♪♪ [KAY HENDERSON] The fourth Congressional District is Iowa's largest district geographically.

It has one of two open U.S.

House races this year.

Fourth district candidates Dave Dawson and Chris McGowan join us tonight for this special live Iowa Press debate.

♪♪ [ANNOUNCER] Funding for Iowa Press was provided by Friends, the Iowa PBS Foundation.

[ANNOUNCER] The Bob and Doreen Sheppard Family, proud supporters of educational programming seen only on Iowa PBS.

♪♪ [ANNOUNCER] Banking in Iowa goes beyond transactions.

Banks work to help people and small businesses succeed, and Iowa banks are committed to building confident banking relationships.

Iowa banks, your partner through it all.

♪♪ [ANNOUNCER] For decades, Iowa Press has brought you political leaders and newsmakers from across Iowa and beyond.

Live from Iowa PBS Studios in Johnston, this is a special Iowa Press debate featuring candidates for Congress from Iowa's fourth district.

Here is moderator Kay Henderson.

♪♪ [HENDERSON] For the next hour, we will explore the views of two Iowans who are running for Congress in Iowa's fourth Congressional District.

There are no time limits for this debate, but there are a lot of issues we want to cover, so we may move the conversation along when appropriate.

First, let's take a look at the Fourth Congressional District.

The fourth district encompasses 36 counties in western, northwest and north central Iowa.

Republican Randy Feenstra currently represents the district.

The district includes the cities of Spencer, Sioux City, Fort Dodge, Hampton, Carroll, Ames, Marshalltown and Council Bluffs.

Now let's meet the candidates.

Dave Dawson is a Democrat from Lawton.

He's a prosecutor at the Woodbury County Attorney's Office, and he served two terms in the House of Representatives.

Chris McGowan is a Republican from Sioux City.

For more than two decades, he's worked for the Siouxland Initiative and the Siouxland Chamber of Commerce, the past 15 years as its president.

He's also done some political consulting.

Candidates, welcome to Iowa Press Debates.

[CHRIS MCGOWAN] Thank you.

[DAVE DAWSON] Thank you for having us.

[HENDERSON] Also joining us at the table, Sheila Brummer, Western Iowa reporter for Iowa Public Radio.

And Erin Murphy, Des Moines bureau chief for the Gazette in Cedar Rapids, whose work also frequently appears in the Sioux City Journal.

[MURPHY] Gentlemen, Iowa drivers and farmers are experiencing sticker shock at the gas pump right now.

Dave Dawson, you've said temporarily suspending federal fuel taxes would not be an effective solution.

What do you say, then, to voters who want relief now and to your Democratic colleagues who support that proposal?

[DAWSON] I really think that cutting the federal gas tax of $0.18 is not really going to dent the huge increase we've had of over a dollar in gas prices since the war in Iran began.

What Congress should be doing now is voting to end this unnecessary war.

There was never an imminent threat.

We were told last year, in the summer of 2025, that the uranium enrichment plants were destroyed by that bombing, and there was no current threat needed to go into Iran.

So, at this point in time to drive down fuel prices and stabilize the fuel prices across the country, we need to end the war.

[MURPHY] President Trump recently announced he's temporarily lifting the embargo on diesel imports from Russia that were imposed due to the war in Ukraine.

Chris McGowan, some Republicans, including Senator Grassley and Congresswoman Hinson, say the embargo should stand.

They don't think the embargo should be lifted.

Do you agree with Ashley Hinson on this or President Trump?

[MCGOWAN] Well, thank you for the question, Erin.

And I want to begin, first and foremost this evening by thanking Iowa PBS, Sheila yourself, Erin and Kay.

I also want to thank my opponent, Dave Dawson.

I'm very proud to be part of this campaign.

Dave and I have done our best to keep this discourse very civil, and I think that's been the case throughout.

But to very specifically answer your question, no, I do not believe that we should be making economic deals with Russia during this very difficult time.

We all recognize there's an awful lot of pain at the pump, but I have not spoken with any voters who believe that one of the solutions ought to be working with a dictator from Russia, who's engaged in a war that he initiated with Ukraine, one of our allies.

[MURPHY] Dave Dawson, where do you stand on the president's lifting that embargo?

[DAWSON] I do not believe that the president took the appropriate action.

And actually, it's illegal under a law that was passed in 2022 during the Biden administration that had unanimous support in the U.S.

Senate and large bipartisan support in the House.

So, we shouldn't be rewarding somebody who invaded another country.

We should be supporting Ukraine in its efforts to restore stability and democracy to the country.

[BRUMMER] And when it comes to Ukraine, several families now call northwest Iowa home because they left, because the Russian invasion.

But on Monday, temporary protective status is scheduled to end for some of these refugees.

Chris McGowan, should the Trump administration extend TPS?

[MCGOWAN] Well, you're talking about a very specific instance.

And right now, we're talking about refugees from a war in Ukraine, which is exactly what that program is designed to provide for.

And so as long as we are providing for refugees seeking refuge under the banner of freedom in the United States of America, I do not believe that we should restrict that immigration.

[BRUMMER] Dave Dawson what's your view?

[DAWSON] I've been very concerned about the way immigration laws have been enforced over the last two years, that oftentimes people who are asylum seekers and refugees from other countries have had their status unilaterally revoked without a court hearing or any evidence indicating why it was necessary.

If you've entered the country lawfully and you are being a productive member of our society, you shouldn't have your lawful status unilaterally revoked by the president.

You should be able to work to become a productive member and citizen of our country.

That's what this country is built on.

We are built on immigrants.

My great grandfather was an immigrant from Ireland, and America should be a welcoming place to immigrants.

[HENDERSON] Chris McGowan during your last debate on KTIV in Sioux City, you said that the war in Iran should come to a speedy and quick resolution.

How would you define speedy and quick?

[MCGOWAN] Well, I think that when the president announced after Midnight Hammer, which was the mission to take out the three facilities that we believed were producing nuclear grade weapons or creating uranium for nuclear weapons, we were told that after that just 24 hour mission that we had destroyed the capability.

A short time later, we went in under Epic Fury and were still there.

I believe that we've been there too long.

We have to clearly define what the objective is.

I do believe that we have to define success by making sure that we do not allow the Iranians to have access to nuclear weapons, but also to make sure that the Strait of Hormuz is open.

It is the leading supply line for oil on the global market.

So, we have to make sure that we're able to achieve those objectives.

But then hopefully quickly, we can put an end to this.

[HENDERSON] In your view, who would be the policeman to ensure that Iran abides by any deal?

I mean, over the past decades, we've seen that they're not particularly trustworthy.

[MCGOWAN] Well, Kay, I agree with you.

They haven't shown themselves to be particularly trustworthy over the years, which is exactly why President Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth made the decision to go in after 47 years of the Iranians chanting Death to America.

It was time that something be done.

I support the decision, but I also recognize that we have put an awful lot of young men and young women in harm's way.

And the sooner that we can end this conflict and bring them home, the better for all.

[HENDERSON] Dave Dawson, you have called the war in Iran illegal.

How so?

[DAWSON] Under the War Powers Act from the 1970s, presidents are not supposed to engage in armed conflict with another country for more than 60 days without an express congressional authorization.

And this Congress has refused to debate the issue and come to a resolution about whether or not war should be declared.

So, under our Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare a war.

And we've now been in this armed conflict with Iran for over seven months, since February 28th.

And what have we seen as a result?

There has been destabilization of the fuel markets in the United States.

There has been additional conflict throughout the region with attacks on some of our allies in the Middle East.

And we have not achieved any of the objectives that have been talked about publicly, which was to end the Iranian nuclear program.

We were told last summer, in 2025 that it was already decimated, completely obliterated.

So, there was no need in this year, in 2026 to go back in.

If that was the truth, if we were being told the truth back then.

So right now, we have a president engaged in an unconstitutional, illegal war that Congress hasn't authorized, and no one in Congress has been willing to stand up and say, this is wrong, and we're putting too many American lives at risk.

We've already lost 18 Americans, including those from Iowa.

[MURPHY] Chris McGowan, if a bill came up in the House to require the president to get further congressional approval to continue the war in Iran, how would you vote for that?

[MCGOWAN] Well, that's a very good hypothetical question.

And the members of Congress in both the United States House of Representatives and in the United States Senate are briefed by the Pentagon, and they're provided classified information that identifies very important considerations.

Number one, is the threat imminent?

Number two, is the threat grave.

And so, we have to have that information as a candidate for Congress.

I do not have access to the classified information that the Pentagon provided to members of Congress when they make these decisions.

Now, if I am successful in this election on November 3rd and sworn in on January 3rd, this will be among my top priorities to make sure that I have access to that information and that I'm well informed when it comes time to make those important decisions about our national security and foreign policy.

[MURPHY] Dave Dawson you've also called President Trump's tariffs illegal.

If elected, what action would you like the House to take on tariffs?

[DAWSON] Well, over the last year, we've seen whiplash tariffs.

Some days they're 20%.

Some days they're 50%.

Some days they're 100%.

Depends on what country and what day of the week that the president wants to impose a new tariff.

But the U.S.

Supreme Court in February of this year said that the president's tariffs were unconstitutional.

It was a tax imposed upon Americans that was illegal.

Only Congress has the power to impose a tax, and the president has forced companies to pay higher tariff costs, which were then passed on to consumers, which ended up raising prices for everybody here in America.

So, we shouldn't have a president engaging in illegal activity that costs consumers more money.

And Congress has really abdicated its responsibility with regards to oversight of the executive branch and determining when and where it's appropriate to use tariffs.

Sometimes tariffs are appropriate, but they shouldn't be unilaterally imposed by one person.

[MURPHY] When you talk to Iowa farmers acknowledge they acknowledge the heartache that some of these tariffs have caused.

But also, we'll talk about countries that have not been fair or cooperative trading partners.

If tariffs aren't the solution to that, to create fair trade, what is.

[DAWSON] Well, President Trump renegotiated the North American Free Trade Act during his first administration and came up with new levels for trade between Canada and Mexico.

But recently, he is now engaged in further tariff wars of a 50% tariff on most of the products that are coming in from Canada.

It's one of our largest trading partners.

Iowa has $1 billion in trade that it does with Canada, largely from our agricultural economy.

And if we are having unstable negotiations with countries around the world who are no longer willing to buy our products, then we're losing markets.

That's why soybean prices are not reflective of what they need to be.

We are selling less soybeans today to China as a result of these tariffs, and they were under the Biden administration.

And we also are paying higher prices for input costs, including potash that goes into fertilizer, making it even more expensive for farmers to make a profit.

Farm profits have been down over 50% over the last three years, largely due to these illegal tariffs.

[MURPHY] Chris McGowan you've said President Trump's tariffs will achieve the long term goal of boosting U.S.

manufacturing while causing short term pain and challenges.

How long is that pain acceptable for Iowans?

[MCGOWAN] It's going to be measured in degrees, Erin, and right now it's very, very difficult because the price of diesel fuel is compounding the financial impact that is also created by these tariffs.

I want to revisit the purpose of these tariffs.

We are all advocates for free and fair trade.

And we talk about that frequently.

Most economists will tell you how important that is not only to the United States but to the global economy.

But for far too long we have had free trade that has not been fair trade.

The Trump administration is working diligently to try and level that playing field.

When I walked into this studio this afternoon, I saw one of the buildings was named after Maytag.

It was not that long ago that just down the road in Newton, Iowa, Maytag manufactured washers and dryers.

Unfortunately, we see much of the production and manufacturing that was the bedrock of the United States going overseas.

President Trump, through these tariffs, is trying to make it more attractive to bring that manufacturing back to the United States.

I think that's critically important for several reasons.

Number one, I'd like to see this happen so we can rebuild our middle class.

Many, many people are complaining about the chasm that exists between the haves and the have nots, and that we've seen the shrinking of our middle class, bringing manufacturing back to our domestic shores will increase the middle class.

And that's a positive thing.

But of equal import, Erin, we have to be mindful of the fact that we were successful in World War Two, because we knew how to build things, and we knew how to manufacture things, and we could do so quickly.

There's a national security element of this as well, and we can't have the tariff conversation without talking about rebuilding the middle class and making sure that we're prioritizing our national security.

[MURPHY] Chris McGowan, we've been talking already tonight about high fuel prices, expensive foreign conflicts, tariffs that have driven up some costs.

And we also learned today that inflation rose again in September.

Very simply, what can Congress do to lower everyday costs for Iowans?

[MCGOWAN] Well, I think the first thing that Congress should do that will have a very significant impact, not only for the entire country, but for Iowans and farmers in particular, is past year round E15 ethanol.

E15 ethanol is more competitively priced.

It does create more markets for our farmers.

And everyone knows that much of the difficulty that we see in this inflation rests with the cost of fuel and energy.

If we can bring those costs back down, if we can get gas closer to $3 rather than a little bit over $4, everybody wins.

All of the goods that we purchase come to us through the stream of commerce.

That's trains, that's planes, that's automobiles.

Sometimes that's shipping.

It's barge.

If we can bring fuel prices down, and one way to do that is E15, we can begin to arrest this inflation.

[MURPHY] Dave Dawson same question for you.

[DAWSON] There are three things that we can do.

I do support E15, but the first thing that we could do to help stabilize fuel prices is to end the war in Iran right now.

That is the driving factor of why gas went from the upper $2 a gallon to over $4 a gallon now here, seven months later.

So, we need to end that war and stop funding billions of dollars overseas to a conflict that was not necessary.

And that is adding additional debt to our national debt.

We also need to crack down on corporate monopolies to make sure that they are not fixing prices, whether it's in the fertilizer realm, whether it's in meat, food processing realm or whether it's in any other ag producing industry.

But there is too much corporate consolidation.

And I believe that causing prices to go up.

And we also need to work on raising the minimum wage at the federal level.

It's been stuck at $7.25 for 17 years.

It's the longest time in American history that the minimum wage has not been raised.

And if people had more money in their pocket, they could afford more things.

And there are hundreds of thousands of Iowans who make less than $15 an hour.

And it's currently a minimum wage of $15 an hour in Nebraska, just across the river from where both Chris and I work.

So, if you're a young person who's trying to start a job right out of high school, not going off to college, why would you want to stay in Iowa if you can make twice as much money moving just across the river into Nebraska?

[HENDERSON] Chris McGowan, do you support raising the minimum wage?

[MCGOWAN] I think that if we go back and we look at our freshman economics 101 classes, it will tell you that raising the minimum wage will cause costs to be passed on to consumers.

If we're trying to address inflation and contain inflation, the way to do so is not to mandate federally wages that the private sector must pay.

[HENDERSON] But nearby states have higher minimum wages.

[MCGOWAN] They certainly do.

And that's a question for state government, not the federal government.

[DAWSON] And we've had the highest inflation rates we've seen over the last ten years than we've seen in a long time.

And the minimum wage in Iowa has stayed flat.

So really, I don't believe that that's true, that we would have more money in your pocket, you could spend more, more money would be going back into the economy.

[BRUMMER] Now you're both from the Woodbury County area, I live there as well, where the County Board of Supervisors voted for a data center moratorium while they work out some rules and regulations.

Chris McGowan, after more than 20 years of economic development experience, what are your views on data centers?

[MCGOWAN] Well, I think that data centers are coming.

The question is where are they going to be located?

I have maintained throughout this campaign that there are certain conditions that data centers should be required to meet before a local community votes, and has a say in whether they want that particular capital investment in their community.

Among those, Sheila, are first and foremost, I have said that data centers should pay for all of the infrastructure, and I continue to believe that that is the right course of action.

Over my career in economic development, there have been many industries where we have stopped and said, this entity does not deserve economic development incentives to attract them to this particular location.

There are many very attractive features about doing business in Iowa.

One of them is we don't tax machinery and equipment.

That's incredibly attractive to data centers.

In addition to that, we have relatively low cost electricity, very attractive to the data centers.

But back to the matter at hand.

Number one, they have to pay for the infrastructure.

Number two, they have to mitigate light and they have to mitigate noise.

They cannot negatively or adversely impact electricity on the grid or prices.

But if they do these things and they make a philanthropic commitment to the community in which they hope to locate, then it should go to local residents and let them weigh in and make a decision on whether they want $1 billion or more than that in capital investment.

Many communities, if the data center meets all those criteria and conditions, would be delighted to welcome that kind of capital investment, because it will have a huge impact on property taxes.

[BRUMMER] Dave Dawson, you've also stated that data centers, their zoning decision should remain local, but the federal government should set environmental standards.

What kind of standards?

[DAWSON] Well, I did agree with the moratorium in Woodbury County because that's really the correct entity to make the decision.

It should be the cities and counties that are going to be most impacted that decide where a business is located.

But at the federal level, we really do need to make sure that all businesses that are conducting business throughout the United States are complying with environmental standards so that our air quality and our water quality are not negatively impacted by these businesses.

And I do support making sure that utility rates are not going to go up for local consumers.

So, the federal government does have a role to play with regards to utilities for water and electricity.

But ultimately these decisions need to be made locally.

But the environmental standards are making sure that they are not going to contaminate the water or misuse any of the environmental air quality standards that might be impacted.

We need to make sure that those things are complied with because we don't, you know, need worse water quality in Iowa when we're dealing with a cancer crisis.

[BRUMMER] Now, Sioux City is looking at potentially the area, and Salix is looking at a data center.

Would you support that data center being located there?

[DAWSON] I think I've heard from the local reports that the citizens of Salix do not support the local data center.

They do not want that in their backyard, and they have good reason for not wanting that.

There's a lot of questions about will their utility rates be increased?

My in-laws actually live on an acreage just outside of Salix, and I know that they've been concerned about what's going to be happening in their community.

And I think a lot of people were caught off guard that the city council had moved forward with this type of a project and annexing 900 acres of land without making sure that the public was fully aware of what was happening.

[BRUMMER] Chris McGowan, what do you think?

[MCGOWAN] Well, I've done economic development for 23 years, and over the course of that 23 years, I've heard repeatedly, what are we going to do to invest in rural economic development?

How do we make progress in these rural areas?

Well, this is one opportunity to do that.

Now, the decision again belongs with local residents.

But as we look at this, if these companies like Google, Google partnering with MidAmerican Energy, and they do take care of the infrastructure, all of those costs are borne by them, they don't accept economic development incentives, nor should they be offered, they make sure that they're environmentally sustainable, and they use closed loop water for cooling or other cooling methodologies that don't take from our water table.

If they do all those things and mitigate light and mitigate water, these can be very positive.

I would say that there might be a bit of a dispute in Salix about whether the residents accept this or want this or not.

They're certainly a vocal contingent in Salix, but let's be mindful of the fact that the five member city council voted to move forward.

Those elected officials are empowered to make those decisions on behalf of residents.

They've done so.

And so, we'll watch how this project continues to progress.

[HENDERSON] Chris McGowan when the Congress considered this issue recently, they specifically focused on the infrastructure for the electric power grid.

If you're a member of Congress, would you vote to require data centers to bear the cost of expanding the availability of electricity?

[MCGOWAN] Yes.

[HENDERSON] And you?

[DAWSON] I would also support that.

[HENDERSON] Let's move on to artificial intelligence.

There's been a lot of discussion about this.

And just this week we have learned from a developer of artificial intelligence that there is something they're calling worms, AI worms that may soon be able to get into the smart devices that you have in your homes, like a television or an oven, and install malware in there.

Chris McGowan, let's start with you.

What should the federal government do to police artificial intelligence development?

[MCGOWAN] Well, the primary role of the federal government is to protect the citizenry.

And one of the priorities that we must look at today is protecting United States citizens from developments in AI, particularly, Kay, those from foreign nations.

We've known for a long time that goods manufactured overseas include malware, listening devices, spyware, all those types of things.

We rely on the federal government to make sure that those things don't harm American citizens.

I have said on numerous occasions that there is a role for the federal government in policing AI, and I know that puts me in a disagreement with the current administration, but I stand by that.

We have to protect citizens.

Now, AI is coming, and I don't want to say that we should stop or slow down because we're involved in an arms race on AI with the Chinese, and we must prevail in this.

AI brings a lot of advantages for those of us who carry mobile devices, which is the vast majority of the U.S.

population.

We demand instant access to information, to our loved ones, to news, to information of all kinds.

If we're going to continue to have an insatiable appetite for data, we're going to have AI, and we're going to have data centers.

But I do believe there is a role for the federal government in policing and protecting us.

[HENDERSON] Dave Dawson, the Trump administration argues the U.S.

is in a race against China to develop artificial intelligence, and that federal regulations would impede that race.

What's your view?

[DAWSON] I believe that we can't leave regulation up to the industry itself.

They can create products that can become dangerous to citizens, and they have the ability to invade other systems.

We've already seen that reported by heads of AI companies that they had artificial intelligence programs that were trying to hack into competitors, hack into the federal government.

We also had a report recently that a CIA intelligence report that was partially based on AI led to the U.S.

Navy trying to go after a ship in the in the Pacific Sea that was from China, that they thought there was some type of cargo that was inappropriate to be shipped by the Chinese near our border.

And so they went after it.

But they reviewed the intelligence and learned that it was wrong.

So AI is not perfect and there needs to be rules of the road to make sure that it's not developing quickly.

There's a U.S.

Senator from Louisiana, Senator Kennedy, who has proposed having kill switches that make sure that if AI starts to go off in a direction that it's not permissible, that they can stop that at the source.

So we do not have artificial intelligence going rogue.

We shouldn't have computers that are setting agendas and deciding things.

We need people in charge of making good decisions, especially when it comes to our military applications and our online applications where we need to protect our kids.

Because AI used online for bullying purposes, harassment purposes, and it's affecting kids mental health.

There was recently a settlement as a result of lawsuits against Meta because of mental health issues that have caused kids to attempt and commit suicide.

We need to do better for everybody in our community when it comes to regulation of AI.

[HENDERSON] Dave Dawson we've had candidates sitting at this table who have suggested that federal law should forbid social media accounts, Instagram, TikTok and those sorts of things for anyone 16 and younger.

Is that something that you believe you would vote for if you were in the U.S.

House?

[DAWSON] Yes, I definitely believe that.

I've worked as a prosecutor for nearly 20 years, and I have seen firsthand the effects of online bullying and the constant scrolling and the negative effect that it has on kids.

And we need to make sure that kids are protected from online harassment and online chat bots that are giving them bad advice and encourage them to do things that are dangerous.

We need to have rules in place.

And if you can't drive before it's 16, I don't think it makes sense for you to be online before you're age 16 and exposed to too many things that are harmful.

[HENDERSON] Chris McGowan, is that something you would support if you're a member of Congress?

[MCGOWAN] I'm not an advocate for more federal regulation.

I'm an advocate for a smaller, more efficient government.

That said, there's clearly a role for government in policing these types of things.

My opponent has been a prosecutor for a very long time, and I applaud his service with the Woodbury County Attorney's Office.

Dave has said on many occasions that he's worked very, very hard to protect children.

And as a prosecutor, he has a very unique perspective on that.

I think that should I be successful and elected, Dave is exactly the type of person that would be welcome at the table to talk about the right way to balance the First Amendment, protecting children, prosecuting those who act with ill intent.

But if we're going to enforce more regulations on families and substitute the role of the federal government for parents, I think that's a mistake and a bridge too far.

[MURPHY] Gentlemen, I want to spend a little time on ag policy here.

The latest USDA estimates indicate there are nearly 30,000 farm operations in the Fourth Congressional District that you're seeking to represent.

Only two other U.S.

House districts in the country have more in Nebraska and Minnesota.

I know a lot of Iowans won't be happy to hear that.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Congress has banned private equity firms and institutional investors from buying single family homes.

Chris McGowan, should Congress also forbid private equity purchases of farmland?

[MCGOWAN] Well, Erin, again, this gets into the federal government regulating perhaps where it's not needed.

This is a difficult question because one of the considerations must be if you have a century farm and maybe you don't have another generation to take that farm, and the highest bidder is a private equity firm, is it really the role of the federal government to interfere with that economic transaction and say, no, you cannot sell to the highest bidder?

I think that's a mistake.

But I do recognize that we have to work very, very hard to make sure that we have policies that are friendly to farmers and advocate for the continuity that is so important to the ag industry, to value added ag and the culture that is so unique in the state of Iowa.

[MURPHY] So, if not banning those kinds of purposes, how can you help address this issue?

And this gets into what Dave was talking about earlier as well with consolidation.

[MCGOWAN] One of the most important things that we can do is we can make capital available to younger farmers so that they can acquire acreages and farms and land.

This is a really special place, and I want to see that maintained our agriculture and agribusiness sectors are incredibly powerful.

They teach work ethic, they teach responsibility.

They teach an honest day's wage for an honest day's work.

I'm proud of what ag has done for the state of Iowa.

I want to see that continue.

And I think that the federal government should be engaged in policy policies through the ag bill, through economic stimulus, and through loans from the USDA that make it possible for more younger people to engage in this vitally important industry to the state of Iowa.

[MURPHY] Dave Dawson the same question to you should Congress forbid private equity purchases of farmland?

[DAWSON] Well, the preface to your question, you talked about there being over 30,000 farms in the Fourth Congressional District.

I remember as a kid, we had a lot more farms.

We've lost a lot of farms over the last 40 years.

My grandpa used to be a farmer.

My parents ran a small agricultural business in Washta, where I grew up in Cherokee County, and we need to do more to make sure that we have small farms and family farms that remain here and actually have owners that live in this.

In Iowa, we have far too many absent landowners with foreign ownership of farmland, and these private equity firms that have no interest in improving the quality of our air, our water, or actually using the land in a productive way that actually makes our state better.

So, I would support a ban on private equity firms and out of state foreign ownership of our farmland in Iowa, to make sure that there are opportunities for new and beginning farmers to have land passed on to them.

We need more farmers on the land actually doing the work here in Iowa and revitalizing rural communities, instead of having absent foreign landowners.

[MURPHY] Some of these policies could be addressed in a farm bill, but Congress has failed to pass a new farm bill to each of you.

How would you propose resolving that impasse?

Dave Dawson, we'll start with you.

If Congress has not passed a farm bill by the end of this year, and if you were elected, how would you help bridge that impasse that has Congress has been stuck on for a number of years now?

[DAWSON] Really, the farm bill has been expired for three years, and usually it's in place for at least five.

And without having a long term farm bill in place, it's harder for farmers to plan long term from year to year about what programs will be available that they can rely on to make sure that their farms are run efficiently and have the support of the federal government to make sure that it's a well-run and managed small business is what farmers are.

So, I would support a farm bill, even if the Democrats aren't in charge.

I want to make sure that we're moving forward on a farm bill.

I was glad to see that the U.S.

Senate included E15 as part of the farm bill, and I would have supported the current bill even though it didn't have everything.

It doesn't have enough support for supplemental food programs.

But I believe that we need to have a long term farm bill in place for our farmers to provide some stability, and so I would have supported it, even though not every Democrat did.

[MURPHY] Chris McGowan, Iowa's Republican - Iowa's delegation has been all Republican for a number of years now.

Is there a secret sauce that you could bring to the table to help get the house to pass a farm bill?

[MCGOWAN] Well, Erin, the house has passed the farm bill.

You know that.

[MURPHY] I should say the entire, both chambers.

[MCGOWAN] And I want to give credit to Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks.

Congresswoman Ashley Hinson, Congressman Zach Nunn, and of course, Congressman Randy Feenstra, because those four have banded together and done an outstanding job advocating for ag policy on behalf of the state of Iowa.

Not only did they pass a farm bill, but through the efforts of those four members of Congress, we also saw E15 pass, but by only one vote.

The good news is it passed.

The bad news is that we could use some more support in the House.

And also, we need the Senate to pick this up, and hopefully this will be passed by the end of the year.

We've talked about E15 and several of these questions.

If the ag bill is passed, we have year round E15, which does provide new markets for our farmers and does provide relief at the gas pump.

Those are both very positive and I support them.

That said, I will continue to advocate for ag policy.

I've been involved in value added ag on the economic development side for over two decades.

I'm proud of the work that we've done, most recently with Sue Bee Honey value added ag in Sioux City, $130 million corporate campus expansion.

I will continue to advocate for those kinds of projects and more jobs and more capital investment in our communities.

[BRUMMER] Devastating flooding hit northwest Iowa more than two years ago.

It was heartbreaking to see all the damage and the hardest hit community Rock Valley.

They're still dealing with this aftermath.

The city manager says that there's been so much red tape, even though FEMA employees have been great to work with, he says the system is broken.

Dave Dawson, what do you think should be done when it comes to FEMA?

[DAWSON] We need to reform FEMA.

As you know, I've been holding town halls all across the Fourth Congressional District.

I had one in Orange City just this last week where a woman has been affected by the lack of flood recovery efforts because she's still not back into her home in Rock Valley.

And we need to have FEMA work better.

So, I think we need a whole scale reform of FEMA to make sure that they can provide the relief up front and make sure that there are audits to make sure that the money is being spent accurately when local communities know the needs of their communities, they should be able to give an upfront estimate of the cost so that the government can pay out quicker.

They shouldn't have to wait years and years.

You know, whether it's in Spencer or Lyon County or floods all across northwest Iowa over the last decade, we need to have a better job of meeting the needs of our community when we have such devastating floods.

[BRUMMER] Chris McGowan is the federal government doing enough to help the flood victims in the fourth district?

[MCGOWAN] No, they're not.

And I'm reminded of FEMA's poor performance in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, approximately 20 years in the New Orleans area, if I remember correctly, Sheila, the FEMA administrator at that time, was a gentleman by the name of Michael Brown, and he was relieved by the president of that responsibility.

We have to do better when people are - the federal government has a role and a responsibility to provide relief.

We have not done a good enough job, and that's one of the areas that I will be focused on should I be elected on November 3rd.

[BRUMMER] And what would your plan be?

[MCGOWAN] Well, I think that it begins with a dialog and conversation in a bipartisan way.

Mr.

Dawson and I are both articulating that FEMA is not run well enough at this time.

It's not responsive enough.

And so, I believe that there are going to be voices on both sides of the aisle, that we can come together and that we can pass legislation and reform that focuses on individuals so that when we have these natural disasters, We just had a natural disaster that that came ashore in Destin, Florida in the past week.

So, FEMA is responding to that.

We have an obligation.

We have a responsibility to do better with these types of natural disasters and providing American citizens with the resources and they and the relief that they need.

[HENDERSON] You have both said current immigration laws should be enforced.

Chris McGowan, very few businesses and corporations, though, are prosecuted for knowingly hiring people who are not eligible to work or live in the United States.

There was a member of the Iowa House of Representatives who continually pressed to increase penalties on, successfully pressed to increase penalties on corporations and businesses who knowingly hired people who weren't here legally.

What's your view of what the federal government should do in this regard?

[MCGOWAN] Well, the federal government has a responsibility to secure our border, and I want to give credit where credit is due.

The Trump administration, in one of their first acts, reversed the Biden administration open southern border.

I believe that Secretary Mayorkas at the Department of Homeland Security did a woefully inadequate job in enforcing border security.

The Trump administration, under the leadership of Tom Homan, has done a remarkable job.

I tell the story, Kay, of a dear friend of mine in the Siouxland Metro, a business executive who came to this country after college from overseas, finished his graduate work here.

It took him 17 years to become a United States citizen, and he invested $42,000 in that process.

That's not acceptable.

We talk about FEMA reform, Sheila.

We should also be reforming immigration.

When somebody lawfully petitions our government to become a citizen it should not take 17 years and $42,000.

That's unacceptable.

And so, we have to sit down and say, we must streamline this process.

But that conversation can only begin now because the Trump administration has secured the border and prevented millions of undocumented people from pouring across our border with Mexico.

[HENDERSON] Should penalties be increased for businesses and corporations that knowingly employ people who are not eligible to work in the United States?

[MCGOWAN] Of course they should.

We are a nation of laws.

We must uphold those laws and we must expect individuals as well as business entities to adhere to and abide by those laws.

If a corporation or a business is knowingly violating law, whether it's to immigration or any other subject matter, they should be prosecuted.

[HENDERSON] Dave Dawson, same question to you.

Should penalties be increased for businesses and corporations that knowingly hire someone that they shouldn't?

[DAWSON] Absolutely.

Because current levels of prosecution have been inadequate against corporate violators.

And also, the penalties are not discouraging them from continuing to engage in the practice.

We wouldn't have such a large number of immigrants coming into the United States without authorization if there weren't willing employers to hire them here in the United States.

So, we need to make sure that we are enforcing immigration law on both sides, both the people who enter the country without authorization, and also the corporations who are hiring them.

Because if we want an immigration system that works better, what we needed to do was pass an immigration reform bill that both protected the southern border and provided a pathway to allow more people to immigrate to the country lawfully, at less expense and over a shorter period of time.

And that bill existed in the U.S.

Congress back in 2024.

But the current president, when he was campaigning for his second term, tanked the bill and encouraged Republican members not to vote for it.

And they all went along with that.

Instead of actually passing a bill that could have moved us further along and protected the southern border, and also made sure that we had a stronger immigration system to meet the needs of our employers, because there is definitely a need for immigration.

Iowa is an aging population and shrinking population, and a large part of the population growth is actually from immigration here, especially here in northwest Iowa, where our ag economy in both meat processing and farming and CAFOs rely on immigrant labor to get a lot of that work done.

So, we need to improve the system to make sure it works better for everyone.

[HENDERSON] Chris McGowan, the Trump administration has made some changes in the H-1B visa program.

You have said H-1B visas are very important for rural hospitals in the fourth district.

Do you agree with the changes that have been made?

[MCGOWAN] Well, we would have to specify the changes that you're talking about.

But I have advocated that our H-1 program, and there's a whole series of letters that match various professions with those visas, we all recognize nationwide, not particularly in Iowa, but there are some seasonal workers in Iowa related to ag.

It's far more useful in places like California, in Florida for harvesting crops.

I have advocated for a faster path to citizenship, a cheaper path, a less expensive path to citizenship, but also when we have people who have exceptional skills, and this is often the case in medicine, we are doing everything we can to make sure that we expand access to health care in rural areas.

I'm very proud of my father.

He's a family practice physician.

He's 89 years old today.

He spent over 50 years running a residency program in cooperation with the University of Iowa to train young people who had just graduated from med school, and they spent three years under his mentorship to become family practice physicians and to open their own offices and clinics.

Over 200 of those young people practiced right in the area, in the Tri-State area where that program existed.

We need to continue to do that.

And some of those physicians come from overseas.

That is a way to help us increase access to health care in rural areas.

And so, yes, I would be an advocate for expanding those visas for skilled labor like that.

[HENDERSON] Dave Dawson, what's your view about the H-1B visa program?

[DAWSON] Well, if we can't find the workers that we need here in Iowa, we need to do something different with regards to those programs to make sure that we have adequate workers in our health care fields.

We also need to make sure that we are making sure that higher education is more affordable, so that people who want to go into health care can get the training that they need so that they can have those jobs right here in the United States.

And really, we've had actions by the current administration to not make it easier for people with professional degrees, including nurses and social workers, to get lower interest loans for their higher education degrees.

And we need to make sure that it actually works better for the people right here.

And we wouldn't have to be looking for workers outside of our country.

[MURPHY] Gentlemen, federal tax credits for carbon dioxide pipeline through Iowa, including the fourth district, are available through 2033.

Meantime, at least two dozen county boards of supervisors in the state have voiced formal opposition to the project and the use of eminent domain.

Dave Dawson, we'll start with you.

Do you support the project or would you vote to repeal those federal tax credits?

[DAWSON] I don't think it's appropriate for the state of Iowa to use eminent domain for a private, out-of-state corporation to construct a pipeline.

I just don't think it's appropriate it violates the personal property rights.

And I think the Supreme Court decision from 2005 that I know my opponent has talked about several times in many interviews, was wrong because I think people's property, right, is personal and they shouldn't be allowed to have it taken for private gain by an out-of-state corporation.

I do think there are important tax credits to help encourage the development of the ethanol industry in the state, that that pipeline could help support, and I'm not opposed to the pipeline, but they shouldn't be able to use eminent domain to go on whatever path they want to, to have the carbon capture pipeline go across the state of Iowa.

[MURPHY] Chris McGowan, similarly to you, do you support the pipeline project?

And should those federal tax credits help finance the project that may use eminent domain?

[MCGOWAN] The reality in this situation is that Iowans have been very clear about their private property rights.

These tax credits that the federal government instituted essentially come from the Green New Deal and are an awful lot of people who don't think that they're particularly useful.

This is the genesis of the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline.

And I have said for more than a year now that we do as much as we recognize that we want to create new markets for our farmers and for corn and for ethanol, we can't do it at the expense of foundational values like individual personal property rights.

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Kelo versus New London, Connecticut, that you could condemn private property for a public use.

Now, for 100 plus years leading up to that, a public use was defined as a road, a bridge, a school, a park, a military installation.

In the Kelo decision 21 years ago, the court said, well, we're going to expand the definition of a public use to a public purpose.

And the purpose was we can generate more income from a strip mall than we can from a farm.

I think that was wrongly decided.

I do have confidence that if the Supreme Court has given the opportunity to address this, that case will be reversed and we will protect individual property rights.

[BRUMMER] There are coal fired power plants operating in the fourth district, and the EPA just rolled back carbon and other emissions regulations for these plants.

Chris McGowan, do you agree with the rollback and what limits should the federal government put on this form of energy?

[MCGOWAN] We need to increase our access to energy.

We've talked about the affordability crisis.

Part of that is the cost of energy.

If we had built the Keystone pipeline years ago, we wouldn't be facing the $6 prices for diesel and the $4 prices for unleaded gas that we see today.

That would have created 800,000 barrels of oil coming into this country daily.

We failed to do that.

That said, it should be noted that Iowa's Fourth Congressional District has been recognized as the number one sustainable energy producing district in the country.

That's wind.

That's solar.

That's ethanol.

That's biodiesel.

I would like to do everything I can to see us continue that track record, which I think distinguishes us from 434 other congressional districts in the United States.

[BRUMMER] What about the rollbacks?

[MCGOWAN] Well, we have to be more specific about what you're talking about.

[BRUMMER] The coal plants.

[MCGOWAN] Well, no, I know what - yeah, at Port Neal, just outside of Sioux City, they closed two of the four plants.

Do I think they need to close more plants?

I think we saw Texas learn a hard lesson a couple of years ago, when temperatures got cold and people couldn't have access to heating oil, electricity, energy.

So, I'm an advocate for a robust energy policy.

I recognize that there are environmental considerations that are involved in this as well.

But I think that that providers like MidAmerican Energy have balanced their coal producing plants with wind energy, with solar energy, with biodiesel, with ethanol, and that's made a great story for Iowa for to tell.

[BRUMMER] Dave Dawson, how should the federal government limit emissions from power plants, especially coal power powered ones?

[DAWSON] I support the rules that were in place to require greater protection for our environment, so that we have clean air, so that people are not getting disease or affected by bad quality air.

So, the regulations should stay in place, and coal fired plants need to make sure that they're complying with those regulations and whether it shouldn't lead to closures of plants.

It should change how they operate.

You know, they have to improve their operations to reduce their emissions into the air.

And that's what should be happening, because we don't want anybody getting sick from any businesses that are in our communities.

But really having to talk about the gas and the diesel having to go up to $6 and $4 a gallon, that has to do directly with the war in Iran.

It has nothing to do with whether or not a pipeline was built a decade ago.

We really need to focus on solutions about what's going on and what's causing the issues in our communities.

And those gas prices could be brought down immediately by voting to end the war.

[HENDERSON] Candidates, a lot of issues left in just a few minutes left.

If Congress doesn't adjust payroll taxes, the estimate is that in six years, Social Security will only be able to pay 78% of benefits.

Chris McGowan, what's the answer?

[MCGOWAN] The answer is that we have to protect Social Security for all those who are currently participating.

However, we have to look to the future, Kay.

The reality is that this system will be insolvent in less than ten years if we do not see Congress take some action and reform this program.

When this program was started, the average life expectancy was approximately 61 years.

Okay.

Retirement was at 65, so we didn't see that many people collecting on it.

With advances in health care, with advances in diet and exercise and nutraceuticals and pharmaceuticals, we're seeing the life expectancy expand greatly.

That sets up an economic crisis for Social Security.

So, it requires like-minded people on both sides of the aisle to recognize that to protect this important program for all Americans and for many, many years into the future, it requires that we sit down and have a robust conversation.

I don't want anybody to misconstrue what I've said to in any way impact those who are currently involved in the system, because that's how politics works.

Sometimes all of a sudden there's finger pointing.

The fact of the matter is we need to sit down in a bipartisan way.

Everybody can recognize the economics and the trouble that lies on the horizon for Social Security without a bipartisan effort to address this, to fix it, to reform it for future generations.

[HENDERSON] Are any ideas off the table for you?

[MCGOWAN] Well, you'd have to be more specific about what ideas we're talking about - [HENDERSON] Raising the retirement age.

[MCGOWAN] Well, I think that, as I said in the initial remark, it should not be changed for those currently in the system.

However, for future generations who are not currently enrolled, we should look at changing the retirement age because we're living longer and we have a financial crisis.

[HENDERSON] Dave Dawson?

[DAWSON] Well, I'm currently participating in the Social Security system.

I've been paying into Social Security since I got my first job when I was 15 years old.

So, I think you're talking about way off into the future.

People who are not participating would be very, very young.

And I really think the best way to actually make the Social Security system solvent is to make people like Elon Musk pay on their entire income.

If you're a millionaire or a billionaire, you should have to pay on your entire income every year, just like everybody else has to all the way up through the 100% mark of your paycheck.

And right now, we have an income cap that caps it at for 2027 will be around $187,000.

And people who make more than that in the top 10% need to make sure that they are participating in this program to make it solvent.

They can collect just like everybody else, but I would be opposed to raising retirement age or cutting benefits when we can simply lift the income cap and make the program solvent.

[HENDERSON] Last question, Sheila.

[BRUMMER] So many people say they're tired of the negativity.

They're tired of all the ads.

You two have been very civil to each other in your interactions throughout this election season.

Dave Dawson, will that approach actually work in Congress?

[DAWSON] I would hope so.

I served in the Iowa House for four years, and I got to know my Republican colleagues and actually worked with them on bills and got bipartisan bills passed through the Iowa House unanimously and signed into law by a Republican governor Branstad when I served in my four years in the Iowa Legislature.

And it has to do with having face to face conversations, getting to know people and actually respecting their ideas and coming together and finding common ground.

And that was my history of being somebody who would work hard, get to know my constituents issues, and try and get results.

That's why I've held town halls all across the Fourth Congressional District.

I've held at least one in all 36 counties this past weekend.

I just finished my 45th town hall meeting, and I participated in 279 events all across the fourth Congressional District in small towns from Zearing to Rock Rapids and from Thompson to Sidney.

I've been everywhere in this district, getting to know the issues and working hard and talking to Democrats, Republicans and independents who know it's time for change in Iowa's fourth Congressional District.

[BRUMMER] Chris McGowan, how would you carry that positive approach to Congress, even when working across the aisle could come at a political cost, potentially?

[MCGOWAN] As an economic development professional I've recognized that job creation and capital investment is bipartisan.

I've worked with the Branstad administration, the Vilsack administration, the Culver administration, the Reynolds administration to help facilitate the creation of jobs and to recruit capital to our communities.

I'm no stranger to a bipartisan work ethic.

And as we close, I want to once again, as you raise the question about the race that Dave and I have run, I think that we both share a sense that our campaign is rooted in civil discourse, that we're focused on policy and not personalities.

And I hope that our families, both of our families can look at the race that we've won or that we've run and take pride in the way that we have conducted ourselves.

I congratulate Dave, we had a meeting at the Woodbury County Fair, and we had this consensus, this accord, that we were going to conduct our affairs this way.

And I'm proud to be part of this race.

[HENDERSON] You both you both support 12 years in the House and 12 years in the Senate as term limits.

Chris McGowan, would that help with civility?

[MCGOWAN] Well, I want to be very careful about what we say.

I'm not familiar with the position that Dave has taken, but I have signed pledges that say I will support term limits with one caveat that has to extend to all members of the House and the Senate, because if we don't do it that way, Kay, we undermine Iowa's ability to have a larger impact on Congress.

And I imagine that Dave feels the same way.

[HENDERSON] Dave?

[DAWSON] Yes, I believe it's important that we pass term limits in both the House and the Senate so we don't have career politicians, so we have more public servants like I was when I served for four years and walked away because I never wanted to be a career politician.

And I pledged to work hard on behalf of the people of the fourth district, not only for term limits, but also to ban members of Congress from trading stock on the stock market so that they're not profiting off of their votes, and also to make sure we overturn Citizens United, to get all of this corporate PAC money out of our politics and end the endless cycle of negative campaign ads that we've seen nonstop over the last month.

[HENDERSON] Candidates, thank you both for being here today and sharing your views with viewers.

[MCGOWAN] Thank you for having us.

[DAWSON] Thank you for having us.

[HENDERSON] There's one more Iowa Press Debate remaining.

We'll question the two candidates for governor Zach Lahn and Rob Sand next Wednesday, October 21st.

It is a 90-minute debate live at 7 p.m.

on statewide Iowa PBS and streaming online.

If you missed any of the other Iowa Press Debates, you may find those online at iowapbs.org.

For everyone here at Iowa PBS, thanks for watching today.

♪♪ [ANNOUNCER] Funding for Iowa Press was provided by Friends, the Iowa PBS Foundation.

[ANNOUNCER] The Bob and Doreen Sheppard Family, proud supporters of educational programming seen only on Iowa PBS.

♪♪ [ANNOUNCER] Banking in Iowa goes beyond transactions.

Banks work to help people and small businesses succeed, and Iowa banks are committed to building confident banking relationships.

Iowa banks, your partner through it all.