Debate 1978, Senate; Dick Clark And Roger Jepsen 1978 Senate Race; The IDPA Debates

Re Fitzgerald debate. The the the. Welcome to our second session debates today we're pleased to have with us Governor Robert you're a Democratic candidate Representative Jerome Fitzgerald. Our panel today session. Roger Munns of the Cedar Rapids Gazette. Roxy Hamel. In the Council Bluffs non-pro. And John Abraham are names for. Our form at this time will be just a straightforward press conference and I'll ask at this time for representing Fitzgerald and governor to come to the lecture and I will begin the questions with Roger Munns. And here I have a question for both candidates has to do generally

with taxes in the last couple of years or last for five years actually we've been in a position of gradually depleting a rather substantial government surplus and now we're to the point many observers believe that in the next few years during your term your next term governor will either have to reduce the level of services generally or will have to increase a general tax. Given that choice which would you prefer. Governor would you go to. First I think I should comment that you're assuming something that I'm not sure is fair to assume at the beginning of every legislative session I've heard people say taxes are going to have to be raised or services will have to be curtailed and we have been able to provide the services without tax increases. And I dare say that is our attitude now. That is what we intend to do. I know that recently Gerri

has suggested that he would raise taxes. I think we ought to approach it differently I think we ought to accept the fact that there will never be enough money for all of the services that everyone wants. But we must set our priorities and we must live within our means. And I think that's the message that the people are telling us as public officials and they're telling people all around this country. So I cannot stand before you and tell you that it would be my purpose to raise taxes. And I don't believe that we will have to seriously curtailed services if we don't raise taxes. First of all I feel that it should be pointed out that we have reduced spending rate increases in the past few years particular in the past four years and that has held down the need for the direct need to raise taxes in addition to that I think that particular with inflation which has perhaps an adverse effect on tax payers but as far as revenues are concerned for the state they have obviously helped to keep the state

revenues higher than had been anticipated in fact just a matter of a few months. The comptroller this year has increased dramatically his own projections of what revenues would be. However I think I should point out that in the WE TALK ABOUT door I don't talk about it but the governor has talked about the no no tax increase re administration. Now the fact is that well it's much like the myth of the tooth fairy. We all would like to believe it but we all know it's not true. In the last 10 years we've had over a billion dollars of tax increases revenue increases in state government. We started out with a little over 400 some million dollars 10 years ago. We're now over 1.4 billion dollars just in 10 years that's more revenue increases than we've been than we've seen in the history of the state of Iowa under any administration in this state. Additionally property taxes have increased from around 600 million dollars in that 10 years to where we're going to break a billion dollar threshold in this coming year. Now and in addition to that we've had

tax increase recommendations on the part of the governor himself in the area of property taxes in the past three years alone would have caused and one proposal specifically. Seventy million dollar increase in property taxes for farmers and homeowners. So I don't think the general projection of the image of no tax increases accurate but quite frankly in the realm that you're asking the question I don't think we're going to have to raise taxes in the upcoming years and I don't support that I might add. Could you clarify your position representative Fitzgerald concerning the rather controversial aspect I suppose of the campaign your suit your statement or your supposed statement saying that you would support a tax increase to support or increased aid to education. Well first of all if you read the statement you know is made the statement was made in last April. And I just state categorically I'm not offering any group a promise of a tax increase. I don't think we're going to have to have a tax increase. Number one to meet the

services we're trying to already as well as some of the additional ones will have to develop in the upcoming years particularly next two to four years in part because of the Curia I think you're having some problems. Let me repeat myself on that so I make it very clear I do not favor a tax increase promise for any group and I've said that before and I'll repeat it again in front of whoever feels it is necessary. It's interesting that the governor of constant refers to that statement and refers to the group that endorsed me as a special interest group when he sought that group's indorsement two years ago and received four years ago and received it six years ago they sought their endorsement and received it. This year he and his campaign managers Mark POMERANZ And Mary Louise Smith all three actively called people who are on those groups who are going to make that decision to seek that endorsement and they didn't get it this year and I can understand the hurt feelings about that and we occasionally say things and pursue things we might not otherwise do.

But the fact is I didn't promise that group nor I might add if you asked the eyepieces leaders of that group today. In any case indicate they felt I promise that I didn't. I don't and I won't. OK. Next question governor because the balance of time of the other comment you'd like to make on that first question. Well as a matter of fact there are a few comments I'd like to make. Let me just respond since I mention the fact that my opponent has made statements such as I would favor revenue raising measures and I have before me the transcript of that interview that he had with the IPs people. It's dated April 15 1978 and the question was Would you support these efforts if it meant raising taxes to fund it. And his answer is I would favor revenue raising measures. Jerry you just mentioned that you don't believe that is going to be necessary yet in that same answer you said I am I'm quite sure

and I'm quoting in the next couple of years at the most we'll probably have to do that. Now let me just point out if I might in response to your comments about taxes in the state of Iowa we have moved from 10th to 20th in per capita property taxes since 1971. That's from 71 to 76. Property taxes have increased slower than inflation since 1970. No state has had a bigger decline in effect the tax rate than has Iowa in the last few years and that comes from Steve gold. He was a professor at Drake who has done most of the work that has been done effectively about taxes in the state. The U.S. Commerce Department shows that in from 1966 to 1976 per capita property taxes in Iowa are the eighth lowest increase in this country. Now I would just like to also add that property taxes per capita per

capita rose 24 percent between 71 and 76. That is about half the national level average which was a forty five percent and about half the average for inflation. OK next question and Roxy. OK. I'd like to address this question to both candidates. First to Governor Ray and then I'd like to turn it around for Mr. Bush to Governor if you were in my seat right now and you were given the choice of asking Mr. Fitzgerald. One question and one question only. Sorry if you were given the choice of asking him one question and one question only your pointed question here the question. If I had one question to ask my opponent what I suppose I would be member the reason titling answer this to that

package. She didn't tell me that. I suppose that if you believe you've done such a fine job as a legislator Why don't you state. Can I answer now. I don't make the rules. Yes you're the question his questioner. You know you're one. Well I you know I've thought about that as a matter of fact it's a lot easier to run politically from a district as small as mine compared to statewide. But obviously if I had the influence of the governor's office behind me as a you know as majority leader I wouldn't have run. Quite frankly there's no point in spending a great deal of time campaigning for a position that would offer nothing new in the options of getting things done. I believe that the office of governor can do a lot more in terms of persuading people in terms of bringing people together politically both the Republican and Democratic Party as well as members of the House and Senate and people outside of government in order to get things done in state government. If I felt that it was being done

adequately Now I wouldn't run. You have a question for Governor. Well I would be going to give my I'm going to let all my animation go right away. Well I'm sure are you sure you haven't. Well I. Why. How about a series of questions I can't answer that. How about this governor I'll just throw this out to take off and let you know when I get back into the subject matter you ended with a time for why why did you favor property tax relief measures that in fact allowed increases on farmers and homeowners the first year of a little over 20 million dollars the second year twenty seven million dollars. Third year approximately 30 million dollars. If it it if your plan had been enacted in 1076 thank you very much because I don't know how I could get into it since I didn't think Herb wanted me to go on. You mentioned twenty million dollars and I've seen from

clippings that you mention that from time to time. I'm sure you know that you're talking about a time when. Property valuation skyrocketed and as a consequence the state had a windfall windfall of money. We wanted to get that money back to the taxpayers and not just absorb it and use it on the state level. Some 74 percent of all the money we take in on the state level goes back anyway to the local level and people on the local level. We proposed a plan that would send that extra money back through the school Foundation plan at the time that we put our budget together. It seemed like the most logical way to get the money back. Later we found that there was a shift because commercial property and industrial property and utility property did not bear quite as much of that extra revenue as did agriculture and residential property. And so we offered to adjust for that and change the uniform Levy. There was a bill in

the Senate that almost passed that would have done that. That failed by two votes some Democrats supported that. And so our purpose was to get all of the money back. And I think that was the purpose of the Democrats too. They did it by credits and we accepted that. But we were going to get the money back and what you're saying is some of that money would have gone to those who have rental property and commercial property. And your plan didn't include that at all. So we were going to get the same amount of money back one way or the other. And we were willing to adjust for that shift. But you went with credits instead and we saw I signed the bill and we supported that Governor and I to turn to another subject I want Ashleigh Guard which has been much in the news lately a series of investigations and controversies Major Connel beares recently resigned and the charge that you had disassociated yourself from the guard since this controversy had begun. It was also critical of General Burkett and yesterday Brigadier General Kelley resigned and said he was fed up with a one man show. General Burkett.

Do these developments cause you to reconsider your support of General Burkhead And secondly you think you have exercised enough control over the guard in term of your office. John I'm glad you brought up the subject because whenever we have a problem we like to go directly to it we like to get it solved and resolved quickly. That's been very difficult with the Guard because we've had so many who have been investigating. And we do not in any way want to interfere with those investigations. The FBI has been involved has been involved. The inspector general's office has been involved the district attorney has been involved and now the legislature is involved. We promised full cooperation with each unit that has consulted with us and we're going to continue to cooperate. But it means that when you let some other group like the law enforcement people the FBI investigate then you wait until they complete their investigation before you take any action. And so that has been a problem. General working

as a person I didn't really know until he was nominated to me for appointment and I appointed him because he had excellent credentials. He had considerable support and it seemed to me like he was a no nonsense person one who could move in and make necessary changes and get the guard on the track moving forward. And he has made some important changes and as a result I think you're going to have some disgruntled people who are not going to quickly or easily accept the change in policy. But I think you'll find as time goes on there will be good support for some of these changes. And we know that not all people will stay as a result but we're determined that we're going to have a strong national guard. And I am absolutely convinced it's imperative that we have a good citizen's military. And that's the reason I'm so interested in it. As far as associating myself with the guard I I don't think that's a fact except it might appear to somebody if I'm willing to let the

FBI complete its investigation before I step in and take any action. Q John your follow up there I had a second part of the question in terms of do you believe you've adequately supervise the guard and enough attention to it in the term your office. Well I think we have done what we could in a responsible manner. We do rely upon people that are. Already in charge of different areas of government and when there is a mistake made. We deal with that when we found a mistake had been made with the adjutant general we dealt with that and that was something we could do and we could do quickly. But there are other matters where people have complained and have not come to us but have gone to the inspector general's office or gone to the FBI. And when that has happened and we have felt that we must cooperate with them. Roger. Different topic for Representative Joe. Would you favor mandatory consolidation of small school districts if it is determined that they cannot

operate efficiently alone. Well first of all I don't think a mandatory consolidation of small school districts is the way to go. We've supposedly been employing that in one form or another in the past many years really. And we found that rather than cost going down they've gone up. I feel that it's an arbitrary approach that does not take into account many costs associated with education in fact in some cases it's not led to the savings that allegedly are a company that sort of action. If we're going to take some action. About ensuring quality education the criteria to be established ought to be along the lines of what should be offered or what should be expected rather than saying a certain number of school or school children should be in a school district before it can be allowed to exist. Do you have any specific suggestions for how to handle declining enrollment. Well quite frankly I thought that was one of the major differences of between the governor and myself this year alone. In the past three years we've had significant differences in the area of education our specific support of it growth question in one thousand seventy five

direct dollars we put in I think was around 10 or 11 million dollars more than it recommended in one thousand seventy eight the year we're talking about now. We all recognized that there was a declining enrollment problem. The governor alluded to it in his budget message in fact said there's the forty six million dollars in my budget to take care of the declining that should be enough to take care of the declining enrollment problem. And we thought that was good because frankly we didn't want to fight over that problem was obviously a large money amount of money. And we in fact were surprised three days later when we found that there was not another dime in that budget to deal with declining enrollment and was already there as a result of the laws on the book. There was no law change no appropriation needed to get to that 46 million dollar question. So we had to then take the initiative in the leadership and at least come up with something that we felt could get through the legislature at the same time would be reasonable with the budgetary constraints of the legislature and we did we ultimately wound up with a two year question. As has been discussed I think many times in a variety of articles two and a half million dollars the first year of school budget review committee and

then the guaranteed percentage of guaranteed the state take up the first two and a half percent decline the second. Here let me see just a little formal you're going to like to respond to some of this and then I think after you do that a little it may be a little awkward if you would make like to make a comment on a National Guard we invited to governor ran the school district question. Well I am pleased to have a chance to respond to that because first of all. Mr. Charles record with children one hundred seventy five he voted to reduce my askings for the twitch and Grant Program area schools. The board of regents in 1977 he voted to eliminate about five million dollars out of the region's budget. And this last time when we were preparing for declining enrollment so we put together an entire budget. There's a lot of work involved in that kind of a budget. We started with a priority for

education. We wanted to make sure that we could cover the increased growth that we needed to provide for. And that's how we got to 46 million dollars. Now some can slough that off as though that's hardly any sum of money but that's a lot of money. So we started with that. But in addition to that we were working all the time to see if the revenues held up at the beginning of the station or midway in the station and what else we could do for declining enrollment. So we worked with some legislators and through our controllers office we made some efforts to increase the amount that would go for declining enrollment. And we did support some increase and we supported the provision where for the first two and a half percent decline there wouldn't be any penalty or any loss at all. And then only 50 percent after that. And. I think it's worthy of noting that Mr Fitzgerald and the leaders with whom he was associated told the public a number of times that they would have their

own budget this time before the governor ever submitted a budget. And I was kind of anxious anxiously waiting for that because for the first time I thought maybe would be fun to look at their budget and pick it apart like they always do with mine. But it is you who are knowledgeable about this. Well recall they didn't do that. They didn't give us the budget to look at so they had no plans for declining enrollment. They merely talked about it and it was midway in the session when we decided that there would be sufficient funds to provide for the next year following this. What declining enrollment. They talked about it I talked at leadership meetings with Jerry about whether they wanted to go the extra year which they were talking about. And I thought maybe that was too much because after all we didn't know what the revenues would be that far in advance. So there was a compromise and we supported declining enrollment money. Yes I'd like to hear on to just what was said here. The reason you know what National Guard are

thank you. First of all this is really very and the best thing I can say about what was just said is that it was misleading. The governor's office did not sit down to figure out what they could do in the area of a law that something that the formula sets up in law that forty six million dollars is established as a result of law already on the books. It does not require work or policy changes on the part of the governor at all. Those are figures that are a result of some things that are already established there's nothing required at all it's whether you want to support it or not. Secondly it was interesting to me that the governor said he switched in mid session with respect to the two and a half percent decline. Obviously he signed the bill and obviously at some point were willing to let go of what was going to happen. In fact I recall in our leadership meetings you opposed the three year plan that we talked about. And I admit that that's true. And you asked us if we were going to try to change it and I said no there was no way in fact I referred specifically to the caucus we had which was open and which we presented that plan to the caucus and to the press that was there long before anybody from your

office or otherwise suggested that those things should take place. That's misleading at best governor to suggest that you in fact are pushing those things. Secondly with respect to higher education spending we have spent in the legislature and I have supported these expenditures 14 million 13 or 14 million dollars more over the past four years than you in fact have recommended for higher education in all areas combined. And finally with respect to higher education spending that was one time. One time where a major reduction expenditure under your level was passed by us and at I mad I might add. Many of our urging not because we are expected to wind up at the lower level of funding but because you were not willing to support your own rez revenue raising measures necessary to balance your budget. If you recall that 977 recommendation on personal property tax phase out freeze not one member of your party would support it three times in committee on the floor of the house through several Amendment fights. And when we approached you about your health because we knew we would need it in the Senate

we didn't have enough votes to get it through. And 21 million dollars of revenue was involved. If we couldn't pass it twenty one million dollars lost revenue to the state and the only way we ultimately finally passed it because you told us that I will not support it. Unless the red unless the legislature supports my budget recommendations 100 percent. Now that's never happened in the history of the state of Ohio and I think you knew it when it was an easy way of washing your hands of the problem but quite frankly we then had to figure out a way to get it through the Senate. We got it through the Senate by saying we wouldn't go with higher education level that you had talked about unless we got that through. And we combined it with the property tax bill that was fairly popular at that time got enough votes we got it through and as soon as we got it through we voted for that higher higher level of funding for higher education. And specifically I went before the Board of Regents and explained exactly in advance what I was doing and why I was doing it. So that would be enough money in the next years to be able to deal with higher education funding which was very sorely needed. Now if I may I know you want to get to another response but

I really would like to respond. Be politically if you can. If you recall Jerry Fisher old what you did was to hold up all of the budget by saying that until the Republicans would support the phase out you would not go forward. And I can remember saying if if I tell those Republicans they should go ahead now and support this. And they I tell them also you would support our budget. And you said I will not tell you that your party wouldn't support that. And what. And they were right there in the room. The Republicans said they did not want to phase out something and not know how you were going to spend the money that was going to be saved and you would not tell them. Governor you know thats not the absolute truth. I dont think another Bush was going to be differences right now. Can we get to the National Guard the National Guard to I have to have refrained frankly from getting into speaking about the National Guard contrary to what

enterprising people with imaginations would like to say and I'm not referring to you know go but. Go ahead. Yeah the National Guard is obviously something that must be strong and must have strong morale and I have avoided talking about it because I didn't want it to develop into a partisan problem. The fact is though that I think the lobbying of congressmen for appointments and promotions. The lobbying of the legislature to avoid investigations and the blaming of problems on disgruntled employees is not the way to solve the problem. I think the governor as commander in chief of the National Guard will have to do what I think members of the National Guard and the public both feel and that is that we have to get the thing cleared up cleaned up as quickly as possible and develop the circumstances which allow us to have a strong national guard. But as I said and I think I did that just now avoid the partisan question associated with Rocsi on a

completely different subject. Governor Ridge there's been some question in the breezed into primary and after the primary about the length of your tenure in office. More specifically that you have appointed a large number of public officers and that they're becoming entrenched. What I'm asking is when you favor a time limit on the number of terms that again and I would governor could serve. I feel a little bit like my predecessor told me one time that the people ought to make that decision and it should be left to them to decide if a person should be re-elected. I have kind of amused when people talk that way about the tenure of office. I don't know too many people that aren't respected when they are in the job for 10 years. I watched Frank not here a moment ago who's just been an outstanding newsman and he certainly operated more than 10 years I would think and be very make their Clark rather nervous because if he is re-elected he will have served longer than I have and then I think of the speaker of

the house that comes from Jerry's own county. He has served since 1958 that's 20 years and he's asking to be re-elected. So I think it's a matter for the people to decide if they want someone with experience and who has a record of performance they can judge that they know they've observed me. It isn't just rhetoric and it isn't just a lot of conversation because they know what kind of government they're getting with me as governor. And so I I think it's an interesting. Kind of argument that I've heard not only this time but even the last time I ran. What about the second part of the question in which the question of appointees of the person elected and serving officer views in the public eye but the appointees the civil service machinery this thing over puter time is not an argument perhaps from additional terms to effect a guaranteed turnover and appoint positions.

I think if you would look you would see that there is turnover and they appointed positions and we have sort of a rule of thumb that we will appoint a person for two terms. Now we all do that sometimes because of unique circumstances where there are times when we would like that person not to serve a certain second term for many reasons. We need somebody else from a different area or a different party whatever. And sometimes we'll go another term over. I know. Jarius talked around the state about me appointing people four and five times. I don't know which ones those are. I think you'd be hard pressed to name them and I've heard him talk about can you imagine the governors appointed so many on the Supreme Court and this would be a good time maybe for me to ask you know which one of those do you think was not a good appointment. Let's let him ask me. Well I was going to ask the judge too. Also I don't mean to get into and argue the two of you the question of terms in office. Well first of all I think we should first of all by the way Governor speaker Cochran came

in at 64 and 58 the Dick Clark speaker Cochran and Frank nine none of them have the appointment powers that the governor has. And I don't really have anything against you personally or anybody else for being in a particular position 10 or 15 or 25 years or as the gentleman in the back said for loitering in a public place for 19 terms. The fact is that you have tremendous power not you personally but the position has tremendous power through appointment that none of these other people have Frank night doesn't appoint anybody appoints very few people. In fact I think we could do it on one hand how many Dick Clark similar situation personal staff and that's it. Now the problem is not so much with specific problems in fact people have asked me which scandal are you referring to and I said that's not my point when I refer to this appointment problem. It's not because of any given scandal if they hadn't existed that still would be a problem in state government you appoint over eleven hundred

people in the executive branch alone that require Senate confirmation and a whole host of others that don't require that. My point has always been and still is. That anybody I don't care how good or how nice you are when you start appointing that many people and you have appointed every one of them at least once you filled the majority of positions at least twice. You filled many of the positions 3 times and you filled a few of them four times. And if elected you'll be working on a fifth sixth and even seventh time for some of those same positions that require that confirmation. Now the fact is when you become so entrenched in one group starts to appoint everybody in this case literally everybody in the executive branch of government. We have that intrenchment lead to an ingrown situation. The tendency to become stagnant and it is frankly common sense as well as every scholar studied scholarly study since the middle eight hundred to Sean. There is a tendency to become calm that develops. But you try to perpetuate yourself not by policy decision for the most part that can happen I'm not saying that that's what you're doing. What I'm saying is that in any administration where you become so entrenched in a

large public bureaucracy every study and common sense has indicated that that intrenchment process and the tendency to try to perpetuate yourself exists. It's not to criticize you as a Republican it happens in Democrats or independents and even the same sort of situation can happen and has been proven to happen regardless of how many efforts have been attempted to try to disprove that theory and it just is one of those factors of bureaucracies. Thank you John. Question and answer sessions sometimes sounding like a debate so I'd like to ask about debates be the women voters proposals to hold a series of debates fell through. I might ask each of you why that happened and if there are any prospects for resumption of those negotiations. Let's start with Governor right. Well I don't know if you can say they fell through I'm not sure they ever really existed. After the primary election that night I suggested that we make arrangements for debating. And I suggested

that our staffs get together. We didn't hear anything from the other side and we did take the initiative to contact Mr. Fitzgerald's campaign staff and the individuals representing each camp got together. They also invited the League of Women Voters because they had indicated to somebody that they would like to participate at that time. Our people offered which I think is the most generous offer I've heard an incumbent make to debate on all television stations. And we would do three television debates one for all the NBC affiliates one for all the ABC ones and the CBS ones. That way we'd have complete coverage in three different debates and they could pick their own news people to ask the questions. Addition to that we'd already been invited for this one. And we said we do that with this one plus the SGX one which is for the journalists that would give us complete coverage. I was told later that the league had a desire to have three their way with their

format and their own style. And I think our people were trying to work out something where we might accept those and actually put down three dates and nothing yet had been confirmed. When we learned that Mr. Fitzgerald's people were out or he was accepting outside debates other ones. And so it was at that time since we had held off accepting a lot of invitations for the debates and for television appearances and for many other parents just that Marber as my campaign manager said look that's what you want to do we'll do one with the league and then we'll do to others with you. And that wasn't acceptable to the league. So we went ahead and we've now scheduled five debates this is the first of five year olds. Well we start out with one thing in common the governor's office did call me his press secretary Dave Allman called me the night of the primary and said that they would be willing to debate with with us and offered it. And I it's true. And I agreed right away I said I'd be willing to debate any time

any place anywhere. And I said that after the primary publicly as well. And quite obviously I think I ought to be willing to do that for a variety of reasons. The fact is though anybody that contacted us right after that primary. We said we would debate everybody that contacted us after that primary and there were no negotiations going on at that time at all. We said we would negotiate or skinny we would debate anywhere the negotiations didn't take place until later. The first time negotiations were agreed to and they were agreed to on a Friday morning and that evening it was in the evening newspaper that we had accepted those debates. We contacted nor talked to no one after that was really after after that agreement was reached that day. Mason City Television asked us early in fact through representative Lowell Norland before the legislature and whether we would accept a base and I said certainly will accept any debate any time anywhere and. That station I might add told us that a week or 10 days before the agreement was

reached on the League of Women Voters question that the governor's office had called them and said Don't give up you're still in the running or something to that effect. That's what they told us. So it it leads me. First of all I question. Well I'll put it this way I question what the motives were in calling them and suggesting to them that they were still in the running when in fact at that point in time nobody was talking about them as being part of the agreement number one. Number two the two staffs had always worked together up until the time of the agreement the first time anybody went public that I recall anyway and I admit I wasn't in the negotiations. Was the announcement by Mr. Pomerantz on Monday after the agreement was reached that they were pulling out because we had allegedly done something after those agreements were reached. Now quite frankly all they would have had to do if that was a problem was say we don't want you to have them and I would have jumped to it because frankly it's to my interest selfishly to get on the public in front of the public in as many places and as many possibilities as I could and I'm

not going to follow up an agreement if indeed it had been reached that there shouldn't be any others and I might add the memorandum that was drawn up by the leak that supposedly we all agreed to suggested in there there might be additional debates. He did not say there wouldn't be any it suggested in fact there might be additional ones. It was nothing mentioned at all about cutting off after those three so quite frankly I believe that the governor and I understand why you might do this as an incumbent did not want those days to debates to take place. The three that they have talked to talked about so far will have minimal coverage. The biggest market will be out of KCCI and it's the only one that will have a significant audience relative to the state population. To view Waterloo Cedar Rapids Iowa City will not have significant coverage of it except through IPB and you know this one is going to be as I understand it anyway. Opposite the political football game Monday night and the question of how many will watch is a legitimate question I think. Frankly I think they did not want to give us the opportunity to question the governor's record and politically they viewed it as a negative for them and

decided to back out. Representative Fitzgerald several years ago you had a great deal to do with drawing up the collective bargaining agreement the law and how to structure collective bargaining with public employees and today most observers would say that it has worked well. There is a in that law there is a very strong prohibition against striking what would you do if public employees decided to violate that and to walk out in a large scale state. I'm talking specifically about state employees. Well there's no way you can anticipate specifically what you do depending on the situation the first thing you try to do is anticipate those kind of problems. I think we've structured the law first of all that allows clearly for a situation that people can live by and a part of the employer and the employee and I think their experience has proven that to be the case. I would be surprised if that something to the contrary happened along that line and I was near future at least barring anything we haven't seen happen that I'm aware of anyway in the past months or years. I don't expect that to be the case. But the law is the law they are not supposed to strike.

And the best means that would be available in terms of persuading or determining in one way or another that people comply with the law. That would be the responsibility of the governor and that's what I would have to do. Do you have a monster. Well I certainly don't favor. Public employees striking. I favor collective bargaining. I supported it. I called for it I didn't really work behind the scenes. It took I think a little more courage for a Republican to stand up and be counted out in front when collective bargaining was adopted. But I rather surprised at Jerry's answer and as much as his party platform says the public striking should be permitted. OK I answered ask if you agree with everything Roger Jepson says it's a similar And my point is I actually wanted Roger's position would be I think it would be that he wouldn't favor public strikes either. So you DO agree more than people say. Point I'm making governor is that you might have to explain how we got here. Here's the point I want to make and I think it's important to distinguish that I don't claim to support

everything as you have suggested yourself to me about your own platform the speed speed limit is one thing I understand the difficulties that are not speed limit those proposals trying to reflect 100 percent on any platform regardless of which party and and frankly I I think I recall a couple of instances that we communicated with your office during a collective bargaining and I appreciated the fact that you were helping on that. But what is the answer. You don't agree with public strikes. Yes I've said that publicly before. I like to do this to both of you starting with Mr Fitzgerald and that is that Norman the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has sent out more or less a trial balloon on the feasibility of raising I was 3 percent sales tax in giving a portion of this property tax relief under what circumstances could you support such a nation.

Well first of all I did talk to a loan or loan after that came out a newspaper and he wasn't releasing a trial balloon. He was asked by a reporter if they thought something should be done in that area he and Bob Anderson were not together was a separate question and they both said well we ought to study it and that's all they suggested that it ought to be studied so they would know what the impact would be. And that frankly is just common sense to know what you're doing before you make a decision. I don't have I don't see the possibilities right now that being the case that is me supporting raising the sales tax for the suggested route. If you want to say what would be the best circumstances for doing it. Obviously there are a couple things you have to take into account when you want to make sure that whatever exchange was made it would be done in a progressive manner. And to that the thing would actually be an exchange and not some you make too. Just trade dollars and not really do anything different as far as the public is concerned. It would be something you'd be very careful about doing and I don't. I am not endorsing it right now by the way lest that be interpreted what I just said is a tax increase recommendation to govern economics not be present proposal other than our

discussion about taxes. Well I have not favored raising the sales tax and I think that's basically one reason why we have one of the lowest in the country. I did favor eliminating the sales tax from food and drugs that we were able to accomplish that and I think that's a credit to us in the state of Iowa. I have fought raising the sales tax I've heard the arguments many times I've heard people say raise the sales tax and we'll help property taxes. We have reduced property reliance on property for the major reasons that we have property taxes. But I have looked over historically and I've found that every time basically every time the taxes are raised for the purpose of reducing property taxes that has not happened. We merely have more money to spend and that's the reason I have not favored an increase in the sales tax. John I'd like to ask each candidate to give his version of why it took so long for the usury rate situation be cleared up earlier this year just a few years on a time limit on Version 3 versions.

Just because you're on the second usury debate I don't want to be paid extra for Steyn. Well it was a difficult political question first of all for anybody Democrat or Republican and it was much along the lines of Well for a Democrat like the governor felt about collective bargaining. I mentioned earlier and and I approach him as well as his people asked at one time or another through the legislative session about what could be done. To solve it to solve the problem. There were differences of opinion between two houses as to whether something should be done and it wasn't until two weeks before the session ended approximately that the governor indicated he felt then that something should be done up and before that and I understand the difficulty that politically as well as substantively determining whether it should be done or not. I think it was

equally as difficult for all of us to determine whether it should be done. But at that time he felt he said publicly something should be done I think roughly two weeks before the end of the session. And at that at that time it appeared maybe something could happen in fact quite honestly our last caucus of the night when the Senate adjourned while we were in session we were then debating how we could what plan we could get some agreement on to pass over to the Senate before we adjourn at regular session. My own feeling is there was never an attempt to call together people of both political parties and both houses of the legislature outside of the legislature to make that happen either in that regular session either the first week in session or the third weekend session or second weekend session the final one. That effort was left completely as far as actually pulling us together was concerned two members of the legislature. The initiative had to as far as pulling together people I'm not talking about public statements now came almost exclusively from the legislature and there were Republicans and Democrats both

involved in that strictly in the house I can't speak for the Senate to make that happen in fact during the regular session of the legislature we were trying to develop a package that would be acceptable both in our house and in the Senate. We didn't succeed at that and it took us two sessions to do it. My own feeling on it was that there ought to have been a willingness to pull people together privately if not publicly to say all right you've got differences in the House and Senate we've got differences between political parties. What is it that we can agree to. What can we make happen. And let's see how we can go about doing that. That never took place I guess the best closest thing to it was the meeting we called right before the final session the final weekend session took place. Ok thank Governor. But I was midway in the legislative session when those who were primarily affected were beginning to contact legislators at which time they also contacted the governor's office. It was those from the savings and loan associations from the banks from the real estate people their association. And we looked very

carefully but cautiously of what they were telling us because we did not want to be misled. We did not want to find out later that there was a special interest problem that they wanted solved just for themselves. And as we became convinced and not hearing arguments to the contrary that people were not going to get the mortgage money and therefore they were not going to build homes and they were not going to be able to buy new homes without a large down payment which they couldn't afford. We were convinced that something had to be done. And as Roger perhaps will recall covering the state house I started telling people that I felt there needed to be something done and that I would favor going with a floating rate attached to the long term government bonds. I said however since it was new and the legislators were trying for the first time to grapple with it that I would be happy to work with them and see what ideas they had if there were a better idea. I would prefer to go with a better idea as time went on a better idea didn't emerge and so I became more firm in my conviction that that's the direction

we ought to take. Now I'm not a leader in the legislature. Gerry Fitzgerald was. It was their responsibility. I was willing to do any and anything or everything I could to get something done and I did talk to some legislators and they were nervous and particularly the Democrats who were afraid someone might accuse them of raising the interest rates and usury had not been politically a problem in the past because it is a competitive thing even though the rate might be 9 percent. For a long time you could get mortgage money at much less than 9 percent. And so it really wasn't the problem I think they thought it was. In any event they did not pass at the first station. They took a month off to study it. They studied it and came to the same conclusion that we had come to during the first sation and told them that and then they didn't pass it. They took a couple of weeks off came back and finally passed it at about one hundred thousand dollars extra cost to the taxpayers.

John any follow on that I would like to follow up. I didn't want to begin to sound negative after a while but what I really was going to say we decided not to when this question started was it never once in this whole thing that the governor asked for anybody to sit down from either side. People from both sides and the only time I recall direct approach was when I asked the governor after our joint joint leadership meeting we had about this is a this is before he made a recommendation. It looks like we've got a potential problem here. I don't know if we need to do anything about it but we ought to keep it out of the political arena. And there ought to be some way we can solve this problem. Never once from Dan or later was there a significant effort that I'm aware of by the governor's office to pull people together from either both political parties in both houses. That's what I think. And. That's what I felt if I was majority leader and can do all of that I wouldn't run for governor. My own perception of the governor's office is that you ought to be willing to pull people together to create the atmosphere to help solve what are difficult problems if they are difficult they're going to be solved anyway. The problem is if you have a difficult problem the people are skittish about and not just

Democrats I might add. There are many of us who are willing to try to solve it to bring that atmosphere in around to the possibility of a solution and we tried. But the fact is we work in one house at a time we can't work in the other house as you know to the extent and with the influence that the governor has. If we could I would run for governor I'd stay as majority leader because apparently I have a lot more power than I realize that I have. And I would be a lot easier to run for majority leader than would be for governor. I feel the governor has a responsibility at least in those areas that are important that he says to the public are important and are difficult that he has to take some responsibility to pull people together both parties both houses as well as people outside of government to try to resolve those various plans and ask you when was it you finally concluded that we had to make the change and what did you ever propose. And when did you accept what we proposed. Well I tell you this it was the usury that tossed me around tonight. It's wrong time. My wife's going to get mad at me that now we have a baby.

I don't. Governor got one where they I just said this that the first question practically was the one I had the opportunity to ask you. It's taken an hour and you finally answered it. Since you feel you could not do your job there you now would like to run for governor. You know I think you misunderstand the point Governor I think you're not doing the job enough. In fact I even get credit from your own party members privately I'm sure they won't say it publicly for doing a good job as majority leader. You're right I haven't heard them say that publicly. Governor I have one question I can produce. There wasn't a column and I believe the register recently. Columnist referring to your I believe the quote was undisguised ambition for national political office. I want to ask the simple question that if elected would you serve 40 years. But the question of your response to someone classifying you as having undisguised ambition for national

office. I think each time that I've run after the first time someone has said I was going to become a federal judge or I was going to run for the Senate or something else I have never looked past one election not looking past one election this time. My job is to do the best job I possibly can as governor and secondly to get elected or reelected as governor. I have no other plans politically. Thank you Roger. Well let me answer No I'm not running for president in 1980. Will you run for the legislature. No. Roger. Governor throughout your first eight or nine years in office you said you favored the idea of majority right 18 across the board. And last spring the legislature approved a bill that would remove one of those so-called rights the right to drink.

You made it at 19. And you said it was a very difficult decision for you to sign that law which you did do. Why did you change mine. I didn't change my mind relative to the reasons why I favored full adult rights at 18. A long time ago I favored reducing full adult rights for younger people at age 19 for some of the same arguments I heard this last session and that is that most of them would be out of high school. The Congress then passed a law allowing people at age 18 to vote. It was at that time and after the Supreme Court upheld that that we decided it would be wise to have full adult rights at 18 and I I think it was a wise decision at that time. However there were arguments on the other side once we tried it and those arguments were rather compelling. For instance we looked at the records in the statistics and we found more young people were drinking more young people were having accidents with alcohol involved.

We found that there were more fatalities with alcohol involved. And we found that people were coming across the borders into our bordering communities because our drinking age was lower than Brasco or Illinois or Minnesota Missouri. I also found that people were using this as a great excuse so they didn't have to discipline young people they were saying well after all we can't do a thing about young people drinking because the law says they can drink at 18. So if one person buys some booze. Younger people are going to drink it. We can't do a thing about it. I heard that from parents I heard it from teachers principals and administrators. I felt that it was time perhaps that we take that excuse away. I think it will work and I think young people are adapting to it. They didn't like it and it wasn't easy for me because I have great faith in young people and that's the reason I supported full adult rights at 18 at the first instance.

OK we're moving towards the wrap up of our session Jerry you have any comments on the drinking law. Well of course I'm sure you know I did not favor it and I did not vote for it and I realized that that was not a politically popular thing to do. I hope it will work frankly. I know we have a teenage drinking problem. I don't think it's just an Iowan fact we know the trends are nationwide and the trend seems to exist whether we have a legal age of 18 19 or 21. My own feeling had been that has been that the legal drinking age is not going to solve that problem. I only hope that people won't use that as an excuse to turn away from what I consider to be a very important problem and say well we've solved it with legislation. I don't think it's going to solve it but I do hope it will lead somehow to some correction of it. But no I didn't support it. Rocsi were really released yesterday which show that I was violent crime rate is has increased. Both of you. What steps do you think that the state should take in order to bring it back down.

Which question deals with the reported increase in violent crime and I want your reaction. What steps the governor can take in this area. Well there is no God there will not be a cure all. First of all whatever we do is not going to solve all crime problems. We have in fact more stringent legislation on the books now as a result of the criminal code with respect to sentencing than we had when the crime rate was lower. I think ultimately you're going to. Well we can do certain things we can deal with Saturday Night Specials that supposedly that will solve some of the problem but I don't think that's going to get at the root of it. There are other things that are leading to it drug related problems appear to be one of the largest. There are other things that people who don't have. We know that every time the increase in the number of people and conditions that don't allow them even the minimal existence for living there is an increase in crime. So there are areas of the state there are social conditions that exist that lead to much of this as well.

I think we can do something with certain legislation such as I mentioned the Saturday night special legislation but I really don't look to that securing at all. I think we've made some improvements in our criminal code. We have a criminalistics laboratory now that we never used to have and that gives us a quicker turnaround time in cases where there have been serious crimes committed. We have a strong BCI now that moves in very quickly and helps the local law enforcement officers. These do not stop crimes immediately but they do help as time goes on because many people engaged in serious crime know where they can commit crimes and get away with them. I would like to point out that that report that you make reference to what it said that violent crimes had an increase in this last reporting period overall we've had a drop. And Major Crimes and I think that is an encouraging sign if you want to get into the philosophy of it

all I think we have to realize that people need to go to work. We have very low unemployment rate in this state. We have some excellent training facilities through our area schools and through other facilities and I think we have to concentrate on getting people trained helping them get to work and making sure that they can work and will work. John Waters more question or so I know well OK the cost of running the legislature Frankel sessions and of compensating legislators is become an issue recently and reapportionment will be upon us with the 1900 census I like to ask each of you if you favor would favor at that time a reduction in the size of the legislature. Mr. FISCHER I'm willing to listen to that but I'm not ready to adopt that at this point in time. I would not be anxious to change it. We set right in the middle or on the average both in the numbers in the House and the Senate and I think that's a pretty good place to be because we want to small enough that it's workable but we want a large enough that it can truly be representative.

I would had hoped that the legislature would adopt my proposal so that we could have a commission formed to help on reapportionment not that they would preempt the legislature but they would have the work done so that we could avoid some of the partisan bickering that might well take place if the legislature starts from scratch on reapportionment going to turn to Roger one last question as question as popular as you have become. You are sort of an anomaly on the Republican ticket this year. You're surrounded by the Senate candidate Andrew 10 a governor a candidate by people who are very much more conservative conservative than you are and whom you made. Well it's like veils I guess you would say. Well I whom you did not particularly want to win. Last spring. Do you have the support of the Republican Party and is that going to hurt you this fall. Roger I think I have the support of the Republican Party. The full hearted for me to believe that everyone would agree with me and everyone would support me. It would be nice if they did but I know that's not going to be the case. But if you would look at the

polls you'll find overwhelmingly Republicans are supportive and I'm very appreciative of that support. And you know third posing questions. Do you care to make a closing comment about a minute or so. Well I'd like to get back to one answer that I didn't have an opportunity to before the governor referred to his property tax proposal and the fact is that his proposal. Had a distinctly different to 76 legislation you referred to that Milledge question that was a distinctly different direction and who would receive that money in property taxes farmers and homeowners specifically would have had an increase in taxes the first year alone of 20 million dollars. And it wasn't just a question as you suggest.