ON MEDICARE -- HIGHER MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENTS OR DO YOU SPEND IT ON A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT?

Shomshor: YOU CLEARLY SPEND IT ON HIGHER MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT RATES. THAT'S A CRITICAL ISSUE IN THE STATE OF IOWA.

Yepsen: SENATOR KING, SAME QUESTIONS FOR YOU. MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENTS? PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT?

King: I WOULD SPEND IT ON THE INCREASE IN MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT RATES. AND I WOULD APPROACH THAT FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT IF THE LEVERAGE EXISTS, I'LL FIND IT AND USE IT IN CONGRESS TO IMPROVE THAT RATE. I CAN WORK WITH JIM NUSSLE, WHO'S PUT $123 MILLION INTO THIS, AND I CAN WORK WITH CHUCK GRASSLEY, WHOM I HOPE IS THE NEXT CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE. THEN I WOULD ALSO LOOK AT LEVELING THESE INCREASES SO THEY DON'T INCREASE BY A PERCENTAGE RATE ANY LONGER. THAT INCREASES THE DISPARITY EACH TIME THERE'S AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE RATES. I'D LIKE TO BRING THAT DOWN TO A DOLLAR PER DOLLAR RATHER THAN A PERCENTAGE.

Glover: MR. SHOMSHOR, LET'S GO TO PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

Shomshor: SURE.

Glover: THAT'S A BIG ISSUE. EVERYBODY SAYS THEY'RE FOR SOME KIND OF A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT. WHAT KIND OF A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT ARE YOU FOR? HOW MUCH WILL IT COST AND HOW WOULD YOU PAY FOR IT?

Shomshor: I HAVE TAKEN A GOOD LOOK AT THE HOUSE BILL THAT WAS PASSED. IT COST $350 BILLION. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD START TOWARDS IT. I THINK THE ADMINISTRATION IS A PROBLEM. I THINK THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY IS INVOLVED IN IT TOO MUCH, BUT THE 350 MILLION -- OR 350 BILLION INSURES IN A CATASTROPHIC MANNER. I'D BE WILLING TO PUSH THAT A LITTLE BIT, BUT I'M WILLING TO START WITH THE 350 BILLION.

Glover: MR. KING, SAME QUESTION TO YOU. EVERYBODY SAYS THEY FAVOR SOME KIND OF A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT. WHAT KIND DO YOU FAVOR, HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST, AND HOW WOULD YOU PAY FOR IT?

King: WELL, I'M LOOKING AT THE HOUSE BILL THAT WAS PASSED AS WELL, AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A LITTLE OVER $30 BILLION A YEAR. I'M LOOKING FOR A PLAN, THOUGH, THAT DOESN'T INCREASE THE DEPENDENCY. WE HAVE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT CAN'T AFFORD THEIR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, AND WE SHOULD BE HELPING THOSE THAT DO NOT HAVE. I'D LOOK AT IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE AND THEN WITH A BROAD VIEW ON HEALTH COSTS. I BELIEVE THAT UNDER THE CURRENT TAX CODE SYSTEM, WE SHOULD HAVE, FOR EVERYONE, FULL 100-PERCENT DEDUCTABILITY OF ALL HEALTH CARE COSTS, INCLUDING OUR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS. THAT'S A REAL BURDEN ON SMALL BUSINESSES IN PARTICULAR.

Yepsen: MR. KING, ONE OF THE REAL HOT ISSUES IN WESTERN IOWA IS THE MISSOURI RIVER FLOWS. FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIVE IN WESTERN IOWA, THERE'S A DEBATE OVER HOW MUCH OF A FLOW THERE SHOULD BE EACH SPRING IN THAT RIVER. SOME PEOPLE SAY IT SHOULD BE HIGH LIKE IT USED TO BE TO CREATE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL PARKS AND IMPROVE THE WILDLIFE. OTHER PEOPLE IN THE RURAL COMMUNITY SAY, NO, YOU DON'T WANT TO CREATE FLOODS. WHERE DO YOU COME DOWN ON THIS ISSUE? HOW DO YOU BALANCE THOSE CONFLICTING INTERESTS?

King: I'VE BEEN ON EVERY STRETCH OF THAT RIVER FROM NEBRASKA CITY UP TO YANKTON AT LEAST ONCE, A LOT OF IT TWICE, INCLUDING THE WILD STRETCH OF THE RIVER. THERE'S A LOT OF HABITAT UP THERE NOW. AND I FIRST RAN ACROSS THE LEAST TERN, THE PIPING PLOVER, AND THE PALLID STURGEON IN '93 IN WASHINGTON D.C. THAT STILL COMES AT US. I BELIEVE THAT IT'S A MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTS AND THE RECREATIONAL INTERESTS IN SOUTH DAKOTA THAT'S DRIVING THIS. I WOULD WANT TO HOLD THE EXISTING PLAN OF THE RIVER BECAUSE THE PIKs LOAN WAS ABOUT FLOOD PROTECTION AND POWER GENERATION AND BARGE TRAFFIC. RECREATIONAL FISHING IN SOUTH DAKOTA WAS NOT EVEN, I DON'T BELIEVE, ON THE LIST BACK WHEN PIKs LOAN CAME IN. SO I WOULD HOLD THAT LEVEL. BUT I'D TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WE CAN DO WITH SOME OF THE BACKWATERS. WE CAN PROBABLY CHANNEL SOME OF THAT WATER INTO THE BACKWATERS, PROVIDED WE DON'T JEOPARDIZE OUR BARGE TRAFFIC.

Yepsen: MR. SHOMSHOR, SAME QUESTION. HAVE I DESCRIBED THIS ACCURATELY?

Shomshor: SURE.

Yepsen: OKAY.

Shomshor: HAVING GROWN UP IN THE LOESS HILLS OVERLOOKING THE MISSOURI RIVER, I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THE MISSOURI RIVER IS TO THE ECONOMIC INTERESTS OF WESTERN IOWANS. IT'S ACADEMIC; IN 2003 THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A CHANGE IN THE RIVER FLOWS JUST TO LOW LEVELS OF MOISTURE. I WOULD NOT PROPOSE CHANGING THE FLOWS OF THE MISSOURI RIVER CURRENTLY. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO OUR AGRICULTURAL INTERESTS. IT PROVIDES FARMERS AN ALTERNATIVE FOR SHIPPING THEIR CROPS, AND IT ALSO IMPACTS TRANSPORTATION RIGHTS. SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO AGRICULTURE NOT TO CHANGE THAT.

Glover: MR. KING, MR. SHOMSHOR HAS RAISED AN ISSUE THAT HASN'T COME UP MUCH IN THIS CAMPAIGN, BUT IT IS AN IMPORTANT ONE IN THE DISTRICT, AND THAT'S THE LOESS HILLS. SHOULD THE LOESS HILLS BE A NATIONAL PARK?

King: I WOULDN'T PROMOTE THE LOESS HILLS AS A NATIONAL PARK, BUT AS YOU KNOW, I WROTE THE LEGISLATION THAT ESTABLISHED THE LOESS HILLS ALLIANCE. I BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE HILLS SHOULD HAVE THE SAY ABOUT HOW IT'S DEVELOPED, BUT I THINK THEY NEED TO BE MEETING, AND THEY CONTINUE TO MEET. I SEE A STRING OF PEARLS THERE. THERE'S SOME REAL CHOICE PIECES OF REAL ESTATE THAT ARE BEAUTIFUL IN SCENERY AND VALUABLE ECOLOGICALLY. BUT THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND THEY'RE PART OF THE SCENERY AS WELL. SO I WANT TO SEE THAT GROWN FROM THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE HILLS WORKING IN COOPERATION WITH THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING IT AS A PARK.

Glover: MR. SHOMSHOR, YOU MENTIONED THE LOESS HILLS. SHOULD IT BE A NATIONAL PARK?

Shomshor: I THINK THERE SHOULD BE LOCAL CONTROL, BUT WE SHOULD MOVE TOWARDS PROTECTION IN SOME OF THE AREAS. HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF A CITY WITHIN THE LOESS HILLS, WE WENT THROUGH PRIVATELY AND RAISED MONEY AND STATE MONEY AND LOCAL MONEY TO PURCHASE LAND WHERE WE THOUGHT IT WAS HIGHLY ERODIBLE AND AREAS THAT WE COULD PRESERVE AS NATURAL PRAIRIE. SO I THINK THAT THERE'S A PLACE FOR PARKS IN THE LOESS HILLS, BUT I THINK IT SHOULD BE DONE THROUGH GOVERNMENT AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR PURCHASING GROUND.

Borg: MR. KING, YOU'VE ALREADY NOTED THAT AGRICULTURE IS A BIG PART OF THE ECONOMY IN THE DISTRICT THAT YOU HOPE TO REPRESENT. YOU ALSO SAID THAT YOU'D MAKE SOME CHANGES IN THE FARM BILL. WHAT WOULD THOSE CHANGES BE? WHAT DON'T YOU LIKE ABOUT WHAT WAS JUST ENACTED?

King: WELL, THERE ARE SO MANY CONFLICTING PIECES OF INFORMATION THAT COME OUT OF THERE. IT'S 421 PAGES LONG. I'VE MET ONE PERSON THAT'S READ THE FARM BILL. NO ONE THAT UNDERSTANDS IT ALL. WE'RE STILL WRITING RULES AND FARMERS ARE STILL MAKING DECISIONS ON WHETHER THEY WILL BE IN THE PROGRAM OR NOT. WHAT'S IT'S DONE IS IT'S CONTINUED THE STATUS QUO FOR ANOTHER SIX YEARS. WE DO GET MORE SOIL CONSERVATION MONEY INTO IOWA, AND THAT'S A PLUS. SO I'M LOOKING AT THIS FROM A STANDPOINT I WILL, BY THE WAY, I WILL SUPPORT THE BAN ON PACKER OWNERSHIP OF LIVESTOCK. THAT'S ONE THING I'D LIKE TO SEE PUT INTO THE FARM BILL. AND I'LL BE PROMOTING FOREIGN TRADE. I'VE BEEN TO ASIA AND I'VE BEEN TO CUBA AND I'VE GOT A SENSE OF WHAT IT TAKES TO MARKET OVERSEAS. SO I THINK THAT BACKGROUND WILL MAKE A DIG DIFFERENCE WITH ME ON THE HOUSE AG COMMITTEE.

Borg: MR. SHOMSHOR HOW DO YOU VIEW AGRICULTURE? YOU SAID YOU HAVE A FARM BACKGROUND. YOU DON'T LIVE ON A FARM RIGHT NOW. BUT HOW WOULD YOU REPRESENT THE DISTRICT?

Shomshor: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE FARM BILL AND A FEW OTHER ISSUES THAT RELATE TO IOWA, I THINK TRADE IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR WESTERN IOWA. WHETHER WE'RE EXPORTING RAW COMMODITIES OR VALUE-ADDED COMMODITIES, I THINK TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY IS A VERY IMPORTANT THING AND GOOD FOR MY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO THE FARM BILL, I WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR THE FARM BILL BECAUSE I THINK WE NEEDED CERTAINTY FOR FARMERS WHEN THEY WERE PLANNING. THE FARM BILL DID SOME GREAT THINGS. IT INCREASED CONSERVATION. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE WTO COMPLIANT, AND IT DID CREATE GREAT CERTAINTY OVER WHAT WE HAD FOR FREEDOM TO FARM. ONE OF THE FAILURES OF FREEDOM TO FARM IS WE FAILED TO BREAK DOWN MARKETS AS FAST AS WE WERE INCREASING PRODUCTION.

Glover: YOU BOTH MENTIONED TRADE. ARE THERE ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU, MR. SHOMSHOR, ON TRADE PROMOTION ISSUES? YOU SAID YOU WOULD FAVOR THE TRADE PROMOTION BILL THAT WAS IN CONGRESS?

Shomshor: YES, I WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THAT. I DON'T KNOW SENATOR KING'S POSITION ON TRADE, BUT I WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY.

Borg: WELL, JUST BEFORE WE LEAVE, NAFTA. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT NAFTA, THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT?

Shomshor: SAME POSITION AS TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY. I THINK THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT -- IT'S OPENED UP OUR BORDERS FOR MORE TRADE AND MADE ECONOMY STRONGER.

Borg: MR. KING, MIKE'S QUESTION.

King: I'M A FREE TRADER. I SUPPORTED NAFTA. I WAS IN THE GALLERY OF THE U.S. SENATE WHEN IT WAS DEBATED, AND I SUPPORT TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY.

Borg: NAFTA TOO?

King: YES.

Yepsen: MR. SHOMSHOR, TAX CUTS. SHOULD THE BUSH TAX CUT THAT CONGRESS HAS PASSED -- IT PHASES IN OVER TEN YEARS AND THEN FALLS AWAY -- SHOULD THAT BE MADE PERMANENT?

Shomshor: FIRST OF ALL, IN 2001, I THINK THE TAX BILL WAS A TERRIBLE POLICY BECAUSE IT WAS NOT MADE PERMANENT UP FRONT. CONGRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN HONEST WITH THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER AND SAID, "HERE'S WHAT WE CAN AFFORD THROUGH INFINITY." THAT SAID, IN 2002 I WOULD MAKE SOME COMPONENTS OF THE TAX CUT PERMANENT. I WOULD MAKE SURE THAT LOWER INCOME AMERICANS ENJOYED BENEFITS. I WOULD MAKE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDITS PERMANENT. I WOULD MAKE PORTIONS OF THE ESTATE TAX ADJUSTMENTS PERMANENT, AND I WOULD MAKE SOME OF THE RATE ADJUSTMENTS FOR LOWER INDIVIDUALS PERMANENT.

Yepsen: SENATOR KING, SAME QUESTION. WOULD YOU MAKE IT PERMANENT?

King: I WOULD MAKE IT PERMANENT AND I WOULD MAKE ALL THE ESTATE TAX PERMANENT. THE DEATH TAX HAS BEEN AN IMMORAL TAX, AND IT NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED FOREVER.

Yepsen: WE'VE GOT ABOUT A MINUTE LEFT. SENATOR KING, WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU WANT TO DO TO HELP RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THAT DISTRICT?

King: I WANT TO GROW OUR ECONOMY. THE BOTTOM LINE REALLY IS WE NEED TO DO MANY THINGS ECONOMICALLY, AND IT FITS IN WITH THE STATE AND WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. BUT IN THE END, WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR MOST PRECIOUS RESOURCE THAT WE HAVE, IT'S OR CHILDREN. THERE'S BEEN A CULTURE THAT'S BEEN CREATED, PARTICULARLY IN RURAL IOWA BUT IN ALL OF IOWA, THAT THESE YOUNG PEOPLE WILL LEAVE THIS STATE WITH A WORLD-CLASS EDUCATION AND GROW SOMEONE ELSE'S ECONOMY. WE MUST CHANGE THAT CULTURE SO YOUNG PEOPLE EXPECT TO BUILD THEIR FUTURE HERE.

Yepsen: MR. SHOMSHOR, SAME QUESTION. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO TO IMPROVE THE RURAL ECONOMY OUT THERE?

Shomshor: JOBS ARE CRITICAL. WE NEED TO HAVE INCENTIVES THROUGH THE CURRENT INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, WHICH MR. KING CAN'T GUARANTEE IF HE GOES TO A NATIONAL SALES TAX. WE NEED TO HAVE INCENTIVES FOR ETHANOL, BIODIESEL, WIRING OF OUR SCHOOLS AND BUSINESSES WITH HIGH-SPEED INTERNET ACCESS TO MAKE THEM COMPETITIVE IN A GLOBAL MARKETPLACE. THOSE ARE KEY ISSUES.

Glover: IS THE TAX ISSUE, HIS FAVORING NATIONAL SALES TAX AND YOU OPPOSING IT, THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU?

Shomshor: I THINK PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY IS THE NUMBER ONE DIFFERENCE, AND PRIVATIZATION HAS BEEN USED OVER AND OVER IN TRANSCRIPTS. I THINK ELIMINATION OF THE MINIMUM WAGE IS ANOTHER BIG ISSUE. I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. WE HAVE 100,000 IOWANS THAT WORK AT THAT MINIMUM-WAGE LEVEL JOBS. AND THE THIRD THING IS THE NATIONAL SALES TAX.

Glover: MR. KING, JUST A FEW SECONDS. YOUR RESPONSE.

King: WELL, I'D JUST SAY THAT I HAVE A TRANSCRIPT IN MY JACKET POCKET THAT SAYS "PARTIAL PRIVATIZATION." AND MY STAFF HAS SEARCHED THIS OVER WONDERING WHAT MR. SHOMSHOR HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE LAST TWO MONTHS. SO IT'S UP TO HIM TO PROVE THAT.

Borg: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR SHARING YOUR VIEWS WITH US TODAY. WELL, THIS CONCLUDES OUR FIVE CONSECUTIVE "IOWA PRESS" EDITIONS, ILLUMINATING THE CAMPAIGNS TO REPRESENT IOWA IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. AND THIS YEAR THERE'S A SENATE CAMPAIGN TOO. SO ON OUR NEXT EDITION, WE'LL HIGHLIGHT THE HIGH-PROFILE, HIGH-STAKES CAMPAIGNS WITH INCUMBENT SENATOR TOM HARKIN AND REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN GREG GANSKE, WHO WANTS TO MOVE TO THE SENATE. YOU'LL SEE AND HEAR SENATOR HARKIN AND CONGRESSMAN GANSKE HERE AT THE "IOWA PRESS" TABLE AT 6:30 ON FRIDAY, SUNDAY AT NOON. NOW, THIS WEEKEND SENATOR HARKIN AND CONGRESSMAN GANSKE WILL MEET IN A FORMAL DEBATE IN CEDAR RAPIDS ORIGINATING AT KCRG TV, AND IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION WILL ALSO BROADCAST THAT ENTIRE DEBATE STATEWIDE. IT'S THE SECOND OF THREE DEBATES BETWEEN HARKIN AND GANSKE. AND ON IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION, IT WILL BE 7:00 SUNDAY NIGHT. THAT'S IT FOR THIS WEEK'S EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS." I'M DEAN BORG. THERE'S A LOT HAPPENING POLITICALLY RIGHT NOW, AND WE'RE DOING OUR BEST TO BRING IT ALL TO YOU. 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.