Home

Iowa Press Transcripts

Iowa Press Links

Iowa Press #3006
October 11 and 13, 2002

Borg: CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE IS ON THE LINE IN NOVEMBER 5'S GENERAL ELECTION, AND IOWA IS A PLAYER. WE'LL QUESTION THE TWO MAJOR-PARTY CANDIDATES SEEKING TO REPRESENT IOWA IN THE U.S. SENATE, DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENT TOM HARKIN AND REPUBLICAN CHALLGENGER CONGRESSMAN GREG GANSKE, ON THIS EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS. "

ANNOUNCER: FUNDING FOR "IOWA PRESS" WAS PROVIDED BY "FRIENDS," THE IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION FOUNDATION; 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 UNTILITY 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 11 EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS." HERE IS DEAN BORG.

Borg: TWENTY-FIVE DAYS REMAIN UNTIL THE NOVEMBER 5 GENERAL ELECTION. DURING THE PAST FIVE WEEKS, "IOWA PRESS" HAS PROFILED THE MAJOR-PARTY CANDIDATES CAMPAIGNING TO REPRESENT IOWA IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. TODAY WE FOCUS ON THE MAJOR CONTENDERS SEEKING ONE OF IOWA'S SEATS IN THE SENATE. THAT CAMPAIGN HAS NATIONAL ATTENTION, NOT ONLY BECAUSE IT INVOLVES AN INCUMBENT DEMOCRATIC SENATOR AGAINST A REPUBLIC REPRESENTATIVE HOPING TO MOVE TO THE SENATE, BUT ALSO BECAUSE OF ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN DETERMINING WHICH PARTY CONTROLS THE SENATE. REPUBLICAN GREG GANSKE IS COMPLETING HIS FOURTH TWO-YEAR TERM IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. TOM HARKIN IS THE DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENT SEEKING A FOURTH SIX-YEAR TERM IN THE SENATE. BEFORE MOVING TO THE SENTATE, HE SERVED TEN YEARS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. REPRESENTATIVE GANSKE, SENATOR HARKIN, WELCOME BACK TO "IOWA PRESS."

Harkin: DEAN, IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO BE HERE.

Borg: NICE TO HAVE YOU HERE. AND WITH US AT THE "IOWA PRESS" TABLE: "DESMOINES REGISTER" POLITICAL COLUMNIST DAVID YEPSEN AND"ASSOCIATED PRESS" SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER MIKE GLOVER.

Glover: SENATOR HARKIN, WE LIKE TO GIVE CANDIDATES ON THIS SHOW A CHANCE TO GIVE THEIR OWN COMMERCIAL, ASSUMING THAT THEY WOULD AT SOME POINT ANYWAY. SO GIVE US YOUR COMMERCIAL. WHY SHOULD TOM HARKIN GO BACK TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE?

Harkin: FIRST, THIS ELECTION ISN'T ABOUT ME OR IT'S NOT ABOUT CONGRESSMAN GANSKE. IT'S ABOUT OUR IOWA FAMILIES AND THE FUTURE THEY FACE. WE'RE FACING SOME TOUGH TIMES AHEAD. OUR ECONOMY IS NOT IN TOO GOOD OF SHAPE. WE'VE GOT A LOT OF YOUNG PEOPLE LEAVING THIS STATE. IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS, WE'RE GOING TO FACE A SHORTAGE OF NURSES, TEACHERS, MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN THE STATE OF IOWA, SO WE HAVE SOME REAL CHALLENGES. BUT THE FOUNDATION OF IOWA IS GOOD. WE'VE GOT THE MOST PRODUCTIVE WORK FORCE IN AMERICA. WE'VE GOT HONEST AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS LEADERS. WE HAVE THE MOST PRODUCTIVE FARMERS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. WE HAVE A GREAT EDUCATION SYSTEM, ALTHOUGH IT NEEDS SOME HELP AND SOME BUILDING UP. PLUS, WE ALSO HAVE SAFE, GOOD COMMUNITIES WITH COMMUNITY LEADERS AND GOOD LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. SO THE FOUNDATION IS GREAT. I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE BECAUSE IOWANS HAVE INVESTED A LOT IN ME IN THREE TERMS. BECAUSE OF MY EXPERIENCE AND MY SENIORITY, I CAN HELP BUILD ON THAT FOUNDATION. THAT'S MY VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF IOWA: TO GET BETTER JOBS, BETTER EDUCATION, MAKE SURE OUR ELDERLY CAN AFFORD PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, AND TO MAKE SURE WE CLEAN UP OUR ENVIRONMENT. I WANT TO USE THE INVESTMENT THAT PEOPLE HAVE MADE IN ME TO BE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE, TO MAKE SURE WE BRING THOSE GOOD JOBS --

Glover: AND WE'LL DELVE INTO SOME OF THOSE ISSUES. CONGRESSMAN GANSKE, THE SAME QUESTION TO YOU. WHAT IS THE SOUND BITE, THE COMMERCIAL FOR GREG GANSKE MOVING TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE?

Ganske: WELL, MIKE AND DAVID AND DEAN, THANK YOU FOR HAVING US ON. WE APPRECIATE YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE AS WELL. I'M GOING TO BE BRIEF BECAUSE I KNOW YOU HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. I'VE REALLY BEEN LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS. WE HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES TO TALK ABOUT. IN A NUTSHELL, I THINK TOM HARKIN'S POSITIONS ARE EXTREME IN MANY CASES FOR IOWA, AND I THINK MINE ARE MAINSTREAM. WE HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES TO TALK ABOUT THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT IN THE TWO PREVIOUS DEBATES. WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY AND HOW TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE IT IN THE OTHER DEBATES. WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND HOW TO DELIVER THAT TO THE ELDERLY, HOW TO MAKE MEDICARE FAIR FOR IOWA, HOW TO GET THIS ECONOMY MOVING, JOBS FOR IOWANS, THE IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION, A WHOLE BUNCH OF IMPORTANT THINGS. I'M SURE YOU HAVE SHEETS AND SHEETS OF QUESTIONS, SO LET'S GET ON WITH THE DEBATE.

Yepsen: FIRST OF ALL, SENATOR HARKIN, HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT SHOT THAT YOU'RE TOO EXTREME?

Harkin: WELL, IT WAS MY OPPONENT WHO VOTED TO DO AWAY WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. IT WAS MY OPPONENT WHO VOTED TO DO AWAY WITH THE FEDERAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS AND SAID PRIVATE CHARITIES COULD FILL IN AND TAKE CARE OF IT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S QUITE MAINSTREAM FOR THE STATE OF IOWA.

Yepsen: CONGRESSMAN GANSKE, WHAT ABOUT THAT?

Ganske: YOU KNOW, I FIND THE SCHOOL LUNCH ISSUE A REAL INTERESTING ONE BECAUSE WHEN WE WERE DEALING WITH WELFARE REFORM, WE SAID, YOU KNOW, FOR COUPLES OR FAMILIES WHERE THE COUPLE IS MAKING OVER $200,000 A YEAR, THEY REALLY DON'T NEED TO HAVE A FEDERAL SUBSIDY. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S ACTUALLY SOMETHING I THINK MY OPPONENT WOULD AGREE WITH. I CAN GO THROUGH A WHOLE LIST OF THINGS WHERE I THINK TOM IS EXTREME ON, AND WE'LL DO THAT.

Yepsen: IN THE LIMITED TIME WE HAVE HERE TODAY, CONGRESSMAN, HELP THE VOTER. IS IT 10, 15 PERCENT OF THE ELECTORATE IN THIS RACE IS UNDECIDED? MR. GANSKE, WHAT'S THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE YOU HAVE WITH TOM HARKIN?

Ganske: DAVID, THERE ARE A WHOLE SERIES OF ISSUES.

Yepsen: WELL, GIVE ME ONE OR TWO BIG ONES.

Ganske: OKAY, WELL, LET ME TELL YOU. AT THE LAST DEBATE, SENATOR HARKIN SAID THAT HE WANTED TO REPEAL THE TAX CUT WE DID LAST YEAR. THAT WOULD BE INCREASING TAXES IN A TIME OF ECONOMIC DOWNTURN. I CONSIDERED THAT TO BE EXTREMIST. I DON'T CONSIDER THAT TO BE WISE ECONOMIC POLICY. THAT WOULD BE TAKING AWAY A TAX CUT FOR 460,000 IOWA KIDS. THAT WOULD BE RAISING TAXES ON 290,000 IOWA COUPLES WHERE WE HAVE ELIMINATED THE MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY. I THINK THAT'S AN EXTREME POSITION.

Yepsen: SENATOR HARKIN, WHAT'S THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE YOU HAVE WITH MR. GANSKE?

Harkin: FIRST OF ALL, I DID NOT SAY THAT. WHAT I SAID WAS REPEAL THE TAX BREAK FOR THE TOP ONE PERCENT. I'M ALL FOR KEEPING THE CHILD CARE TAX CUTS, THE CREDITS IN THERE, GETTING RID OF THE MARRIAGE PENALTY. THAT'S ALL GOOD BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S A REASON WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT TAX BREAK FOR THOSE WHO MAKE $1.5 MILLION A YEAR. I DID SAY THAT AND I FEEL THAT WAY.

Yepsen: HELP THAT UNDECIDED VOTER OUT THERE, SENATOR.

Harkin: I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCES -- FIRST, KEEP IN MIND, DAVID, THAT WE GET MORE MONEY IN SOCIAL SECURITY IN IOWA THAN WE GET FROM ALL THE CORN AND BEANS THAT WE MARKET. SOCIAL SECURITY IS A BIG ISSUE IN IOWA. WE HAVE A LOT OF ELDERLY IN THIS STATE. MY OPPONENT WANTS TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY. I DON'T. I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE BRIGHTEST LINES OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME AND MY OPPONENT THIS YEAR. HIS POSITION WOULD PUT SOCIAL SECURITY IN JEOPARDY, TAKE THAT MONEY, PUT IT ON WALL STREET, GAMBLE IT ON THE STOCK MARKET. EVEN THE BUSH COMMISSION SAID THAT WOULD RESULT IN A CUT OF UP TO 25 PERCENT IN BENEFITS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE TODAY. I'M SORRY. THIS, I THINK, IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO OF US. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY.

Yepsen: WELL, CONGRESSMAN, IS IT PRIVATIZING OR IS IT PERSONAL ACCOUNTS?

Ganske: WELL, I'M GLAD WE'RE FINALLY GETTING A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE I CONSIDER SENATOR HARKIN'S STATEMENTS TO BE VERY DECEPTIVE. ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY, DEMOCRATS ARE ATTACKING REPUBLICANS ON "PRIVATIZING" SOCIAL SECURITY. HERE'S WHAT I'VE SAID: I SAID UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING, WHEN THE BABY BOOMERS RETIRE, ONE EVERY EIGHT SECONDS, OKAY, THEN YOU ARE EITHER GOING TO SEE A 25-PERCENT CUT IN BENEFITS OR A 50-PERCENT INCREASE IN TAXES. OR MAYBE SENATOR HARKIN WANTS TO INCREASE THE TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS AGAIN. I DON'T KNOW; HE WON'T SAY. BUT WHAT I SAY IS THIS: NO CHANGE FOR ANYONE OVER FIFTY; NO LOSS OF FUNDS TO THE TRUST FUND; ALLOW YOUNGER WORKERS TO PUT A SMALL PART OF THEIR PAYROLL TAX INTO A PERSONAL ACCOUNT VOLUNTARILY. IT CAN BE JUST LIKE A CONGRESSIONAL BENEFIT, A CONGRESSIONAL PLAN. YOU KNOW WHAT, DAVID? THAT'S NOT PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY.

Borg: I'LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO ANSWER. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?

Harkin: WELL, BECAUSE JUST SINCE JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, PEOPLE WHO HAD $100,000 IN A 401(k) HAVE LOST 30 PERCENT. WHAT IF SOCIAL SECURITY WAS ON THE STOCK MARKET THAT WAY? THAT'S WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT. THE CONGRESSMAN HAS DANCED AROUND IT, BUT BASICALLY HE'S IN FAVOR OF LETTING PEOPLE TAKE MONEY OUT OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND PUT IT IN THE STOCK MARKET. ONCE BEFORE WHEN HE WAS ASKED ABOUT THIS, HE SAID THAT, WELL, THE TRILLION DOLLARS -- THE TRANSITION COST IS A TRILLION DOLLARS. WHERE DOES THAT MONEY COME FROM? YOU EITHER HAVE TO CUT BENEFITS OR YOU HAVE TO RAISE TAXES OR INCREASE THE NATIONAL DEBT. MY OPPONENT ONE TIME SAID HE WOULD GET IT OUT OF GENERAL REVENUE. SO ACCORDING TO HIM, WE'LL TAX WORKING FAMILIES TO GIVE MONEY TO PEOPLE WHO WANT TO INVEST IN WALL STREET. THAT IS NOT GOOD IOWA VALUES.

Borg: WE'VE TALKED ABOUT EXTREME, THAT WORD, ALREADY TONIGHT. BUT THERE IS A GENERAL NEGATIVE ON TOM HARKIN THAT'S LEVELED AGAINST YOU AS BEING TOO LIBERAL FOR IOWA. HOW DO YOU ANSWER THAT?

Harkin: ALL I CAN SAY IS THEY'VE BEEN SAYING THAT ABOUT ME SINCE 1974 WHEN I FIRST GOT ELECTED. IOWANS ARE SMART. IOWANS ARE GOOD VOTERS. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY DO? THEY LOOK BEHIND THE LABEL. I'VE NEVER SAID THAT HE WAS EXTREME OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I DON'T AGREE WITH HIS VOTES. I THINK HIS VOTES ARE NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF IOWANS, BUT I THINK IOWANS LOOK BEHIND THE LABEL: LIBERAL, PROGRESSIVE, CONSERVATIVE. IOWANS SAY: WHO ARE YOU; WHAT DO YOU STAND FOR; WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO HELP IOWA FAMILIES? WHEN THEY LOOK AT THAT, THEY UNDERSTAND THAT FOR TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS I'VE WORKED HARD FOR IOWA'S FAMILIES.

Borg: CONGRESSMAN GANSKE, SENATOR HARKIN EARLIER SAID "IOWANS HAVE INVESTED A LOT IN ME," AND THAT IS A NEGATIVE FOR YOUR CAMPAIGN. THERE IS A LOT INVESTED IN SENATOR HARKIN. WHY SHOULD IOWA REPLACE HIM?

Ganske: WELL, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE POSITIONS THAT SENATOR HARKIN TAKES. SENATOR HARKIN, AT THE LAST DEBATE, HAD A CHANCE TO SAY WOULD HE REPEAL THE TAX CUT. HE SAID -- AND HE DIDN'T ANSWER IT, INFERRING THAT HE WOULD. NOW, I WOULD SAY THIS: WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS THAT THEY THINK $6 BILLION IN WASHINGTON -- SPENDING $6 BILLION IS JUST PENCIL DUST, THAT'S EXTREME. IOWANS, WHEN THEY HEAR THAT, THEY THINK, OH BOY, THIS GUY HAS MOVED AWAY FROM IOWA VALUES. SIX BILLION DOLLARS WOULD MEAN NO PROPERTY TAX FOR ANYONE IN IOWA FOR TWO YEARS. IT WOULD MEAN NO INCOME TAX FOR TWO YEARS. IT WOULD MEAN A NEW JOHN DEERE TRACTOR FOR EVERY FARMER IN IOWA. IT WOULD MEAN $4,400, A TAX CREDIT FOR EVERY FAMILY IN IOWA.

Borg: DOES SENIORITY COUNT FOR SOMETHING IS MY QUESTION.

Ganske: THE SENIORITY -- IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU DO WITH YOUR SENIORITY. IF YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE WRONG FOR IOWA AND TAKE POSITIONS THAT ARE CONTRARY TO IOWA'S BEST INTERESTS -- AND WE CAN GO INTO SOME OF THOSE IF YOU'D LIKE -- THEN WHAT GOOD DOES THAT SENIORITY DO? BUT I WOULD SAY THIS ON SENIORITY: LOOK, IF I WIN AND IF CHUCK GRASSLEY TAKES -- AND IF WE TAKE THE MAJORITY, CHUCK GRASSLEY BECOMES CHAIRMAN OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. THAT IS MAYBE ONE OF THE FOURTH OR FIFTH MOST POWERFUL POSITIONS IN IOWA -- IN THE WORLD. HE WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON MEDICARE TO WRITE A BILL THAT COULD HELP US FIX THE LOW MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT. THAT IS REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT.

Glover: SENATOR HARKIN, IF WE COULD GO TO THE EDGE OF THE NEWS FOR A SECOND, YOU BOTH VOTED TO GIVE THE PRESIDENT AUTHORITY TO USE FORCE AGAINST IRAQ. HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR THAT? IT SEEMS TO ME THERE ARE THREE CHOICES: YOU CAN RAISE TAXES, YOU CAN CUT OTHER PROGRAMS, OR YOU'RE GOING TO GROW THE DEFICIT. HOW DO YOU PAY FOR IT?

Harkin: WELL, MIKE, ONE OF THE REASONS I VOTED FOR THE RESOLUTION -- BY THE WAY, I NEVER COULD HAVE VOTED FOR THE FIRST ONE THE PRESIDENT SENT DOWN BECAUSE IT WAS JUST A BLANK CHECK FOR HIM. BUT WE WORKED IT OUT AND I BELIEVE WE'VE GOT A GOOD RESOLUTION THAT GIVES THE PRESIDENT AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE THE AUTHORITY AND THE BACKING TO GO TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL AND GET A GOOD RESOLUTION ON THE SECURITY COUNCIL. WHAT I BELIEVE AND WHAT I HOPE THAT WILL LEAD TO IS GETTING MORE NATIONS INVOLVED IN THIS EFFORT. I THINK ONE OF THE BEST WAYS TO SAVE OUR TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS IS TO GET OTHER COUNTRIES TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND HELP US IN THIS EFFORT TO GET RID OF SADDAM'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

Yepsen: YOU'VE ALREADY GOT A BILL FOR AFGHANISTAN. WHAT ABOUT THAT? MIKE'S QUESTION: RAISE TAXES, CUT OTHER PROGRAMS, OR INCREASE THE DEFICIT? WHICH IS IT, SENATOR?

Harkin: WELL, AS I SAID EARLIER, AND THIS IS -- I CORRECT THE CONGRESSMAN ONE MORE TIME. I DID SAY THAT I WOULD REPEAL THE TAX BREAK FOR THE TOP ONE PERCENT. THAT'S $100 BILLION OVER TEN YEARS. I ADMIT, YES, I WOULD REPEAL THAT. I WOULD KEEP THE TAX CUTS FOR MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILIES FOR CHILD CARE AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS. BUT FOR $100 BILLION -- I SAID LAST WEEK AND I SAY AGAIN, IF WE'RE GOING TO ASK OUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN TO PERHAPS GO OUT AND GIVE THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE FOR THEIR COUNTRY, SURELY WE CAN ASK THE RICHEST PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY, THE TOP ONE PERCENT, TO GIVE UP ON THEIR TAX BREAKS TO HELP PAY FOR IT.

Glover: CONGRESSMAN GANSKE, THE SAME QUESTION TO YOU. YOU'VE GOT TO PAY FOR THE WAR ON IRAQ IF IT HAPPENS. HOW DO YOU DO IT? DO YOU RAISE TAXES, DO YOU CUT OTHER PROGRAMS, OR DO YOU GROW THE DEFICIT?

Ganske: WELL, LET ME JUST SAY THAT THE TAX CUT THAT WE DID LAST YEAR, ACCORDING TO THE JOINT COMMISSION ON TAXATION, SHOWS THAT THE TAX CODE WILL BE MORE PROGRESSIVE. THAT MEANS THAT THOSE IN THE UPPER LEVELS WILL PAY MORE THAN THOSE AT THE LOWER LEVELS. THAT'S A FACT. NOW, LET'S HOPE AND PRAY THAT THERE ISN'T A WAR. PART OF THE REASON I THINK TOM AND I VOTED FOR THIS RESOLUTION IS TO SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE TO SADDAM HUSSEIN. LOOK NO MORE ROPE-A-DOPE ON THESE U.N. INSPECTIONS. INSPECTORS COME IN, UNIMPEDED ACCESS ANYTIME, ANYPLACE. AND IF YOU DON'T, THEN YOU CAN SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES. SO WE DON'T KNOW YET, AND LET'S PRAY THAT THERE ISN'T.

Yepsen: WELL, BUT YOU'VE STILL GOT -- EXCUSE ME, CONGRESSMAN, BUT THE SAME POINT I MADE WITH THE SENATOR A MOMENT AGO. YOU'VE STILL GOT COSTS FOR AFGHANISTAN. SO WHAT DO YOU DO? GUNS AND BUTTER, IS THAT THE PLAN?

Ganske: WE WILL -- DAVE, THERE ARE THREE WAYS THAT A GOVERNMENT CAN HELP BRING AN ECONOMY UP. ONE IS TO LOWER INTEREST RATES, WHICH THE FED IS DOING. THE OTHER IS TO CUT TAXES, WHICH WE DID LAST YEAR, AND I THINK IT CAME AT A GOOD TIME IN THE ECONOMY TO DO THAT. THE OTHER IS TO PRIME THE PUMP WITH SOME GOVERNMENT SPENDING. THAT'S WHAT WE HAD TO DO AFTER SEPTEMBER 11. AND I FULLY WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD WORK WITH OUR ALLIES TO HELP THEM FUND SUCH AN EVENT IF IT HAPPENS. OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW WHAT? AS I SAID BEFORE THE OTHER NIGHT, I SAID, "HOW DO YOU PUT A PRICE TAG ON POTENTIALLY MILLIONS OF AMERICAN LIVES IF YOU DON'T HANDLE THE THREAT OF TERRORISM?"

Glover: THE POINT BEING YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT SOME WAY. YOU CAN'T JUST GIN UP THE ECONOMY AND GET IT GOING. YOU'VE GOT TO COME UP WITH SOME WAY OF PAYING FOR IT. THE QUESTION IS, ONCE AGAIN, WHERE DOES IT COME FROM. THE ADMINISTRATION SEEMS TO HAVE SIGNALED THEY'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT BIGGER DEFICITS TO PAY FOR IT. ARE YOU?

Ganske: WELL, I THINK THAT WE CAN ALSO LOOK ON THE SPENDING SIDE. THERE IS A LOT OF PORK IN WASHINGTON, AND THERE ARE SOME PRETTY BIG ITEMS TOO.

Glover: HAVE YOU GOT ANY EXAMPLES?

Ganske: YES. FOR YEARS I HAVE FOUGHT THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION. THAT'S ABOUT $100-BILLION BOONDOGGLE.

Yepsen: I WANT TO MOVE ON, CONGRESSMAN. SINCE THE TWO OF YOU LAST MET, BOTH THE STATE PROSECUTORS AND THE FEDERAL U.S. ATTORNEY FOR NORTHERN ILLINOIS SAID NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED IN THIS WHOLE BROUHA WITH SOMEONE FROM SENATOR HARKIN'S CAMPAIGN TAPING YOUR CAMPAIGN MEETING. IS THAT THE END OF IT?

Ganske: WELL, DAVID, AS WE KNOW, THE HARKIN CAMPAIGN SENT AN ASSOCIATE INTO A CLOSED-DOOR MEETING WITH A HIDDEN RECORDER AND THEN PREPARED A TRANSCRIPT WITH THE INTENT TO HARM OUR CAMPAIGN. YOU KNOW WHAT? TOM HAS ADMITTED IT WAS A DIRTY TRICK. CAMPAIGN PEOPLE HAVE LEFT HIS CAMPAIGN. WE'VE GOT A LOT -- WE ONLY HAVE ABOUT FIFTEEN MINUTES LEFT IN THIS DEBATE. LET'S MOVE ON AND TALK ABOUT SOME OF THESE OTHER ISSUES.

Borg: ARE YOU GOING TO DROP IT?

Ganske: I'M NOT PLANNING ON DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

Yepsen: SENATOR, HAVE YOU TAKEN ANY -- WILL YOU TAKE ADDITIONAL STEPS TO PREVENT THIS SORT OF THING FROM HAPPENING IN ONE OF YOUR CAMPAIGNS AGAIN?

Harkin: WELL, I ALREADY DID. I TOLD YOU THE YOUNG MAN WHO DID IT RESIGNED. MY CAMPAIGN MANAGER RESIGNED. BUT I WANT TO CORRECT ONE THING. WE JUST FOUND OUT, OF COURSE, AFTERWARD THAT 750 PEOPLE WERE INVITED. THAT'S HARDLY A PRIVATE MEETING. BUT I DID APOLOGIZE FOR IT. IT WAS THE WRONG THING FOR THIS YOUNG MAN TO DO. I HAD NO CONTACT WITH THIS MR. CONWAY. I HAVEN'T SEEN HIM IN YEARS. I HAD NO CONTACT WITH HIM BEFORE, AND I'VE SAID THAT BEFORE. SO I'VE SAID TO THE PEOPLE OF IOWA -- LOOK, I THINK WHAT IOWANS EXPECT, THEY WANT THEIR SENATOR TO STAND UP AND DO WHAT'S RIGHT, AND I HAVE.

Glover: LET'S TALK ABOUT SOME ISSUES AGAIN, SENATOR. YOU ARE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE, AS WE HAVE MENTIONED. YOU'RE ONE OF THE LEAD AUTHORS OF A NEW FARM BILL THAT THE PRESIDENT SIGNED. IS THAT A GOOD FARM BILL FOR IOWA AND, IF SO, WHY?

Harkin: WELL, I THINK YOU COULD ASK THE IOWA FARM BUREAU. I'M THE FIRST DEMOCRATIC SENATOR EVER ENDORSED BY THE IOWA FARM BUREAU, ALONG WITH THE IOWA FARMERS UNION. THEY THINK IT'S A GREAT BILL FOR THE STATE OF IOWA, AND SO DO THE CORN GROWERS AND THE SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION AND THE PORK PRODUCERS AND JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY ELSE. ALL INDEPENDENT STUDY SHOWS THAT IOWA WILL BE THE BIGGEST BENEFICIARY UNDER THIS FARM BILL. LOOK, WHAT IT DOES -- IT'S NOT JUST GEARED JUST TOWARDS FARM FAMILIES, BUT THERE'S MORE MONEY IN THERE FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, BRINGING NEW VALUE-ADDED JOBS TO IOWA. THERE'S A NEW ENERGY TITLE THAT I PUT IN THE BILL THAT'S GOING TO PROMOTE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY -- CLEAN ENERGY HERE IN THE STATE OF IOWA. THERE'S ALSO A RURAL EQUITY INVESTMENT FUND TO INVEST IN NEW BUSINESSES IN THE STATE OF IOWA, PLUS MORE MONEY FOR CONSERVATION THAN ANY FARM BILL EVER PASSED. IT CAME FROM OUR SIDE. THAT'S GOING TO MEAN NOT ONLY MORE MONEY FOR OUR FARMERS BUT A CLEANER ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR KIDS.

Glover: CONGRESSMAN GANSKE, WHAT DO YOU KNOW THAT THESE OTHER GROUPS DON'T KNOW? YOU VOTED AGAINST THIS BILL.

Ganske: WELL, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE AN AWFUL LOT OF FARMERS AROUND IOWA THAT ARE NOT VERY HAPPY WITH THIS BILL. LOOK, TWO-THIRDS -- SENATOR GRASSLEY TOLD ME TWO-THIRDS OF THE COMMODITY PAYMENTS IN THIS BILL WILL GO TO THE TOP 10 PERCENT. MOST OF THOSE -- THESE ARE BIG AGRIBUSINESSES. MOST OF THOSE ARE LOCATED IN THE SOUTH. THIS IS COTTON AND RICE GROWERS. TWO-THIRDS OF THE COMMODITY SUPPORTS GO TO 10 PERCENT. THIS BILL IS TILTED TO THE SOUTH. IT ENCOURAGES PRODUCTION OF CORN AND BEANS ELSEWHERE IN THE COUNTRY IN HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND, DROUGHT CONDITIONS. THAT INCREASED PRODUCTION THERE PUSHES OUR PRICES DOWN. PACKER CONCENTRATION, THE SENATOR HAD A CHANCE IN HIS MARK -- HE WROTE THE BILL. HE COULD HAVE PUT SOMETHING IN THERE ON PACKER CONCENTRATION, AND HE DIDN'T DO THAT.

Yepsen: MR. GANSKE, RATHER THAN REPLAY THE DEBATE OVER THE FARM BILL, I WANT TO LOOK AHEAD. ALL RIGHT.

Ganske: OKAY.

Yepsen: ONE OF YOU IS GOING TO BE IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE FOR THE NEXT SIX YEARS. RURAL ECONOMIES IS STILL HURTING. SMALL-TOWN IOWA IS STILL HURTING. WHAT, MR. GANSKE, DO YOU WANT TO DO, IF YOU GET ELECTED TO THE SENATE, TO HELP DEVELOP RURAL ECONOMIES IN IOWA?

Ganske: WELL, NUMBER ONE, I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO HAVE AN IOWAN ON THE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE, AND THAT WOULD BE A COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENT THAT I WOULD SEEK. SENATOR GRASSLEY MAY BE LOOKING AT THAT AGAIN TOO. I DON'T KNOW. I THINK WE NEED TO DO THINGS TO PROMOTE TRADE. WE HAD A VOTE ON TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT VOTES NOT JUST FOR FARMING IN IOWA BUT FOR MANUFACTURING IN IOWA. IOWA IS THE NUMBER ONE EXPORTING STATE PER CAPITA. I VOTED YES AND SENATOR HARKIN VOTED NO. IT'S HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND HOW A SENATOR WHO REPRESENTS IOWA, WHEN TRADE IS SO IMPORTANT FOR OUR AGRICULTURE AND OUR NONAGRICULTURE ECONOMY, COULD VOTE NO ON THAT. WE NEED TO PROMOTE TRADE.

Yepsen: SENATOR HARKIN, SAME QUESTION. WHAT DO WE DO TO IMPROVE THE RURAL ECONOMY OUT THERE?

Harkin: ONE OF THE REASONS I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE SENATE AND CONTINUE THE CHAIRMANSHIP -- AS YOU KNOW, I'M THE FIRST IOWAN IN A HUNDRED YEARS TO CHAIR THAT POWERFUL SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS BILL IS IMPLEMENTED, BECAUSE THERE'S A TOOLBOX IN THERE FOR RURAL IOWA. AS I SAID EARLIER, MORE MONEY FOR RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, VALUE-ADDED JOBS. THE FIRST TIME EVER WE HAVE A RURAL EQUITY CAPITAL FUND, TO PUT EQUITY CAPITAL INTO START-UP BUSINESSES IN RURAL IOWA. THERE'S THE CONSERVATION PROGRAM, THE ENERGY PROGRAM. BUT THERE'S ONE LITTLE THING I PUT IN THAT FARM BILL THAT NOT TOO MANY PEOPLE TALK ABOUT. I PUT A MANDATE IN THERE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS TO PURCHASE BIOBASED PRODUCTS RATHER THAN BUYING PETROLEUM-BASED PRODUCTS. THAT MEANS THERE'S GOING TO BE A DEMAND PULL TO BUY SOY LUBRICANTS, BUILDING MATERIALS MADE OUT OF CORN AND CORN STARCH, ALL KINDS OF THINGS. THIS IS GOING TO PROVIDE A LOT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR RURAL IOWA.

Glover: CONGRESSMAN, IOWA IS ONE OF THE OLDEST STATES IN THE NATION, AND THERE'S SEVERAL ISSUES RESONATING IN CONGRESS WHICH AFFECT OLDER PEOPLE. AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, IT'S SAID YOU NEED TO FOCUS ON SOMETHING. WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU COULD DO FOR OLDER IOWANS AS A MEMBER OF THE SENATE?

Ganske: PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, MIKE, IS TO ADDRESS THIS. TWO THINGS GO TOGETHER. ONE IS A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT FOR SENIOR CITIZENS, AND THE OTHER IS TO MARRY TO THAT, AS WE DID IN THE HOUSE BILL THAT I WORKED ON, FUNDING FOR MEDICARE FOR IOWA. I'VE WORKED ON THIS SINCE 1995. I'VE EVEN CHALLENGED MY OWN LEADERSHIP ON OCCASION -- IT'S BEEN WELL PUBLICIZED -- TO TRY TO GET INCREASED FUNDING. IN THIS PRESCRIPTION DRUG BILL, WE GOT $9 BILLION TO REDUCE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BIG CITY HOSPITALS AND RURAL HOSPITALS. WE GOT $330 MILLION TO HELP THE STATE OF IOWA WITH MEDICAID, SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT TO THE STATE BUDGET. WE GOT AN IMPROVEMENT FOR OTHER PROVIDERS IN THERE, AND WE GOT A DARN GOOD PRESCRIPTION DRUG BILL AS WELL. AND THAT IS -- YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT FEDERAL FUNDING COMING INTO IOWA, WE MAY BE LOSING AS MUCH AS ABOUT ONE BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR BECAUSE OF AN UNFAIR FUNDING FORMULA. THAT'S SOMETHING WITH MY PAST MEDICAL EXPERIENCE -- I'VE ALREADY SHARED A PLAN FOR HOW TO DO THIS WITH SENATOR GRASSLEY. I BELIEVE I COULD WORK WITH HIM, ESPECIALLY IF HE'S CHAIRMAN OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, WHERE HE CAN WRITE THE BILL ON THIS.

Glover: SENATOR HARKIN, THE SAME QUESTION TO YOU. IOWA IS AN OLD STATE. WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU CAN DO TO HELP SENIORS?

Harkin: I'D SAY TWO THINGS. FIRST, DON'T PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY LIKE MY OPPONENT WANTS TO DO. THAT WOULD BE THE SINGLE, LARGEST BLOW TO OUR ELDERLY IN THIS STATE IF WE STARTED PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY BECAUSE OF THAT TRANSITION COST. I SWEAR THAT'S WHAT THEY'D DO; THEY'D CUT BENEFITS. THE SECOND THING IS TO HAVE A REALLY GOOD PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT UNDER MEDICARE. WHAT THEY PASSED IN THE HOUSE IS A SHAM BILL. IT IS A SUBSIDY TO HMOs. IT'S A SUBSIDY TO INSURANCE COMPANIES. MY OPPONENT SAYS THAT THEY HAD $350 BILLION IN THERE. SURE! TO GO TO INSURANCE COMPANIES TO PROVIDE THE ELDERLY WITH SOME KIND OF A DRUG BENEFIT. NOT ONE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS EVER STEPPED FORWARD TO SAY THAT THEY WOULD EVEN OFFER A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT. WHAT WE NEED AND WHAT I WANT TO WORK ON WHEN I GET BACK IS WHAT I VOTED FOR THIS YEAR, A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT UNDER MEDICARE, NOT UNDER AN INSURANCE COMPANY.

Yepsen: MR. GANSKE, WE ALWAYS LIKE TO SAVE A LITTLE MINUTE OR TWO TO TALK SOME POLITICS IN THIS RACE. THERE'S TALK THAT THE REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE IS DROPPING THIS RACE, THAT THEY'VE CONCLUDED YOU CAN'T WIN. IS THAT TRUE?

Ganske: WELL, LET ME FIRST SAY THAT IF SENATOR HARKIN IS TALKING ABOUT A SHAM BILL, WHEN WE PASS A BILL IN THE HOUSE WITH $350 BILLION IN BENEFITS THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE SAYS 95 PERCENT OF SENIORS WOULD SIGN UP FOR, IT'S NOT A SHAM BILL. THE SHAM BILL IS WHAT HE VOTED FOR, WHICH WOULD END IN SEVEN YEARS. THIS RACE IS GOING GREAT, DAVID. I FEEL REALLY ENERGIZED. I HEAR -- I'M GOING TO BE TOTALLY HONEST WITH YOU; THE SENATORIAL COMMITTEE IS 100-PERCENT COMMITTED TO THIS CAMPAIGN.

Glover: SENATOR HARKIN, MOST OF THE PUBLIC POLLING I HAVE SEEN IN THIS RACE HAS SHOWN YOU WITH A LEAD THAT'S EVEN GOTTEN A LITTLE BIT WIDER IN RECENT WEEKS. HAVE YOU CONCLUDED YOU'VE WON THIS THING AND DECIDED TO TRY TO HELP OTHERS?

Harkin: NO, THAT IS NOT -- ABSOLUTELY NOT. I DON'T TAKE ANY VOTES IN IOWA FOR GRANTED. I AM FOCUSED ON THIS CAMPAIGN. I'M FOCUSED ON MY SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE OF IOWA, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I GO OUT AND ASK EVERY SINGLE IOWAN FOR HIS OR HER VOTE IN THIS ELECTION. I BELIEVE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT IOWA CONTINUE TO HAVE A STRONG VOICE, SOMEONE IN A POSITION OF SENIORITY TO FIGHT FOR THEM, TO FIGHT FOR EDUCATION, AND TO FIGHT FOR OUR WORKING FAMILIES. AND THAT'S WHAT I'LL DO.

Glover: CONGRESSMAN, YOU'VE BEEN OUT AND AROUND THE STATE QUITE A LOT. WHAT YOUR SENSE OF WHAT'S DRIVING VOTERS IN THIS ELECTION? THERE'S A BIG DEBATE OVER WHETHER IT'S SECURITY, WHETHER IT'S THE ECONOMY. WHICH ONE IS IT? WHAT'S DRIVING IT?

Ganske: I WOULD SAY THAT IT TENDS TO GO UNDER THE RUBRIC OF SECURITY, NATIONAL SECURITY, WITH THE DEBATE WE'VE DONE ON IRAQ. I'VE ALSO WORKED ON BIOTERRORISM PROTECTION ACTS, AVIATION SECURITY, THINGS LIKE THAT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ECONOMIC SECURITY. WE NEED TO DO THINGS TO GET THIS ECONOMY MOVING.

Yepsen: IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE, CONGRESSMAN -- EXCUSE ME. IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AND TOM HARKIN ON NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES? I'VE COVERED THIS CAMPAIGN AND I DON'T SENSE THAT THERE IS. IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE?

Ganske: WELL, WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH SOME VOTES IN THE PAST. I HAVE SEEN A PATTERN WHERE TOM WILL FREQUENTLY SUPPORT A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT ON OVERSEAS INTERVENTION BUT THEN BE PRETTY CRITICAL OF A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT. THE SAME WAY -- AFTER ALL, SENATOR HARKIN, I THINK, ACTUALLY SUED SENATOR BUSH ON DESERT STORM.

Yepsen: SENATOR HARKIN, ARE THERE ANY DIFFERENCES THAT YOU HAVE WITH THE CONGRESSMAN ON NATIONAL SECURITY QUESTIONS?

Harkin: I DON'T KNOW OF ANY, DAVID. I HAVEN'T REALLY LOOKED AT HIS RECORD ON NATIONAL SECURITY. I AM A VETERAN. I'M A FORMER NAVY PILOT. I SPENT A LOT OF MY LIFE IN THE MILITARY. I'M ALSO ON THE DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE THAT FUNDS OUR MILITARY, SO I DO A LOT OF WORK IN DEFENSE. AND, QUITE FRANKLY, WE HAVE SOME GOOD DEFENSE INDUSTRIES HERE IN IOWA THAT I WORK VERY HARD FOR.

Yepsen: SENATOR, WE'VE GOT ONE MINUTE LEFT. WE'LL SPLIT IT. YOU GET THIRTY SECONDS. TAKE YOUR BEST SHOT. WHY SHOULD YOU GO BACK? TALK TO THE UNDECIDED VOTER.

Harkin: IOWANS HAVE INVESTED A LOT IN ME. IOWA IS A SMALL STATE. WE'RE NOT LIKE NEW YORK OR PENNSYLVANIA OR CALIFORNIA OR FLORIDA WITH A LOT OF CONGRESSMEN. TO PROTECT IOWA, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET OUR FAIR SHARE, TO MAKE SURE WE GET INVESTMENT IN OUR SCHOOLS AND OUR ELDERLY, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO GET OUR FAIR SHARE, WE NEED CLOUT IN WASHINGTON. IOWANS HAVE INVESTED IN ME, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I RETURN THAT INVESTMENT TO BUILD A GOOD FUTURE FOR IOWA.

Yepsen: MR. GANSKE.

Ganske: WHEN THE SENATOR RAN FOR PRESIDENT, HE WANTED TO CUT THE DEFENSE BUDGET BY 50 PERCENT. I THINK SENATOR HARKIN'S POSITIONS ON MANY THINGS ARE EXTREMIST. I THINK WHEN HE VOTES AGAINST BANNING PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION, THAT'S EXTREMIST. I THINK THAT WHEN HE IS AGAINST -- WHEN HE SAYS THAT "I THINK HUMAN CLONING IS RIGHT AND PROPER," I THINK THAT'S EXTREMIST. I THINK WHEN HE'S AGAINST PARENTAL NOTIFICATION, WHICH 80 PERCENT OF IOWANS ARE FOR, I THINK THAT'S EXTREMIST. I THINK WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT DUMPING ALL THE HANDGUNS IN THE COUNTRY INTO THE OCEAN, I THINK THAT'S EXTREMIST.

Borg: AND WE'RE OUT OF TIME. THANK YOU, CONGRESSMAN GANSKE, SENATOR HARKIN, FOR BEING OUR GUESTS TODAY ON "IOWA PRESS." ON OUR NEXT EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS," WE GET SOME PARTISAN ANALYSIS, IF WE HAVEN'T HAD SOME TONIGHT, OF CAMPAIGN 2002. WE'LL BE QUESTIONING TWO PARTY INSIDERS, BOTH IOWA ATTORNEYS, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEEMAN STEVE ROBERTS AND PAST CHAIR OF THE IOWA DEMOCRATIC PARTY ROB TULLY, WHO ALSO HAS INSIGHTS AS A FORMER CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE HIMSELF. THAT'S NEXT FRIDAY AT 6:30, SUNDAY AT NOON, HERE ON STATEWIDE IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION. AND A REMINDER ABOUT TOMORROW'S DEBATE BETWEEN INCUMBENT DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR TOM VILSACK AND REPUBLICAN CHALLENGER DOUG GROSS. IT'S THE DES MOINES REGISTER-SPONSORED GUBERNATORIAL DEBATE. WE'LL BRING IT TO YOU TOMORROW, LIVE AT 2:00 SATURDAY AFTERNOON. IT WILL REBROADCAST SUNDAY EVENING AT 7:00. THAT'S IT FOR THIS EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS. " I'M DEAN BORG. THANKS FOR JOINING US TODAY.


ANNOUNCER: FUNDING FOR "IOWA PRESS" WAS PROVIDED BY "FRIENDS," THE IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION FOUNDATION; 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 UNTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE; AND BY IOWA NETWORK SERVICES AND YOUR LOCAL INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE COMPANY -- IOWA NETWORK SERVICES, YOUR CLOSEST CONNECTION.