Nancy Finken Interviews

[IVAN WYATT]: ...too many pluses for him, because he's carried on the same policies that we've had for the past decade of making farmers depend more and more on the checks from the U.S. Treasury, rather than getting a decent price out of market. And to give you an example of what I'm talking about is 1980, we was getting about $4.40 for wheat out of the elevator when you took it to town, and our cost to farm programs was $5 or $6 billion dollars. The past 10 years, and then continuing on under Mr. Yeutter, we've had programs now where the price of wheat's about $2.25, and we have to rely on government checks to keep farmers out there, and keep them operating. And that seemed to be his, his philosophy. So with that kind of philosophy, it's kind of hard to say what his pluses were. I think he did have a problem, apparently, of being able to negotiate with people, because, you know, he run aground over in Europe when he tried to deal with the European farmers. So I think probably it was time for him to move on, because under his leadership as the Secretary of Agriculture, most of the programs he was trying to push had floundered, and had failed

to help the farmers. [NANCY FINKEN]: His big push was for less subsidies from the European community and trying to create a world market, or at least that's what he claimed to be trying to do. How important is a stronger world market for Kansas farmers in general, and what could have he done differently, do you think? [IVAN WYATT]: Well, I think the first thing he needed to do, was to stop everybody from dumping grain on the market. And that was not what the program was, and that was not the gist of his- His plans was to beat down the prices of agricultural producers in the world, drive them down to those levels of- standards of living such as the farmer in Brazil, even, where they're virtual peasants. Now you talk about production, Brazil alone has more farmland than all of Europe. So that was where the real threat is coming from and destabilizing the market with a flood of cheap products

coming out of a country that treats their farmers like virtual slaves. [NANCY FINKEN]: But if US goods are too expensive, then how will we ever be competitive on the world market? [IVAN WYATT]: Well, it's time we sat down and tried to work together. God, we can work together in figuring out how we can fight a war, surely we can work together and figure out how we're going to raise food and feed the people of the world. Instead of fighting each other, and trying to break each other's farmers, we need to sit down and decide how much production's needed in the world, and then begin to put our resources into that effort to produce and feed that market, at a reasonable price to the producer. [NANCY FINKEN]: What do you hope the next Secretary of Agriculture possesses in terms of qualifications? [IVAN WYATT]: Well, I would look at somebody like Cooper Evans, who was an agricultural adviser to President Bush. I have concerns that, perhaps, he was not very well listened to. And, you know, he may not think exactly like we do, but at least he comes from a farm

background. He has the knowledge of what it is to operate a farm, what farmers need to be able to stay out there on the farm, and he understands the farmers' problems. And that's what we haven't had in a Secretary of Agriculture for the past 10 years. We've had secretaries that was more concerned about the grain trade and the export business and running agriculture at full tilt, using lots of chemicals and fertilizers, regardless of what the price was the farmers was going to get for it. [NANCY FINKEN]: I thought Clayton Yeutter was a farmer from Nebraska? [IVAN WYATT]: He inherited a farm in Nebraska. In fact, I don't know if he ever worked it after he got old enough to leave the farm. [NANCY FINKEN]: But you want someone who's actually been out there, toiling like you have? [IVAN WYATT]: Most certainly. Most certainly. That's had to make a living at it. He'll understand it. And that's one of my concerns is, they're talking about former Senator Boschwitz from Minnesota being the Secretary of Agriculture. You know, he may be the frontrunner, but he made his living in the lumber business. So, you know, I hope President Bush will look at finding somebody that

understands what it's like to try to produce out here in this agricultural community, and appoint somebody in that area. [NANCY FINKEN]: Does the National Farmers Union have a very big voice in terms of mentioning people who they think might be qualified? [IVAN WYATT]: Well, I'm sure that we'll be addressing that. Now whether Mr. Bush wants to listen or not, that's one thing. But I think that perhaps this Farm Broadcasters' poll that came out recently says that a lot of the people are way off base when they say this 1990 Farm Bill's a good farm bill. I think 89 percent of the phone-in responses to that poll showed that 89 percent of the farmers said, "We need to take a better look at this 1990 Farm Bill, because it's going to be a disaster." So, you know, that's our position. I'm not sure that that's what Mr. Bush would want to hear, though. [NANCY FINKEN]: When's the last time you were pleased with a Secretary of Agriculture? [IVAN WYATT]: Oh, let's see -- would that have been Bob Bergland? I think

so. But, you know, it goes a long ways back. We've had some people in there that did come out of the agricultural community, that worked with agriculture, like Charlie Brannan. That goes back a long ways, but he seemed to understand. But we really haven't had a hands-on farmer in the Secretary of Agriculture position since Bob Bergland. Bob Bergland did come from a farm in Minnesota. [NANCY FINKEN]: Ivan Wyatt is president of the Kansas Farmers Union. President Bush has picked agriculture secretary Clayton Yeutter as his choice to be the new leader of the Republican Party. In Hutchinson, I'm Nancy Finken. ***** [MARVIN BARKIS]: Well, they're- first and foremost, we're going to get organized and get kind of settled in, because we've got a lot of new people, lots of freshmen, probably the most in the history of the legislature. We're going to swear everybody in the first day, and the committee

assignments and appointments and everything have been made, but they'll be formally made. And we'll have kind of an organizational meeting. And then from then on, I think that we're going to get down to some serious work, because the problems are serious. The people in the state of Kansas, I think, in this last election have stated very clearly they want government to start solving their problems. And we're going to try. You know, the people of Kansas have to understand that there's not enough dollars to go around. Just like at home, there's not enough in the state government either, and we have to make tough choices about where those dollars are spent. We're going to try to do that wisely and efficiently, and then from there on, we're going to look at all the questions that are being raised by our demands for property tax relief, by the problems that go with our school finance formula rewriting, and all the peripheral issues that come up that are important to individuals across the state. We're going to look at, you know, we're going to look at the legislative pension. We're going to look at the

ethics proposals and public matters about campaign finance, and basically, try to do a good, solid, common sense job. Now, people have to understand -- I think they do -- that there's no free lunch. You can't get something for nothing. We can't have it all, unless we pay for it all. And our problem is, we're sort of divided. We want everything done -- we want good highways, we want good mental health institutions and good-quality education, and we want healthcare for everyone, and we want children to be taken care of, and, you know, on and on. At the same time, the same people who want all those things will almost consistently say, "Don't raise any taxes." So, it puts the politicians in a situation, I think, where we all have to say we're caught between the people wanting things and the people who don't want to pay for things. And in between there's somewhere we make decisions, and nobody seems to be totally happy. So, you

know, we're basically starting a very typical session in a time and place when things are tough, and at a time when people are a little bit concerned, I think, everywhere, about their own future. You know, we may be on the verge of a war, the first major war for a long time for this country. We've got a recession in progress. We have all the problems you could think of -- you know, I could go on and on about problems. On the other side of the coin, however, I think I've got some wonderful legislators to work with, who are honest and progressive and thoughtful and going to try to do their best. It's a democracy. It's not an easy system, but it's the best system I know of. And I'm kind of looking forward to all of us sitting down and working together. I think the Republicans and the Democrats in that house of representatives are going to have to work together. And you're going to find a lot more attempts, I think, being made to enter a consensus between the two parties. Probably the best politics will be cooperation, rather than fighting each other. And I think it'll be interesting to see if that can be done. I believe it

can. [NANCY FINKEN]: When we look at some of the major items -- education, property tax relief, social services -- lots of those things to demand more money. How many of the things, do you think, in general or in theory, are going to be a budget problem, and how many are going to be policy and procedure and better management areas? [MARVIN BARKIS]: Well, it's everything- almost anything we talk about, you could look at in terms of policy or better procedure. You can try to do what you do better and more efficiently. There are some programs that obviously are going to be cut if we're short of money. There's no question about that, and I think when we do that, we have to set priorities. I'm going to be talking about children and people and education and the things that I care about. Other people have other priorities. The simple fact of the matter is that we may not, you know- I don't know and no one else knows exactly what this session will produce in the way of property tax relief, what it will produce in the way of budget crisis and what have you- meeting the budget crisis. It is a

tough session. I do not have a commanding majority. I've got 63 Democrats and 62 Republicans. We're going to have to work together, sit down at the table, and maybe in a few weeks as we get more facts and we look at the facts carefully, we'll decide- we'll have better ideas of where we're all going to end up. At this point, I don't think anyone in the world knows exactly where that is. [NANCY FINKEN]: And speaking of the world, you mentioned the situation, of course, in the Middle East. Also the recession that the United States seems to be in right now. How does that then influence the amount of concern that you have about possibly being able to fund existing and future programs in the state government this year alone? [MARVIN BARKIS]: It concerns me, and our questions are going to be valid questions. Maybe we can't afford the level of government that we currently have. I would tell you that it's going to be real tough on lots of places. I mean, there are programs near and dear to the heart of all of us, that

may be jeopardized in the near future. I've been saying it for quite a few- last session or two, that we're getting into an area where there aren't any easy choices left. You know, we can't continue to raise large tax burdens, because the people can't pay them. We can't afford the things we have, perhaps. So we may have to make choices that I won't want to make. That's the tough question. [NANCY FINKEN]: Was there ever a time when you felt like the choices were easy? [MARVIN BARKIS]: Oh, there were years in the past when I first came, when inflation was driving government and government revenues. And every year there was enough money to cover your basic programs, and the arguments were about new programs, not old ones. We weren't talking about closing schools and problems of concentration and consolidation. We were talking about how to do better, you know, invent a better wheel, and try to get something done differently. And I think the last few years, that is not the case. You know, inflation doesn't affect the taxes anymore, and it's going to be quite a change. It has been a change. The federal government's backed down from its

responsibilities. They mandate that we do all these things, and then don't give us any resources. That's a problem. The more they tell us to do with less resources, then the more other things we care about can't be funded. [NANCY FINKEN]: What conversation or communication have you had with governor-elect Joan Finney, who's being sworn in on Monday? Has she given you any indication what we might be hearing in her state of the state address? [MARVIN BARKIS]: Well, I think she's going to paint a realistic budget picture and put the facts before the legislature. And she's going to try to protect programs that she cares about, and she's going to be a fairly austere budget. And I think the legislature is going to have to decide -- after it looks at all those budget items and all the statements and positions she takes -- where they want to go. I know she's going to be advocating for citizens' initiative and referendum. I know she's going to be talking about property tax relief, trying to be conservative in government. I am kind of like everyone else, waiting

to see how the full picture will be laid out upon us. I believe the governor will speak to the legislature on the 22 of January, and at that time we'll get a clearer statement as far as where she has finally put her budgets. Keep in mind, it's kind of hard to come in and do all that within a few weeks, but I think she's making tough choices. She didn't have any, you know, she can't do any different to the rest of us. The reality dictates the results. [NANCY FINKEN]: State Representative Marvin Barkis is the speaker of the Kansas house of representatives this session. It's the first time the Democrats have been in control of that house in many years. In Hutchinson, I'm Nancy Finken. ***** [DAN POWER]: Well, we've had a steady flow of questions coming in asking, "Well how does this affect me? How does it affect the stock market? How does it affect interest rates in the bond market?" So we've had a lot of inquiries, and they've been steady since the invasion began back in August. They've been getting- they've kind of reached a fever pitch here in the last couple of days, for obvious reasons. We're

bearing down on the deadline that has been set for Iraq to pull out of Kuwait. So, we've answered a lot of questions, and again, we've not been through this situation exactly this way, so we have to fall back on some statistics that we've seen happen in other circumstances that were somewhat similar. [NANCY FINKEN]: What kind of statistics? [DAN POWER]: Well, take a look at some of the facts that show during the last century, for example. The market has immediately slipped an average of 15-16 percent in reaction to military conflicts. However, the market has, on average, risen 26 to 27 percent after the day the shooting began. So, you know, we wouldn't be surprised -- we've been telling clients we would not be surprised -- to see a 200 to 400 point drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, if the shooting began and

it was viewed as the beginning of a significant conflict. But, also we view it as an opportunity to buy some equities that are at artificially low prices, because we know they won't stay down forever. [NANCY FINKEN]: And that's the hard part, to predict when they'll come back up. [DAN POWER]: Well, for the most part, the experiences have shown in major conflicts, major military conflicts, that it didn't take very long until they come right back up again. Now we don't think you know, factoring in this situation, this engagement is very much anticipated. It could very well be one of the shortest in modern times. So the market's reaction may be shallower and recovery more rapid than we've seen in another situations, because we've got 95 percent of the world on one side and no superpowers on the other side. [NANCY FINKEN]: There's been a lot of talk about diplomacy, different peace talks going on. Have you seen the market react to those with some optimism, and then, only to see, for instance, that Secretary of

State Baker's meeting with Aziz that fell through, did you see the market then plunge after that, because of what went on? [DAN POWER]: We saw a dramatic drop after Secretary Baker reported that the last-ditch efforts on the United States' part were unsuccessful and were met with no reaction whatsoever. Anything favorable, at least. We saw a big movement yesterday in the market. The market was off quite a bit in the morning, was down as much as 40- mid-forties as far as points on the Dow, and recovered very quickly when there were rumors from CNN that some type of peace, or some type of pullout was being considered. And even though that was denied by CNN during the afternoon that they'd reported that, it still had a positive impact on the market, cut the losses in half on the stock

side and turned significant downtrends in the bond markets to positive gains before the end of the day. [NANCY FINKEN]: Are there any good buys right now because of what's going on? If someone wants to get in, is this a good time to do so in certain areas? [DAN POWER]: Well, at this point, our suggested approach is staying with products and companies that have stable product demand and strong balance sheets so that they could withstand anything in the near term. And, are you looking for specific company names? You know, we're looking at companies like PepsiCo, McDonald's, Borden, Bristol Myers, Texaco, Walgreens -- those are companies that are going to do well even in a recessionary time. Of course, the utilities will do well, too. They've had a track record of steady earnings and dividends, most of the utility side.

There are places for safe havens and good buys, actually. Some of the things that will be the best performs in the next year to 18 months, are the ones that probably get beaten up the most here in the near term. [NANCY FINKEN]: What about those that may be taboo? Ones that we should stay away from because of the instability in the world? [DAN POWER]: Well, cyclical stocks would be ones to probably stay away from, not only from the Mideast conflict side, but from the fact that we've slipped into a recession here, and the jury's still out on whether that's going to be shallow and short or a deep recession, and an extended one. And I don't think there's a whole lot of consensus on which way it's going to be. A lot of people are just taking a wait and see attitude. [NANCY FINKEN]: What about those who are already holding stock, is that what you're encouraging them to do, a wait and see? Don't get out too soon? [DAN POWER]: Well, if they have good, solid bluechip companies, good quality earnings and good balance sheets, companies that are financially secure now, we don't see any real panic

or any real strategic moves at this point. They have been, in the past, good things to hold on to. If, on the other hand, you've kind of crawled out on a limb, and you've taken some fliers, or taken some companies that are more speculative in nature, it'd probably be a good idea to pull in your horns and either go to cash, or go to something that has a quite a bit more solid foundation. [NANCY FINKEN]: Dan Power with Edward D. Jones and Company in Hutchinson. I'm Nancy Finken. ***** [JOSEPH UNEKIS]: I guess as a general statement I would say that anytime you have to eliminate -- rather than just readjust district lines as say, we did in 1980, or add, like California is going to do, any time you're taking something away from somebody -- potentially it's going to be more difficult. And the particulars, it's hard to tell at this time. I can make some guesses as

to how they'll be guided in that. But they're only guesses at this particular juncture. [NANCY FINKEN]: What would your guesses be in terms of where the areas of the state that will see those lines shifting the most? [JOSEPH UNEKIS]: Well, put yourself in their position. You have to go from 5 districts to 4. The two constraints are that they have to be contiguous districts, in other words you can't break them up, and the populations have to be the same. One way is to simply scrap the existing system- the existing lines, and start over again. You could draw them horizontally across the state, as opposed to- if you look at the state, you know, thinking of it as flat, you could draw across the top tier, through the center. In other words, you're running them East-West. You could run them North-South. You could run them diagonally. There's a whole host of ways in which you could do that, um, you know, simply literally starting from scratch. I doubt very seriously if the legislature would do anything like this. So they're going to take -- like many institutions -- the line of least resistance. So what you

would probably do is see adjustments, relatively minor adjustments, to the existing districts. The problem being here, of course, is that one of those districts, essentially, will have to disappear. And so I would see, I would guess is at least three districts -- the 1st, the 4th, and the 3rd -- being relatively immune to any major adjustments or changes. And the reason I say that is for historical reasons -- the 1st, covering at least half of the state; the 4th, in there in Wichita; and the 3rd in Kansas City. I would, I would think that what you'll see in those- you'll have to have adjustments, obviously, because each of the remaining districts will have to add about 100,000 people. So in that sense, you would see those three districts, I think, expanding. The two interesting districts, I think, are the 2nd and the 5th. And, uh, there was speculation about the 2nd district being the one that would have been, earlier. But I think that is probably minimized somewhat now with the fact that you have split government. I would not have been surprised to have seen, if the Republicans had maintained control of the entire state government -- both chambers of the legislature and the governorship -- to see a Republican-dominated legislature focus more on the 2nd district, simply from a political standpoint. The 5th district's represented by a Republican, the 1st district by a Republican, the 3rd district by a Republican, and the 4th and 2nd by Democrats.

I don't think Glickman would have been politically vulnerable, but I think the 2nd district would have been. Now that you have a split government, I see the 2nd district as being fairly safe for the Democrat. In other words, I don't see the legislature doing something that would jeopardize his chances. So I think that the district that will probably be -- maybe this is too harsh a term -- cannibalized, would be the 5th district. As an identifiable entity, I would not be surprised to see the 5th district disappear, as an identifiable entity, is, essentially, restructured. After the restructuring, you would see what would- if you looked at an old map before this restructuring, you would readily identify the 1st, the 4th, the 3rd,

and with a little difficulty, the 2nd. But the 5th would essentially disappear. [NANCY FINKEN]: And for those people who don't have the districts memorized, explain where the 5th is and who represents us in the 5th district. [JOSEPH UNEKIS]: The 5th district is south- I don't have a map in front of me, but it's southeast Kansas. Northeast- if you think of a pocket the 3rd district around Kansas City, the 2nd district the northeast, and then the 5th district the southeast. And it's a brand new congressman in the 5th district. [NANCY FINKEN]: Dick Nichols. [JOSEPH UNEKIS]: Dick Nichols. I lost his name there, because he's a first-term congressman. So I- that's where I see the battle coming, probably the 5th district. Nichols has the least seniority of all these congressmen now, he's the first termer. Although, well, I'm not sure that would make a great deal of difference. But, I just see that as being probably the most vulnerable. They'll have to do adjustments across the board, of course. But that seems to be the most vulnerable.

[NANCY FINKEN]: When we look at the population shift in the state from the rural areas into the more urban areas, the districts both at the state lawmaker level -- in both the house and the senate -- and now at the Congressional level, they're growing. The number of miles, the geography is spreading, and it makes it difficult when it's campaigning time or even communicating time. How much interest do think that lawmakers will have, or how much sympathy do you think they'll have about the area of coverage that these people will have to increase every time they have to come back and talk to their constituents? [JOSEPH UNEKIS]: Now you're talking about the Congressional and not the state level, because the state districts don't change. [NANCY FINKEN]: Right. Well I'm talking- No, I know they won't change, but I'm just talking about the trend in general that's happening all over place, population changes. [JOSEPH UNEKIS]: Well, it's not necessarily happening, because remember that there are 435 seats that are being redivided between states. In California, the districts are not getting bigger, they're getting smaller, because California has to make 52 districts from 45, this time around. [NANCY FINKEN]: But in Kansas, they're getting bigger. [JOSEPH UNEKIS]: In Kansas, yes, they're getting bigger. I would think, not being part of the process, but I would think there are two considerations. One is obviously the legal consideration they have to make these contiguous and a degree of compactness in the districts. And the second consideration would be a partisan one, under the notion of gerrymandering, where

one particular political party would try to take advantage of the situation by manipulating the districts lines so that they felt that needed to enhance their chances or make the chances of the opposition party somewhat less. If that is the case -- in other words, if that's the overriding consideration -- then the geographic consideration would become less. I don't think that's going to be a major- I mean it's just something we have to live with, I guess, in Kansas. The fact that the 2.5 million plus people in the state of Kansas now are going to be represented by 4 people rather than 5. And that is obviously going to work some hardship on the people being represented and the representatives. But that's just simply something we can't- that's totally beyond our control, because we have to take our share of the 435 since there's a cap on the size of the House of Representatives. And even though our population did grow in an absolute sense, it didn't grow as fast as some other states, the so-called "rim states," and there's simply no way around that. [NANCY FINKEN]: Dr. Joseph Unekis is a political

science professor at K-State, talking about the Kansas state legislature's big job of redrawing the Congressional district lines. Kansas will be losing one member in 1992. We'll be going from five districts to four. In Hutchinson, I'm Nancy Finken. ***** [NANCY FINKEN]: Co-sponsored by Congressman Dan Glickman of Kansas, the bill would establish a national waiting period on all handgun purchases, so law enforcement agencies can check to see if the purchaser is ineligible under federal law to own a handgun. [DAN GLICKMAN]: For example, if you are a convicted felon or if you're an adjudicated mental incompetent, right now under federal law you cannot own a handgun, but there is no way to do a check on it. So the Brady Bill would allow police officers to have seven days in which to check on your ability under existing law to own a handgun before they'd issue a permit. And the net result of this would be to keep a lot of people from getting guns, like the guy who tried to shoot and kill President Reagan,

John Hinckley, from, in fact, getting those weapons. It would not affect law abiding citizens at all. And it's not an unreasonable situation to have to go through before you actually get your handgun permit. [NANCY FINKEN]: Glickman says some states where waiting periods are in effect, show a reduced number of heat-of-passion murders. [DAN GLICKMAN]: That is people who go buy a gun and then go and shoot somebody instantaneously. But the most part is to make sure that the criminal element and the deranged element who no longer are eligible for purchasing guns, there's a mechanism to stop them. And I think that's why most people find this reasonable, and recent polls show that over 90 percent of the American people support it, and it does not infringe on law abiding citizens' gun rights whatsoever. [NANCY FINKEN]: What sort of support have you had in Washington? [DAN GLICKMAN]: Well I think there is a majority support for it. We could not get it up for a vote last time. But I think we're going to try to get it up for a vote this time. And I believe very strongly that those people who want to see continued

access by all Americans to lawful use of firearms need to recognize that at times, these necessary law enforcement requirements that are contained in a bill like this just have got to be passed. Lawful people will not be affected by this one iota. [NANCY FINKEN]: But most assuredly the NRA will protest loudly this bill, as they have done in the past. The National Rifle Association has not prepared any public statement yet about the proposed legislation, but traditionally the NRA is opposed to any restriction on firearm ownership. [DAN GLICKMAN]: I believe that there are certainly some folks that do not want to see any restrictions whatsoever on firearms ownership. I believe very strongly in the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. But I do believe that for law enforcement purposes, the police deserve to have an opportunity to check to see if a convicted felon or basically a person who is beyond sanity, shall I say, a crazy person -- keep those people from getting firearms.

And right now there is- if there's no waiting period, there's no way to check on these people, and law abiding citizens are then subject to danger, personal danger. And you've seen a lot of homicides committed in this kind of context. So, there may be some opposition, but I have a feeling that the overwhelming majority of Americans, well over 90 percent, and an overwhelming majority of members of the National Rifle Association, which is a very good national organization, would support this kind of measure. [NANCY FINKEN]: Do you think, though, that it would give a false sense of security? I mean, we're talking about a certain section of the population that would in fact be able to be traced as should not own a firearm. But then there are those who may have never undergone a psychiatric evaluation or have never been a convicted felon who will still have their hands on firearms. [DAN GLICKMAN]: This is no cure-all answer to crime in this country. There are a lot of other things that we have to do. For example, people who illegally use firearms should have much tougher prison sentences, and people who commit felonies in connection with the commission of the illegal use of firearms should have higher penalties. But one thing this would do, is that it would take the

segment of the American population which right now are not currently eligible to own a firearm -- that is the convicted felons, and the mentally deranged and the like -- and it will provide a mechanism to find out who these people are at the time they buy the gun. It's not going to cure all the crime problems, but I think it will help some. [NANCY FINKEN]: And of course, some of those people steal their weapons and don't purchase them legally anyway. [DAN GLICKMAN]: That's correct. And with those people, all you can do is when you catch them, and if they illegally have a firearm and they commit a felony, you try to hope that you can put them away for a very long time in the penitentiary. As I said, the Brady Bill -- which is named after the man who was President Reagan's press secretary and who was shot by this guy, John Hinckley -- the Brady Bill isn't going to cure all the problems. There are a lot of other problems involved with crime in this country, but in some segments of America, it will help. [NANCY FINKEN]: Congressman Glickman doesn't have any exact figures about how many people would likely be ineligible to purchase handguns, but he says, [DAN GLICKMAN]: In those states that have no background checks at all, it's estimated that maybe 10 or 15 percent of people who

buy handguns are people who are ineligible under federal law right now, that is convicted felons. But all you have to do under- in a state that has no background check, all you have to do is certify that you're eligible, and there's really no way to check if you've lied or not. You would be subject to a federal crime if they caught you. But this way, I've been told, that it's pretty easy to check. And in most jurisdictions, like I've been told by police officers in Wichita, you can check in 24 hours. There's no even reason to wait for the seven day period. And by the way, this bill would provide that after the check is completed, all records would be expunged, so that no police agency would hold any existing files on you at all. [NANCY FINKEN]: Kansas Congressman Dan Glickman is the co-sponsor of the Brady Bill. The bill would establish a national waiting period on all handgun purchases. In Manhattan, Police Lieutenant Scott Campbell says a city ordinance in effect for approximately ten years now, requires a 48 hour waiting period there. [SCOTT CAMPBELL]: It's very difficult to tell how many crimes you may have prevented. There's certainly the city council's educated guess any, it did not present any significant infringement upon

people's right to buy firearms. And it certainly does catch convicted felons, and so forth, who are trying to buy weapons in the city, or prevents them from doing so, because they have to have their records checked and completed prior to the weapon being delivered. [NANCY FINKEN]: Because each community in Kansas sets its own standards or ordinances about handgun control, sometimes the ones that are in place can be ineffective if a nearby community doesn't have the same sort of waiting period. [SCOTT CAMPBELL]: It's quite possible that somebody could drive five miles outside of town, and go to a gun shop and buy a gun and get immediate delivery. There are several different places where that could be done a short distance from Manhattan. So while it doesn't prevent the availability, it does limit their availability. [NANCY FINKEN]: Manhattan Police Lieutenant Scott Campbell.

Two years ago, former Hutchinson City Commissioner John Corey wanted the community to consider a 48 hour waiting period on handgun purchases. It was defeated. Corey says because of his endorsement of the idea, he lost some business, and his family was receiving threats. [JOHN COREY]: The threats and things like that went to my family. And my daughter was a junior in high school at the time, and of course any time the phone rang, she jumped on it. And she wouldn't tell us about it. She would kind of keep it to herself, until we finally knew something was wrong. And she wouldn't tell us, you know, the things, you know, that they threatened to do to me, and things like that. She wouldn't tell us, until we finally got it out of her, and it was a pretty tough time for her and the rest of the family after we found out about it. [NANCY FINKEN]: But, Corey says, his family supported his push for a waiting period on handgun purchases, but the city council did not pass the proposed ordinance. In Hutchinson, I'm Nancy Finken. ***** [JOHN D'ANGELO]: The survey itself is to identify the needs

and how we are providing to the community, not only in the arts, but in the cultural interests of the different communities within the one core --being the Asians, or the Hispanics, or the Blacks -- how we provide for their cultural interests, as well as, you know, a wide community. One of the interesting things -- that a group of Irish folk dancers are interested in promoting their activities. And, you know, that's something else that we're trying to preserve, the culture and the heritage of the different communities, as well as the different art forms. [NANCY FINKEN]: How are you going to ensure that each of these communities is represented in this survey? [JOHN D'ANGELO]: We tried to, in the planning committee, we've tried to get as many different groups involved to address those needs. That was the first step. The other step is the obvious. When we send out the assessment, the cultural assessment, it's being sent randomly to 3,000, so it will cross all

the different barriers there, as well as there is another survey that is also out. It's the- the difference being is they're color coded. One is yellow -- the random one is yellow -- and the other one is white. And those are available for anybody to pick up at any recreation facility, at the Wichita Eagle, or at the public library. They all have those available, if someone would like to answer some questions, you know, and really feel they want some input into this, they have that ability to do that. [NANCY FINKEN]: Besides surveying community members, you're also targeting other groups -- businesses, education people. What do you hope to get out of talking not just to the community, but to maybe those supporters of the arts? [JOHN D'ANGELO]: In the example is the educational questionnaires is to examine the art and cultural interest that's being done in our education system, through the public school systems, as well as through the parochial schools, as well as we've targeted the universities -- to question and see how the arts and the different cultural activities are being addressed. That information will be vital, in my opinion, in giving us an accurate assessment of our community.

Are we providing and what we're providing -- is it being received? Also the business questionnaire, how businesses perceive the arts and cultural activities -- as being a worthwhile investment, or whether they feel, you know, what changes need to occur. All those questions are being asked through this assessment, which is just the first part of an overall community cultural plan, which we hope to have start in November of this coming year of '91. We will apply to the NEA for a grant for a community cultural plan. The grant amounts range between $15,000 to $30,000, and they're a matching grant. They will be- the grant itself will be applied for from the Wichita Sedgwick County Arts and Humanities Council, which is our local art agency. And we will be applying in April to hopefully get a grant,

and then hire a consultant to come in and take the information that we've received through this assessment, and then by adding to it through in-person interviews and other survey methods that they'll be using, to come up with a plan that all the organizations and cultural institutes here in Wichita and surrounding area can address the needs of the community and surrounding area. [NANCY FINKEN]: Do you have a feeling right now that you're not meeting all of the needs? [JOHN D'ANGELO]: I don't know that I really have a feeling that we're not meeting the needs. My feelings are that when you do things like assessments, it may open your eyes to things that you may have been providing for just marginally, and you will see that there really is a larger need out there. One thing that has, in talking about programming, through our department we offer some dance classes, they're ballet and tap classes for 3, 4, and

5 year olds. The interest in that has been so tremendous. At the last recital, which really brings in parents and relatives and families, there were over 400 people there, as well as the parents, and people donated their time in putting on the production. The sound system, the light system, was all donated to make this recital a real success, and so that their kids had a real feel. Those sort of things, I'm sure the assessment will address broader questions than those. But I think that's what it kind of opens your eyes up to those things. [NANCY FINKEN]: And when do you plan to have the survey done? [JOHN D'ANGELO]: We're hoping to have the assessment part of this done by the end of January, to have the bulk of the information in, and to start putting together a report that we can hopefully have done by the end of February. [NANCY FINKEN]: John D'Angelo is the Cultural Arts Director for the

Wichita Department of Park and Recreation. About 50 groups have pooled their resources to survey the community about the cultural arts. The survey will help them apply for an NEA grant in April. In Hutchinson, I'm Nancy Finken. ***** [JEANNE SMITH]: In 1988, and I believe this was March of 1988, the Edenvale School in San Jose, California -- and this is a community just south of San Francisco -- decided that based on research which had been done, that very few of their children had gone on to college beyond the high school level. And many of their children were also from minority backgrounds, I believe, as I understand, that many of them were Chicano in background. And it seemed to not be necessarily a goal that they had inherited from their families, and from their school setting as well. And so in March of '88, the principal of Edenvale School apparently came up with the idea, which was subsequently called the "Adopt-a-College" program. And what they did

is the Edenvale School sent out, at that time, about 400 letters, and received back approximately 150 responses from colleges and universities around the United States. And these were schools which said that they would be willing to converse, to write back and forth, correspond, with young children in the elementary school. And also they said they'd be willing to send in a t-shirt of some sort, so that whenever the school would have assemblies, the children could wear their special shirts from their adopted colleges. And this way, they felt that by having each individual student write back and forth with someone from each institution that they would be able to, what would you say, raise the children's level of curiosity about college. It would increase their information about it. They'd learn that college isn't just all work, that there is also fun involved. And that it could also substantially improve their lives later on. So, as I understand it, this is what the program's basically all about. This last year, they did apparently- we were in the first

grouping of colleges, but this year the school wrote to an additional thousand or so institutions, and had 400 of those respond in the affirmative. So as I understand it now, they have a college for every child in their school. [NANCY FINKEN]: When the colleges participate, is it the students who write back, the college students? Or is it administrators? [JEANNE SMITH]: I think that varies from institution to institution. Here at McPherson, we're a small enough institution that I have been doing the writing. I'm the director of publicity. And I've been writing now for the last two years. There was a person before me who did some writing whenever the program had first started. And I think it does vary, however, from institution to institution, and I'm sure that it depends on how those institutions decide to handle that. [NANCY FINKEN]: Who have you been writing to, and what kind of things have you been writing about? [JEANNE SMITH]: Well, last year I wrote to a little boy by the name of Carlos Casorla, he was a second grader. And he's now moved on to third grade and has adopted a different school. So this year we have a little girl whose name is Leticia Martinez. And basically, we try to write letters of encouragement, and tell the children that college is a fun

thing to do, it's something that we know they would enjoy. That there's work involved, but it pays off in the long run. And then also, I like to send along, if I can, from time to time, special pieces and things here from the college. For example, one time I sent a viewbook. Another time we had little placards with colored pictures of the college that we sent out for her whole class. That was this year. We've sent out pictures of the campus, also a videotape about the college. Last year at Christmastime, we made up -- and we hadn't had this before, but we just made it up on the spur of the moment -- a coloring book of McPherson, and sent it out to Carlos, Carlos's class. We've sent out notebooks and stickers and pennants and pencils -- all kinds of things that are tangible that children can have an opportunity to get a feel for what college is like, and get the spirit of the thing. [NANCY FINKEN]: What kind of response, then, have you gotten from the students you've been writing to? [JEANNE SMITH]: I've gotten a very nice response. We've had about,

I'd say, oh, let me see, I'm trying to think -- maybe 5 or 6 letters from the children per year, and I've written back each time the children have written. Sometimes I'll jump the gun, like at Christmastime, and write ahead, I won't wait wait for a letter from them. But it has been nice. I did receive a letter just the other day from little Leticia. And I could read it for you if you want me to, it's about two sentences long. It says, "Dear Miss Smith, thank you for your letter. I was so excited to hear from you. I'm using the pencils and stickers. The pictures of your college give me an idea of what it looks like. You're so kind. Leticia Martinez." [NANCY FINKEN]: What's in it for McPherson College? Why do you invest some time and resources in this project? [JEANNE SMITH]: I think because we believe in education, it's the kind of thing- and also being aware of what is happening nationally gives us a special interest as well. We're aware that by the year 2010, I believe it is, that persons who are presently

considered minorities in this country will be in the majority, in fact. That we do need more individuals that have varying diversity in their backgrounds to go into teaching and education in order to provide good role models for children of this type of background. And so it's one of those grassroots kind of opportunities that we felt we couldn't pass up. [NANCY FINKEN]: What about the success on the end of the students in California? Any statistics that tell us that what you're doing is actually helping any of them in school to be motivated? [JEANNE SMITH]: Well we did receive a principals' newsletter early this school year, and they related in there a number of things which I thought were of interest. For one, they said that the number of absentees in the school itself has gone down dramatically. Unexcused absences, in particular, have gone down to 25 percent of what it had been before.

They said that homework on the part of the children has just gone through the roof in terms of them turning in their work and this type of thing. They're not reneging on their work, because they feel that they really do have a future. Many of them- and I have in this newsletter a number of little short clips from notes that the children themselves had written about the "Adopt-a-College" program, and it appears from what the children are saying themselves, that they are beginning to see that college isn't just for rich kids -- that it is for everybody, and it is for them. And, you know, that's a whole change in attitude, apparently, from what had been going on in the school before. And they're getting the children at a young enough age -- I think they'll be able to make a difference. They are presently looking, according to their principal, for an institution or college that would be willing to work with them to do a longitudinal study determining what long term results are. And of course, we're talking about six years and ten years down the road, whenever their 6th graders

will have had a chance to prove themselves, more or less, in terms of themselves going on to higher education. [NANCY FINKEN]: Any hopes that in six or ten years you may have a student at McPherson College who went to grade school at Edenvale? [JEANNE SMITH]: There's no way to know. We're far enough away that the chances may not be there, but at the same time, we do strike up something of a personal relationship with these children. And you can tell from their letters that there's an enthusiasm there. And they do have an identity with the college, as well. And if I understand it correctly, I think each year, the way they're working it now, the children are switching to a different institution, so there may not be quite as much ownership in one institution, as there had been originally -- if we, for example, would have kept the same child through all six years of the elementary grades. And it's hard to say -- it's very hard to say. But it would be nice, it would be really nice, if we could have a way to do that. We did try to take McPherson College to the children recently.

We had one of our young graduates, who graduated from McPherson only one year ago, Jack Patino, who's living in the northern California area, and he's working as a reporter there as well -- we had him go over to Edenvale School and speak to the children. And at first our intention was just that Jack would go and speak with Leticia's class. And as it turned out, whenever he went he got a grand reception. He was taken from class to class, and students were allowed to ask questions. They had an assembly with him, and gave him an an opportunity to speak for a number of minutes. And said that he thought, at first, oh, well, five to seven minutes to talk, he would be able to say everything. But he found himself so bubbly and full of excitement about the program, that he had difficulty containing himself to that, but apparently he did so. [NANCY FINKEN]: Jeanne Smith is the public relations director for McPherson College. The college participates in an adopt-a-college program with an elementary school in California. I'm Nancy Finken. *****

[BELL RINGING] [MALE SPEAKER]: God bless you very much, thank you. [BELL RINGING] [NANCY FINKEN]: This is a familiar sound at Christmastime -- the sound of the Salvation Army bell. Across the country between Thanksgiving and Christmas, Salvation Army bell ringers brave all kinds of weather to encourage passers-by to drop money into their bright red kettles. Captain Porterfield directs the Salvation Army in Hutchinson. [JAMES PORTERFIELD]: It began out in California, and I don't remember the exact date, but it was an officer of the Salvation Army which saw thousands of people on the streets that were going to be without food. And so he decided that he would take a big, open kettle out on the street, and try to raise funds to meet these needs, for which began the kettle operation across the nation. [NANCY FINKEN]: Porterfield says in Hutchinson there are 18 stands. He says they like to keep 12 to 16 filled each day. Their goal is to raise $30,000 in the

kettles this year. [JAMES PORTERFIELD]: It works very well, and we have volunteers, as well as- now, most of our bell ringers are even hired. And that's true across the nation. It is difficult to find volunteers to actually ring on a regular basis across the nation, and so we have come to the point where we've had to pay a minimal wage basically to get the bell ringers there. [NANCY FINKEN]: Depending on the weather and the generosity of the merchants, you may see these bell ringers inside the front corridor, or just outside. [JAMES PORTERFIELD]: That's the merchant's decision, basically, as to allowing them to go in between doors. At that point they cannot ring the bell as readily as they can outside. They have to kind of hold it down and tone it down and talk to the people much more. Personally, I have tried to encourage them to stand out as much as they can, because there's about a 20 to 25 percent difference in the intake of our kettles if the

people are outside or if they're inside. The outside just reaches the people much more. [RUTH SCHLENDER]: I get weary, but when I do, I'm doing it for the Lord. Which- I didn't pick my job, He did. [NANCY FINKEN]: This is 77 year old Ruth Schlender. She's been with the Salvation Army for 54 years. [RUTH SCHLENDER]: I was 26 years old, just like family. One night I came home, and the Lord said he wanted me, and I called my mother up and told her, and she said, "Well I didn't have six children for nothing, Ruth. I knew God would call one." So I'm happy, I get to work on the canteen, and do what I can, and I'm very, very happy. [NANCY FINKEN]: Because of her history volunteering and working for the Salvation Army, Ruth knows lots and lots of people. And they stop by to drop money in her box, and to share a memory or two. [RUTH SCHLENDER]: From all over. See, when I was- I went on Christmas and Easter to work, all over Kansas. And people will walk up in Great Bend, and they'll say, "Ruth, do you remember me?" Or Salina- no, we don't have Salina, we have Lyons, or this area.

Yes. They'd remember me, and then they'd tell me where they lived, and I'd say, "Oh, you're the one that gave me, maybe a hot cup of coffee." Depends on- now we'd go out Easter. Usually the women -- we'd work in twos, one on each side of the street -- and they'd watch, and they'd call up each other and say, "The Salvation Army's coming! Give them a glass of water or something!" People are wonderful! [NANCY FINKEN]: Ruth says she intends to keep ringing the bell as long as she's able. [RUTH SCHLENDER]: I hope I can do it when the Lord comes and calls me home, I really do. I just get such joy and happiness out of it. I cry for joy! I'm sorry, but I do. [NANCY FINKEN]: Captain Porterfield says Christmas is the Salvation Army's biggest expenditure, and it's also the biggest fundraising time. The money raised during Christmas is used throughout the year. The Salvation Army gives Christmas food baskets to families in need. It also works with area businesses and the public to make sure that children receive toys. A big project takes place in November when the toy drop at the prison occurs. [JAMES PORTERFIELD]: At the prison, we go in

and offer to the inmates there an opportunity to select gifts for their children up through 12 years of age. And with that, they are able to make out Christmas cards, sign them. They make out little name tags that go with the gifts, and then we bring those back here, and we wrap gifts utilizing clubs that have come, advisory board members that come and help, as well as some of our own core people -- wrapping these gifts with Christmas wrap, plus wrapping them for mailing purposes. And then we mail them, without any identification on to them of the Salvation Army, so that truly the family -- the children, particularly -- can feel that it's coming from daddy. [NANCY FINKEN]: Porterfield says about 400 families will receive donations from the Salvation Army this Christmas season, and that's about two percent more than last year. Kay ?Schulders? is in charge of the Salvation Army in

Newton. They try to raise between five and six thousand dollars at Christmastime. They're 2/3 of the way there, but this year, she says, even more families are in need of help. [KAY ?SCHULDERS?]: Well, it looks like it's way up. Last year we took care of 304 families, and it looks like it's close to 400 this year. [NANCY FINKEN]: Any idea about why you're having such an increase? [KAY ?SCHULDERS?]: Well, I think it's because of the economy and the Mideast situation, and a combination of things. [NANCY FINKEN]: ?Schulders? says the Salvation Army is also the headquarters for the area food bank. [KAY ?SCHULDERS?]: And that's running way behind on total food collections. That's run by the Ministerial Alliance, and their goal for this year is 20,000 pounds, and we just on Saturday went over half way. [NANCY FINKEN]: In Sedgwick County, approximately 22,000 people have applied for help this Christmas season, and that's 2,000 more than last year. Judy Connors with the Salvation Army, says about 11,000 of those people asked for help

from the Salvation Army. The rest have asked other charitable organizations. [JUDY CONNORS]: I think it's a barometer, or it follows along with what's happening nationwide economically. I think we're looking at greater need. More families who have been living on the brink of economic hardship have gone over the edge. These are families who are trying very hard to remain solvent, but who cannot keep up with their bills, who cannot maintain a phone in their home. And at Christmas, with the expectations of all children to have a major toy, at least one, it's impossible for them to do that as well as provide any kind of special meal. [NANCY FINKEN]: Connors says the Salvation Army believes that each child should get at least one of their Christmas wishes come true, so

5600 kids will get toys this year through the Angel Tree program. [JUDY CONNORS]: Give shoppers an opportunity to pick an angel off of the tree, and the angel has the name of a child, the child's age, and it's the child's special Christmas wish. And the person goes and buys that toy and brings it back. And then we make sure that the child receives it. What we do, as well, is provide some wrapping paper, so that when the parents come and pick up the toys, they can wrap the gifts, and they are from them. They are not from the Salvation Army. [NANCY FINKEN]: Jim Bell is the executive director of Interfaith Ministries in Wichita. He directs Operation Holiday. This is the 30th year for the county-wide program where food is distributed to needy families. Bell says Operation Holiday works together with Toys for Tots, so each child in the family receives two toys for Christmas. [JIM BELL]: The need, the need- I've been here since '82, myself, and the need has dramatically increased. This year, we have more people applying for Operation Holiday than I have seen since I've been here in '82. As of today, we have over 3500 families who have been eligible for Operation Holiday, and that's up almost 400 families more than the previous year.

[NANCY FINKEN]: Bell says earlier this week, the donations were down by $15,000. However, towards midweek, more donations have been coming in. He's hopeful that they can make up that $15,000 shortfall. In Hutchinson, I'm Nancy Finken.