>>> Early voting is underway, and the candidates are making their closing arguments.

We'll explore the issues in Iowa's first congressional district with the candidates, Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Christina Bohannon in this special live Iowa press debate.

>> Funding for Iowa press was provided by Friends, the Iowa PBS foundation, the associated general contractors of Iowa, the public's partner in building Iowa's highway, bridge, and municipality structure.

Elite's 1,600 employees are our company's greatest asset, a family-run business, Elite supports volunteerism, encourages promotions from within, and shares profits with our employees.

>>> Across Iowa, hundreds of neighborhood banks strive to serve their communities, provide jobs, and help local businesses.

Learn more at Iowabankers.com.

>>> For more than five decades, Iowa Press has brought you political leaders and news makers from across Iowa and beyond.

Live from Iowa PBS studios in Johnstown, this is a special Iowa Press debate featuring candidates in the first congressional district.

Here is moderator Kay Henderson.

>> For the next hour we will explore the views of two women who are running to represent Iowa's first congressional district.

You may recognize them because it's a rematch from 2022.

Let's first take a look at the first congressional district.

It covers much of southeast Iowa and a few counties in south central Iowa.

It includes the cities of fort Madison, Burlington, Davenport, and Clinton along the Mississippi River as well as Iowa city, fairfield, Oskaloosa, and -- in central Iowa.

The candidates are incumbent Mariannette Miller-Meeks, an eye doctor who represented the Iowa Senate before being elected to the U.S. house in 2020.

And democrat Christina Bohannon is a University of Iowa professor and former engineer.

She served one term in the Iowa house and ran for this congressional seat in 2022.

Welcome to you both.

>> Thanks, Kay.

>> Joining our conversation, Dave Price.

He is the Iowa political director for Gray Media, and Stephen Gruber-Miller.

Let's start with an issue that voters have been hearing a lot about lately, abortion.

Christina Bohannon, you say you want to restore Roe versus wade.

I want to get into the details of what that means.

For voters who want to hear SPISKs about what you'd support, are there restrictions on abortion you would be in favor of?

>> Thanks for having me.

And before I jump into that obviously very important question, I want to talk about me and why I'm running.

You know, I grew up in a mobile home in a town of 700 people.

Neither of my parents graduated high school, but they worked really hard from before daylight until after dark.

And, you know, we were four trucks, Busch beer, Johnny cash.

And for us, getting a double wide mobile home was our hard work paying off.

It meant that we were getting ahead.

But then my dad got sick, they canceled his health insurance, and we lost everything.

We weren't getting ahead anymore.

We weren't even getting by.

When my dad died, he did not leave me a trust fund.

But he left me something way more important because he had taught me the difference between right and wrong.

And I'm running for Congress because right now what I see is a lot of politicians in Washington, D.C. who are so obsessed with the left and the right that they have forgotten about right and wrong.

When I talk to people all throughout this district, I do hear from people who are very concerned about politicians taking away our rights and freedoms, including abortion.

>> Let's let Mariannette Miller-Meeks have an opening statement if you're going to choose to have one.

>> Sure.

>> Thank you so much, Kay.

I really appreciate that.

As you know I'm running for my third term to represent this district.

And I would say, if you look at my background, you'll understand exactly why I run so hard, work in the district representing the district, meeting with constituents.

I'm the fourth of eight kids.

I grew up with a military family.

My dad was enlisted air force, very poor, had extra jobs on the weekend.

I went with him as a pre-teen and teenager to clean pizza parlors on a Sunday morning.

I don't think he wanted me to clean as much as he wanted company at 5:00 in the morning.

My mother had a GED and she also worked.

No one had gone to college.

My parents wanted a college education for their children.

They just weren't sure how to navigate that.

So, when I was 15, I was burned in a kitchen fire.

Because of the wonderful physical therapist I had, we were in isolation, so you didn't see a lot of people.

But my wonderful physical therapist inspired me, desire to become a doctor.

I left home at 16 with the discouragement of my parents to put myself through school, started at San Antonio community college, junior college, started working, and was able to get a degree in nursing so I could continue to work at night, put myself through undergraduate, masters in education, and then medical school.

And that passion, that desire to serve, has stayed with me, stayed with me when I enlisted in the Army at age 18 and spent 24 years serving in the military as well as serving in my community.

So, that's, sort of, what drives me and why I think it's important to meet with people, be accessible, and across the aisle when it comes to serving your constituents to the best of your ability.

>> I just want to restate the question for those who may have lost track of it.

Are there any abortion restrictions that you would be in favor of?

>> So, what I support, what I've always supported is Roe versus Wade, restoring Roe versus Wade into federal law, where it was for half a century for Dobbs overruled Roe versus Wade a couple of years ago.

Under that framework, I think we have a balanced position.

And I would support going back to the law in Iowa that we had before all of this started.

That is in sharp, sharp contrast to my opponent.

So, you know, representative Miller-Meeks supported this exact six-week ban that Iowa now has.

It is one of the strictest abortion bans in the country.

It bans abortions before most women know that they are pregnant.

She championed that, touted that when she ran for the state legislature.

When she was in the state Senate, we voted to completely eliminate the right to abortion under the Iowa constitution altogether.

And then when she went to Congress, she signed on to a life of conception bill that bans all abortions across the country with no exceptions at all, not for rape, incest, or to save a woman's life.

You know, she has now tried to back track from that saying she supports exceptions and things.

It's election time so, you know, she's trying to moderate that position, which is obviously out of step with Iowans but has been fact checked by just about every newspaper and television station in the state that she supported the life at conception bill that bans all abortions across the country with no exceptions at all.

She even actually wanted to restrict abortion care for women who were serving in the military.

So, you know, I think that's wrong.

I think that that is very much out of step.

It's creating a lot of problems for women around the state.

You know, we are 50th out of 50 in the country for the number of OB/GYNs we have in the state.

We know these abortion bans make that even worse.

I support putting Roe versus Wade back into law.

>> You mentioned the banned abortion law after 20 weeks.

Is that what you're comfortable with?

>> Sure.

I think we should go back to where we were before all of this started a couple of years ago.

>> The federal legislation you're talking about has been a ban at 15 weeks with exceptions.

So, to respond to some of what you're challenger talked about, why sponsor the life at conception, which would be no exceptions versus what you're saying now?

So which one do you believe in?

>> I'm pro life with exception for rape, incest, and life of the mother.

It's been that way since I first ran for office in 2008.

And I'd say, you know, once again my opponent is lying about my record.

The life at conception act, as I correctly, didn't mention abortion.

And it also specifically said there were not criminal penalties for a woman to have an abortion.

As a physician and a scientist, I can say that life begins at conception.

But what my opponent just said was to refuse to answer whether or not there were any restrictions or limits on abortion.

Roe V. Wade does not have limits or restrictions on abortion.

To sponsor a 15-week after the Dobbs decision came down, it was an idea to want -- there is consensus in this country about.

Let's talk about where there is consensus, where there is agreement.

There should be no federal funding on abortion.

Can't we all agree on that?

There shouldn't be abortion up until the time of birth?

Can't we agree on that?

There should be easy access to affordable contraception to women?

Can't we agree on that?

And in fact I passed a bill in 2019 for all contraception over the counter.

To me, the best pro-life measure, the best way to prevent abortion is to prevent pregnancy and empower women to be able to do so.

>> Former president trump says that his position is that is a state matter, not a federal matter.

Do you agree it should be only at the state, so this federal idea would not be -- >> The Dobbs decision turned the decision back to the states, which is where it currently resides.

And, you know, I don't see federal legislation coming down the road any time soon.

>> To say that you support the state position means that you support the very extreme six-week ban that is now in place in Iowa.

It bans abortion before most women even know that they are pregnant.

But the fact is that she went further in Congress and supported a life at conception bill.

And, you know, it is just disingenuous -- >> Excuse me, it did not bring up abortion.

You have declined to say -- >> The legal -- >> Would it be 39 weeks?

Would it be 38 weeks?

37 weeks?

>> You spoke and I'm responding.

The life at conception bill, the legal consequences, everybody knows this.

Everybody knows this.

It is a personhood bill.

It creates the full rights of personhood at the moment of conception.

Everybody knows that the legal consequences of that is a complete abortion ban with no exceptions across the country.

That is exactly what people knew they were signing on to when they signed onto it.

So, you know, this is just back tracking now because we know that it is so out of step with what everyday Iowans want.

>> I think it is untrue.

I think she's, again, lying about my record.

She's conflating an issue, one she brought up the lack of OB/GYN providers, complaining about that has nothing to do with abortion.

More importantly, how do we empower women to get pregnant on their time line?

How do we drive consensus?

How do we work in a bipartisan manner to pass something that is good for women, good for our state, and good for our nation instead of continuing to have this as a political football.

Can we not agree that there should not be federal funding of abortion?

Can we not agree that women should be able to get pregnant on their timelines and have access to affordable contraception?

Those are things that I agree with, things that I would sponsor, and I have done with my bills on oral contraception over the counter, with my bills on tax credits for IVF.

I'm going to continue to work on ways that we can bring people together to solve this problem and not have it be a political football pitting women against women.

>> Just a couple of things because some things she said there are just completely -- completely wrong.

First of all, look.

I am not just saying this.

You know, multiple newspapers in this state, multiple television stations in this state, reporters, have fact checked this.

And they all say exactly the same thing, that the life at conception bill is a personhood bill that bans all abortions across the country with no exceptions.

It is not just me saying this.

Everyone who has looked at this has said exactly -- >> Actually they said exactly the opposite and said you were lying.

>> -- in the state have all said that the strict abortion bans are going to make it much harder to recruit and retain OB/GYNs in this state.

Two-thirds of our counties in this state do not have a single OB/GYN doctor, and we are 50th out of 50 in the country for the number of OB/GYNs we have per population.

>> And it has nothing to do with what -- >> They all say it is going to come even harder to recruit them to come here.

I want to say one last thing, one last thing on the birth control thing.

Because she's been talking about this a lot, about passing these birth control bills.

And I agree.

I agree that we should have a right to birth control and that we should encourage that as a way to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

If we want to reduce abortions, absolutely we should have birth control.

But here's the thing.

When she had a chance to sign on to a bill that would actually give people a right to birth control in this country, she voted no.

In Congress, there was a bill that she could have signed on to that she voted no on.

And her bill that she's proposed on birth control does nothing.

Every state in the country could completely ban every form of birth control, and her bill would do nothing about it.

It deals with regulations and FDA.

But every state in the country could ban all forms of birth control under her bill.

>> The bill I passed in the state Senate had oral contraception over the counter.

The same is true for the bill we passed.

The bill we voted against -- and I'm so glad you brought that up.

You would not protect women with that bill.

That bill was non-approved FDA drugs and devices.

As a doctor, as someone whose passion is health care, why would I vote for something that could potentially harm women by having non-FDA approved drugs and devices -- >> That's not true.

>> I find that unconscionable.

I have a pledge to do no harm.

I have continued to support that, support women on a bipartisan group for paid working leave.

I have extended the child tax credit.

We voted for that, to women, which is about to expire so women can have a child tax credit, have a bill that would extend the child tax credit during pregnancy if women are pregnant, in addition to providing women the tools to prevent pregnancy and therefore prevent abortion.

>> What we see over and over again that Representative Miller-Meeks goes to Congress, votes against things that would do real good for people and comes back and supports fake bills that either do nothing or that have no chance of passing to make it look like she's doing something.

>> Mariannette Miller-Meeks, your GOP colleagues Zack nun and Ashley Henson in the U.S. house say they support exceptions for the health of the mother when it comes to abortion.

You have said you support the exception for life.

What's the difference?

>> Well, I think life and health of the mother are very similar, in my opinion.

So, for life of the mother, I think that health of the mother, life of the mother, those, to me, are similar.

I don't see those as a distinction.

>> They are not -- we know that they're not the same.

Legally they're not the same.

There are -- there are bills that say that there's a section for the health of the mother and there are bills that say for the life of the mother.

And we know for a fact that when it says "life," when the exception is only for life of the mother, that women have to be very near dying before a doctor will feel comfortable performing that procedure or else they risk either loss of their license or prosecution or something.

And I have talked to women in this district who have been in that situation, one woman who did IVF multiple times, desperately wanted a child, and then had an ectopic pregnancy.

If she had not been able to get the termination procedure she needed, she likely would have died.

I just heard from another woman today who told me that she got to a situation at 14 weeks of pregnancy, was leaking amniotic fluid.

She needed a termination procedure, and they wouldn't do it until she became septic with infection and nearly died.

You know, this is what we're talking about.

When we say "life of the mother," we mean that a woman has to be very near at death's doorstep before she can get an abortion.

So, which is it?

>> This is false and you know it's false.

It is a falsehood that as a physician, if someone had leaking amniotic fluid, an ectopic pregnancy isn't treated by an abortion.

She is not the same procedure -- >> She was sent home from the hospital.

>> An ectopic pregnancy is in the fallopian tube.

It is not interuterine.

You want to confuse people and divide people.

That's a tactic you used all throughout this campaign when you started attacking me back in the Olympics.

>> Mariannette Miller-Meeks, you said you want to see the Trump era immigration policies restored.

Trump is calls for mass deportations.

Do you support that policy as well, and how would it work?

>> I think the Trump era policies that reduced the amount of illegal immigrants coming across our border, that helped to keep down the amount of illegal drugs, illegal Fentanyl that our customs and border protection agents actually felt like they were doing their job of policies that control the border.

And if we can recall, Jeh Johnson, secretary of homeland security under President Obama said more than 1,000 immigrants coming across our border is a crisis.

We have a crisis on our southern border.

What I would say is that, you know, over 150 democrats voted in Congress not to deport criminal illegal aliens.

Can we start with deported criminal illegal aliens?

But my opponent has supported sanctuary cities, has supported groups that want to abolish I.C.E.

I think we need to start by going back to policies that worked rather than the biden/Harris straight that got rid of executive orders that were keeping the border in check and FOU had we have a crisis at our southern border.

>> Christina Bohannon, I'm sure you'll respond to that, but I want to ask you as well.

YONTS network in 2022, you said a discussion should include a pathway to citizenship.

You also said you support the bipartisan bill that was negotiated in the U.S. Senate earlier this year.

That bill doesn't have a pathway to citizenship, so why support it without that provision?

>> Because I think we need to do both.

They don't necessarily have to be in the same bill.

So, yes, I do support securing the border.

We have to secure the border.

I think that's very, very important.

And I have stood up to the Biden administration multiple times.

I did it in 2022.

I'm doing it now.

I said that president biden was too slow to act on the border.

Having said that, Congress, under our constitution, there's the brunt of the responsibility on immigration policy.

And what we have seen is that both parties for a long time in Congress talked a lot about needing to secure the border and did nothing about it, kept kicking that can down the road.

But we had an opportunity.

We had a golden opportunity recently to pass the strictest border security bill that we have seen in this country in a very long time, maybe ever.

It was negotiated by very conservative republicans in the Senate, and it was the bill that border patrol said they needed.

They endorsed the bill.

They said, this is the bill that we need to secure the border and do our jobs safely.

And Representative Miller-Meeks and her party in the house killed it.

They killed the bill.

They wouldn't bring it forward.

They knew it had the votes to pass, and they killed it anyway because they wanted to keep playing politics with it.

They wanted to keep campaigning with this issue.

This is the bill that our own republican senator Joni Ernst said was the best opportunity we would have in our lifetimes to secure the border.

And Representative Miller-Meeks -- >> -- pass the Senate.

>> Yeah.

But it had the votes.

It had the votes to pass until all the republicans started saying, we've got to kill this bill.

Everybody knew it was a total surprise to the republicans who negotiated this in the Senate.

You know, this is what we have.

We have, you know, people who talk about solving these problems but when it comes down to it, they don't want to do anything about it because they want to keep, you know, playing politics with this issue.

And this is an example where, you know, Representative Miller-Meeks voted against a bill or refused to even vote for it, in a bill that actually could have made a big difference, that actually was the thing that border patrol said they needed to secure the border.

But then she goes back and supports a different bill -- which I'm sure she'll talk about -- a different bill that had no chance of passing and that nobody ever thought had a chance of passing.

You know, and it's -- this is what we see over and over.

You know, not doing something that could actually be good for people and then trying to find political cover, signing on to some fake bill or something to make it look like she's doing something.

But we could have solved this problem.

And I think that they have lost all credibility on this issue.

>> Mariannette Miller-Meeks let's give you a chance to response.

Let's start like this.

The border patrol said there were 54,000 encounters at the border in September.

That is the lowest amount since August of 2020.

Does this show that the executive order that President Biden signed is working?

>> Well, it depends on how you couch that.

But let me say that the border has been out of control for four years.

My opponent didn't even mention anything about border control -- excuse me.

I'm talking.

I extended that courtesy to you.

The border has been out of control for now almost four years.

My opponent didn't mention the border, didn't say anything about the border, didn't say the border should be secure until it became a political liability for her and her party.

President Biden, the biden/Harris administration, under the executive orders of president Trump and put those into place.

Before -- number one, I didn't have an opportunity to vote on any bill from the Senate.

But prior to that bill going to the Senate, the House sent over a bill on border security.

HR-2.

The House did that bill in 2023.

It's been languishing in the Senate.

That bill could have been brought up, and the Senate could have voted upon it and sent it back.

The bill she's talking about wasn't even voted upon in the Senate, never had a chance, was not going to be voted on, and did not come to the House to be voted on.

In addition to that, I have been to the border.

I've talked with the border patrol agents.

They do not feel they're being supported.

They feel they're processing people through the border.

There are untold drugs, unfold people on the terror watch list coming across our border now, and these are the failed policies of the Biden/Harris administration, which you never made a comment on until it became a political liability for you.

In addition to which I have several bills on legal immigration, fixing part of the legal immigration system, which I have supported.

This is the top issue for voters and people.

They don't feel safe.

They don't feel safe in their community.

They're concerned about gangs that are now, as we've heard, in Denver, in New York, some in Pennsylvania.

They're concerned about their safety and security.

>> And Colorado, though, the mayor there said that's not happening, right?

Aurora, you're talking about?

>> We're talking about in Aurora.

We're talking about in New York.

We're talking about the gangs that have increased.

>> So, should the chambers have taken up that bipartisan agreement?

I mean, as we know, the former president did not want that to happen.

Should that have happened and would you have supported it?

Was that the potential solution that you wanted?

>> I never made a comment against any bill.

But I do say we already passed a border security and immigration bill.

Why didn't the Senate take up that bill?

>> Didn't like this one.

>> Who didn't want that bill?

I think there were challenges to that bill.

But, you know, when you are able to look at a piece of legislation and make amendments and it goes through regular order, that's the process by which we should have.

The Senate should have taken up our bill just like they should also take up our tax bill, which has a doubling of the child care tax credit.

They haven't taken up that bill either.

>> I want to ask both of you this question.

Both of you say you support some of these policies which would make it harder for immigrants to get asylum.

We'll start with you Christina Bohannon.

Does that put the U.S. at risk of turning its back on some of these people who have a genuine fear of harm?

>> Well, I mean, look, I think what we need is to make sure that, you know, if we have asylum seekers that those are legitimate asylum seekers.

And we need a process for that.

We need a process that, you know, is timely.

And one of the problems right now is that it just takes forever, you know, to get an answer on that.

I think we need a process that makes sense.

I think the main thing that we need -- and I think Representative Miller-Meeks and I agree on this -- is that we need to secure the border.

We need to have a lawful, orderly process.

People aren't opposed to all immigration.

They just want to see it done in a lawful, orderly way.

So, I think that, you know, I think that's what we need.

I think we need a better process for that.

>> Your response Mariannette Miller-Meeks?

>> I certainly think there are ways that we could solve this issue and this problem.

We have 1 million illegal -- we have 1 million legal immigration visas per year.

Our state department hasn't even fulfilled those.

In previous years, recently, 2022, 2021, they were wasting on green cards and visas for people to come here legally to this country.

There is the possibility of talking to our customs and border protection agents, and one of the things they talk about is having administrative law judges at the border to do asylum hearings.

They will also tell you that of the people who come here and are told to reappear for an asylum hearing that 90% of those people do not return for the asylum hearing.

10% return.

Of those 10% who return, only 10% of those are eligible for asylum in our current code.

So, the majority of people coming here are not eligible for asylum.

But it brings up the broader question that you ask, and that is, you know, do we risk turning away people who are truly here because their life is in danger, there is violence in their communities?

And I think that, yes.

And putting administrative law judges at the border so there can be a more immediate asylum hearing is one of the things that would help with exactly what you're talking about.

>> Let's switch to another topic, social security.

Mariannette Miller-Meeks, the experts predict that social security will become insolvent within the next decade.

It seems as if Congress cannot agree on much.

Is it time for Congress to appoint some sort of independent panel that would come up with solutions that Congress would either accept or reject?

>> Well, certainly young people, especially when I travel the district and I talk with them, they're very concerned about the viability of social security.

They're concerned about paying into a system that's not there for them when they get older.

And, you know, my first job was at 16 if you don't count when I picked cucumbers at 13.

So, my first job was at 16.

I've been paying in to social security since that time.

So, I voted for, when we had the opportunity for a continuing resolution for a bipartisan debt commission.

And I think because this has become a political football that it's important that we have a group that is bipartisan that can help discuss how do we treat the long-term debt and our outstanding obligations so that everybody that pays into this system is able to get the benefits to which they paid into.

>> Christina Bohannon, same question to you.

Would you expect that group to recommend changes in the benefits for future beneficiaries to help keep the system solvent?

>> Look, social security and medicare are so important.

I mean, these are hard-earned benefits.

And they were lifelines for my family.

When my dad got sick, you know, we couldn't have gotten by without social security and medicare.

So, I will always fight to protect them.

I started waitressing at 14, so I started paying in pretty early myself.

So, I want that there when I'm ready to retire.

Representative Miller-Meeks has said she supports privatizing social security and raising the retirement age.

That might be okay for people in the cushy job of being in Congress, where people tend to stay well into their older age, but it's not okay for, you know, people doing construction work, you know, like my dad or people climbing electric poles like my brother or firefighters like my nephew.

So, look, that's just not -- it's not fair, first of all.

These are hard-earned benefits.

But it's not going to work for people who have to do hard work.

So, I think that we have to have a system that saves that.

And Representative Miller-Meeks has favored tax breaks for the multimillionaires and for large corporations and would prefer to cut social security benefits rather than have people pay their fair share.

I think that's wrong.

So, you know, I think it's really key that we do come up with a system to save social security.

But I think it means having, you know, people at the very top.

A lot of people right now, corporations who pay no taxes at all or less than 1% tax.

There are a lot of billionaires out there -- it's well documented that they pay less than 1% tax.

And that puts the brunt on the rest of us.

I think that people should pay their fair share before we go cutting hard-earned benefits of hard-working people.

>> Mariannette Miller-Meeks, George W. Bush proposed privatizing social security for younger workers.

Is that something you support?

>> I think if I remember this correctly, he suggested privatizing 2% of the social security.

And again, what I have suggested and what I have recommended and what I voted for was a bipartisan commission that would look at long-term debt and how to preserve both social security and medicare, especially for those young individuals who are concerned about it.

We also have a tax cut in jobs act that supports small businesses, has decreased the tax brackets for all income levels, and helps all income levels.

And that is something that I would support and we did support and on our tax provisions we already sent across which is languishing in the Senate to include a doubling of the child care tax credit, which will expire in 2025 if it's not reauthorized.

>> I do want to ask about the tax cuts and jobs act.

The Trump era tax cuts will expire at the end of next year if Congress doesn't take action.

Is there any part of those tax cuts that you would vote to keep?

>> What we need to do -- look, that was in 2017.

That was seven years ago.

A lot has happened.

COVID has largely changed our economy and a lot about our economy.

So, we need to look holistically at our tax system.

And what we need to make sure is that, you know, it is working for the middle class.

You know, my opponent has supported tax cuts for the ultra wealthy, for billionaire donors, for corporations.

And I think that we need to have a tax system that has everybody pay their fair share.

And I would never support raising taxes on the middle class.

I think we need a middle class tax cut.

And I thought that for a long time.

And, you know, Representative Miller-Meeks has talked about the child tax credit quite a few times already tonight.

I am glad she is on board with that now because the fact is that she let the child tax credit expire.

That is $1,800 per child, per family, and that expired because Representative Miller-Meeks did not vote for it, to extend it.

So, I think that that's a real problem.

I want to see a middle class tax cut, and I want to see that child tax credit expanded.

>> Do you have specifics on the tax cut?

You're saying middle class, what does that mean?

Is there a threshold there?

Talking $400,000 like biden has talked about.

What are you pushing?

>> I think that's a fair number.

I think that's a fair number.

We can talk about it.

We can negotiate.

I'm open to that.

Whatever it is, it needs to work for working people.

We have a tax system right now where it is well documented that there are many billionaires in this country that pay zero tax or less than 1%.

That is not fair.

Working people are bearing the brunt of an economy where that's happening.

So, I will never support raising middle class taxes, and I want to see a middle class tax cut.

>> Mariannette Miller-Meeks, the congressional budget office -- >> Can I respond?

>> Yeah.

I'm going to work this in there.

Give me ten seconds -- said if you add Trump tax cuts along with the COVID aid he did, it added 8.4 trillion to the national debt.

So, the question is, you've talked about extending the Trump tax cuts.

How much are you willing to raise the debt to extend tax cuts?

>> Well, first of all, the Biden/Harris administration already raised taxes on those individuals making under 400,000 a year.

They did that by their spending packages, 1.9 trillion in March of 2021, which caused inflation.

Inflation was under 2% in December of 2023.

I heard and read numbers of 1.6% in December of 2020.

By may of 2021, inflation was at 5.6%.

And by 2022, inflation was at 9%.

That is a tax cut that is insidious -- a tax increase that is insidious and regressive.

And that's inflation.

And that was under people making 400,000 a year.

So, low-income families, working poor, senior citizens on a fixed income all saw their burden through inflation go up with high prices.

That's the legacy that you all have.

You've already raised -- you've already created a -- >> Who's you?

I'm not Biden or Harris.

>> You just said you would agree with President Biden.

>> I said I do not support raising the taxes -- >> -- already raised taxes on individuals by spending policies which caused record amounts of inflation.

>> We're talking about taxes -- >> Consider that inflation is an insidious regressive tax.

So, it's a tax.

And not expanding or not reauthorizing the tax cut and jobs act means that low-income people, lower-income brackets will immediately see their taxes go up.

They will immediately have their taxes go up.

>> So, would you extend the whole Shah bang like it just was?

>> I think you have to look at extending and reauthorizing the tax cuts and jobs acts in 2025.

>> Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Sorry.

Christina Bohannon, let's address a little bit about what she's talking about, inflation.

So, you go by the numbers, prices are up about 21% over the past four years.

I talked to economists who say that the COVID aid has been part of this.

All this federal money did push up inflation.

It's not all of it, but it's a part of it.

Did the Biden administration give out too much of this?

>> We know there are some unused funds out there that people, you know, didn't need.

And we should claw those back.

I think that that was too much spending.

I think that we should claw that back.

And I think that that would help, you know, bring down the debt, things like that.

So, I think that -- >> We as in Congress?

Who's clawing here?

>> Well, that's a good question.

So, maybe, yeah.

I think Congress could have a role in that.

Of course obviously the president, whoever it is, would have to sign on.

But, you know, I think that we should claw back some of those unused COVID funds.

I think that that would be a good thing to do.

But, look, you know, we also know that COVID brought about supply chain problems, which corporations then, you know, used as a reason to jack up prices.

All of this started, as she just said, all of this started with COVID.

It started with the price hikes during COVID.

That's when we started seeing this.

And the corporations jacked up prices and said it was supply chain problems.

Okay.

Fine.

That was true for a while.

But then the supply chain problems went away and they just kept their prices up.

And we are now seeing corporations raking in record profits and have been for a few years now.

And so what we have to do is to take action on corporate price gouging.

And Representative Miller-Meeks has absolutely refused to do that.

You know, she has taken over $150,000 from the big oil companies and then she voted against holding big oil accountable for price gouging at the gas pump during record gas prices.

You know, she's taken over a quarter of a million dollars from the big drug companies and then voted against letting medicare negotiate for lower drug prices.

Those drug prices are really high.

You know, she took money from a group of insulin manufacturers on the very same day that she voted against capping the price of insulin for our seniors at $35 a month.

You know, so, we have to take action on corporate price gouging.

Those profits are record-breaking right now, and people are paying the price, literally, for that.

And we need to have someone who is going to take action on that rather than favoring her corporate donors.

>> Before I move on, do you want to respond to that?

>> I would say, number one, I voted to cap insulin.

>> You voted for a bill that did not pass.

>> I voted to cap insulin at $35.

Number two, inflation, as you indicated, was caused by too much money chasing too few dollars.

The rapid amount of infusion after there was already money put in for COVID in 2020, that led to inflation going up to 9% followed by several other additional spending bills, which has created a crisis for our American families.

People are suffering.

People can't afford rent with high interest rates caused by inflation.

They can't afford food.

They can't afford prescription drug prices, which is why I worked hard on PBM reform and other types of reform to bring them down.

It was a messaging bill on price gouging for the oil companies, which you know about because what did President Trump do?

President Trump released oil from the strategic petroleum reserve after he tamped down on domestic energy production.

Why did he release oil from the SPR?

He released oil from the SPR to increase supply to prices would come down.

You're making my point on why people should re-elect Donald Trump and why they should re-elect me.

That is, if companies were afraid to price gouge under President Trump, maybe they should be back in the White House.

Companies only price gouge under President Biden.

I think that's a specious argument.

>> Let's move on -- >> Didn't Representative Miller-Meeks support a lot of the COVID relief funds we were talking about?

The spending?

>> I wasn't in Congress during 2020.

>> Well -- >> I was in the state.

>> There was some COVID relief funds that Representative Miller-Meeks supported.

>> Let's talk about tariffs.

Mariannette Miller-Meeks, during the Trump era, china retaliated to tariffs and the Trump administration paid American farmers billions because of that retaliation.

If Donald Trump is re-elected as president and opposes more tariffs, would you support compensation for American industries that are harmed?

>> I think what's most importantly is to have the conversation whether or not tariffs work.

And I've seen viewpoints on both sides of that issue.

I have concern over tariffs and concern over getting into trade wars.

I think free trade is very important, but it has to be trade that is fair for American producers as well as American farmers.

And I can tell you when I visited with American farmers -- and I'm a friend of the farm bureau.

The farm bureau has endorsed me.

They're very concerned about trade practices.

They're also concerned about the lack of trade initiatives under this administration.

So, trade practices where the Chinese communist party keeps, you know, carcasses, whether it's the hogs or whether it's cattle, keeps carcasses in a ship in port until they become rancid and then say, we're not accepting them, those types of trade practices are harmful to our farmers as well too.

So, I do think it's something that I would have to see what it is, what we're proposing, and then having that conversation with economists, with people within the administration, to do what's in the best interest of not only Iowa agriculture but in general for corporations in the United States.

>> Christina Bohannon, President Biden kept in place Trump tariffs.

Was that the wrong or right move?

>> I agree with Representative Miller-Meeks on this.

I think we have to look at tariffs very carefully.

I think there are some that make sense, others that probably don't, especially for Iowa farmers.

You know, we have to make sure that there are markets out there for Iowa farmers' goods in places like China.

That's a delicate relationship because obviously China is a real competitor in a lot of ways.

So, we have to have that relationship.

But I do think that we have to look very carefulfully at tariffs because we know that a lot of times it's consumers who end up footing the bill for those.

I want to be very careful and choose carefully.

>> We're going to move to foreign policy now.

The war in Gaza is just over a year old.

There are more than 40,000 Palestinians who have been killed in the conflict.

I'm curious, starting with Mariannette Miller-Meeks, are there ever conditions when the United States should put -- or ever situations where the United States should put conditions on any aid to Israel when thinking about civilian casualties?

>> Well, first, it certainly is a tragedy.

No one wants to see innocent women and children harmed.

But Hamas did attack an unprovoked way Israel on October 7th.

We also know that Hamas, as a terrorist organization, utilizes humans as shields, Palestinians, innocent women and children as human shields, that they use humanitarian aid to build tunnels underneath hospitals and underneath schools as well as to deter humanitarian aid to purchasing of weapons.

Israel has not been in Gaza since 2005.

They pulled out.

Two-state solutions have been proposed.

The last one was declined by yassier arafat.

So, this remains to be a problem and an issue.

But we also know that Hamas and Hezbollah and the houthis are proxies for Iran.

Israel has the right to defend itself.

They have a right to be -- to have a state and defend its citizens against the myriad of rocket attacks from both Hamas, from Hezbollah, and the attacks of the houthis within the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

>> So, you don't support any conditions on aid to Israel?

>> I would say at this point in time, Israel has to have the right to be able to defend itself.

>> Christina Bohannon, what about you?

>> The situation is real in Gaza, is just devastating.

Two things are true there at the same time.

You know, first is that as the only real democracy in the region, Israel is going to be a strong ally and friend of the United States.

I don't see that changing.

And the attack on October 7th was horrific.

I mean, the killings, the taking of the hostages, the sexualized violence against women in Israel literally made me sick when I read about it.

And so, you know, Israel has a right to defend itself.

At the same time, the second thing is true, which is that the suffering in Gaza is also heartbreaking.

I mean, 40,000 people dead, mostly women and children.

That is really sad.

And Israel does have a responsibility under international law to, you know, avoid as much harm to civilians as possible and to allow in humanitarian aid and aid workers.

But at the same time, you know, it's true that Hamas is actually contributing to that suffering by using people, you know, civilians, as human shields.

And Hamas could end this war by releasing the hostages.

>> I think it's interesting that, you know, you have not said anything about the release of the hostages, including the American hostages, since November of 2023.

And just in the cedar rapids, when you were asked about this issue, you said you couldn't answer because there wasn't consensus.

I think it's very clear that your position has changed on this issue because it's now a political liability.

>> I'm not sure what you're talking about.

And I was talking.

But I don't know what you're talking about at all.

My position has not changed on this.

I do support, you know, Israel as a friend and ally, and I also recognize the suffering in Gaza.

You know, here's -- >> There are unique conditions -- >> I was just getting to that.

What I want to say is that right now, especially with Iran's overt entry into this -- we've also always known that Iran has supported Hamas and Hezbollah.

But now it has fired 200 missiles into Israel.

And this is a very dangerous situation.

Iran is a real threat here.

So, you know, we have to make sure that Israel can defend itself.

And that means providing, you know, defensive weaponry to make sure they can defend themselves.

And we also have to make absolutely sure that Iran never ever can develop nuclear weapons.

So, the last thing I want to say about this is one glimmer of hope to me is that Israel did just score major victory with the killing of Yahya Sinwar, who is the head -- who was the head of Hamas and masterminded the October 7th attack.

So, I am trying to be optimistic that this will be a milestone that will bring both parties back to the table to negotiate in good faith the release of those hostages, including the Americans and to bring an end to the violence.

>> Okay.

Let's segway to Ukraine.

Mariannette Miller-Meeks, both Donald Trump and J.D.

Vance have put into question whether the U.S. would continue to financially support Ukraine.

That is something senator Joni Ernst has told me that she is optimistic that if there are enough republicans in Congress that those voices will win out and aid will continue.

Maybe big picture, similar to Stephen's question about Israel, are there conditions that Ukraine would have to meet in your mind for the U.S. to continue that aid?

>> Well, certainly we have a Bucharest agreement from 1994 with Ukraine that if they gave up nuclear weapons, which at the time they were the third largest holder of nuclear weapons, that we would help to support their independence and sovereignty.

So, we do have this agreement.

We also know from intelligence that there is a true concern that Russia would go beyond Ukraine in this conflict.

I think the biden administration was slow to respond, slow to put on sanctions, inept to say that a little incursion into Ukraine is okay.

I think that weakness in the American presidency and the administration breeds aggression abroad.

Having said that, members of Congress and especially military members of Congress, have asked that there be metrics, that we have some understanding of what it is that we're trying to achieve, what outcome measures.

But we also have ham strung Ukraine in their actions by not allowing them to fire directly across the border where Russian troops are amassed.

That is now changing.

But, yes, we do want to know that we're not going to be involved in endless wars.

I think that both parties are concerned about that.

But we're also very concerned about what happens if Russia prevails in this conflict.

>> Okay.

Christina Bohannon, former president Trump has said essentially that this could be Europe's responsibility whether to help Ukraine on this, I believe.

Is that the right approach?

Or do you want to see U.S. aid continue?

>> I mean, I think that we do have to aid Ukraine.

You know, I supported the aid that Representative Miller-Meeks voted for as well.

Putin's a bad guy.

And he's going to keep being a bad guy.

And he won't stop at Ukraine.

You know, I think it is in our national security interest to support democracy around the world and to stand up to people like Vladimir Putin.

So, I do support aid to Ukraine.

You know, it is not a blank check.

It should never be a blank check.

You know, the United States should not be in the business of just getting blank checks to other countries for whatever.

It does have to be thoughtful, and it has to be in America's interest.

And I think that this is going to be a case-by-case basis.

We're going to continue to look at as time goes on.

I think what -- I think the aid in the past was appropriate.

But, you know, obviously every day something's changing, so we'll have to see what happens going forward.

>> Mariannette Miller-Meeks, homeowners in Iowa have been notified by some insurance companies that they wouldn't continue insuring that home.

It's more dire in states like Florida, which have been hit by hurricanes.

After 9/11, Congress passed a law helping private insurance companies deal with all the losses that were caused by man-made disasters, terrorism.

Is it time for Congress to step in and help insurance companies after mother nature has committed these disasters?

>> I think that's a great question.

It's one of the things that when we travel the district we certainly hear about, and I've heard about in Washington, D.C. when people have visited us in D.C. And although we're not Florida and we don't -- haven't been hit by two hurricanes in a very short period of time, we have had tornados.

We've had derechoses.

We have our annual floods when there's the spring snow melt.

So, it's increasingly become a problem within Iowa because of those natural disasters that insurance costs are going up.

So, that cost of course is passed on to both individuals, residences, colleges, for instance, and they have unexpected increases in the amount of insurance that they have to pay to cover.

So, this is rapidly becoming a problem.

Also, you know, insurance agents have moved out or companies have moved out of Iowa.

And then that consolidates and there's less competition and prices that may also increase prices.

There is, you know, talk if there should be more federal government involvement in the insurance marketplace and how to do that in the best way that doesn't create undue pressure and doesn't create more increasing costs.

But so, yes, we are looking at how best to do this where you still have a competitive marketplace.

>> Christina Bohannon, briefly?

>> Yeah.

You know, I think I have been hearing about this a lot, insurance companies here in Iowa, real estate agents, are saying that they're struggling because of the price of insurance and things like that.

This is having a huge effect on our economy.

What's interesting to me is that so much of what we're talking about now is what should the government do to respond to all of these natural disasters.

What should we do to respond now to the insurance consequences?

There are all of these consequences that are coming from inaction on climate.

And, you know, Representative Miller-Meeks for a long time now has been very slow to want to take action on climate.

You know, she says, you know, oh, well, you know, the economy, the economy, everything.

We're seeing now the economic effects of climate.

We are not going to have an economy if we have to spend half of our GDP cleaning up from natural disasters that we could have prevented in the first place.

So, you know, I think that it's really important that we take action on this.

I think the best way to do that is not through any unfunded mandates or anything but having our farmers be part of the solution to sequestering carbon.

I met with a 22-year-old in van Buren county recently who was just doing amazing things on cover crops and sustainable farming and everything.

You know, I think that we can do some incredible things here in Iowa and be part of that solution if we invest in our farmers.

I also think that it's important that we invest in our renewable energy.

Obviously Iowa already gets a huge amount of our electricity from renewable energy.

And that can be a huge part of the solution as well, and we can grow our economy at the same time.

>> Certainly what we do with housing, where we're allowed building to occur, what happens with zoning, is part of that to have more resilient housing.

I also say at a time of record high inflation with people, not only is it insurance, but it's also record high inflation or record high interest rates are making the housing difficult.

I know our farmers very well.

I've been to the past three conventional parties internationally talking about Iowa's energy, Iowa's clean energy, and also the resiliency of our farmers with sustainable regenerative ag and what they were doing.

And it's another reason why I've been endorsed by the farm bureau and friends of the farm bureau because we talk about ways that we can both increase economic output, have economic growth, international economic growth, be competitive internationally, and have affordable, reliable, secure, abundant energy and energy that's cleaner.

>> We have just over a minute left.

I want to put a question to you, Mariannette Miller-Meeks.

You are facing an ethics complaint from one of your constituents who says that you violated Iowa election law by listing an apartment that you rented to Davenport on your voter registration rather than your home in -- in the first district.

I want to give you a chance to respond.

>> Thank you so much for allowing me to respond to this.

I have an apartment in Davenport, an apartment in Washington, D.C., and a property in WAF low county.

It's 50 acres.

And, you know, they don't make more land.

So, in Iowa, land is valuable, and we hold on to it.

So, I have a property there.

What I think is interesting about the ethics complaint is that it came exactly 60 days before the election.

And as attorneys and lawyers know, 60 days before the election, there's not an investigation.

So, this is trying to manufacture a scandal where none exists.

>> Christina Bohannon, is this a voting issue for Iowans?

>> I think Iowans, you know, have to decide whether it matters to them that they have a representative that lives in the district or not.

And that is for the voters to decide.

>> Okay.

>> Representative Miller-Meeks doesn't live in the district.

I think more interesting is looking at her record.

She's failed to pass the farm bill, failed to secure the border, voted no on infrastructure, voted no on lowering health care costs and on and on.

>> Thanks to both of you for joining us.

If you missed any of tonight's debate, you can watch online at IowaPBS.org.

You can watch last Monday's Iowa press debate between Ashley Henson and -- online as well.

For everyone here, this fantastic crew at Iowa PBS, thanks for watching.

>>> Funding for Iowa press was provided by Friends, the Iowa PBS foundation.

The associated general contractors of Iowa, the public's partner in building Iowa's highway, bridge, and municipal utility infrastructure.

>>> Elite -- we believe our employees are part of our family and we strive to improve their quality of life and the quality of lives within the communities we serve.

>>> Across Iowa, hundreds of neighborhood banks strive to serve their communities, provide jobs, and help local businesses.

Iowa banks are proud to back the life you build.

Learn more at Iowabankers.com.