The race for Congress in eastern Iowa.

We speak with the incumbent U.S.

representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks on The Cities.

[livley music] [music ends] From now until Election Day we hope to bring to you each of the candidates running for Congress in the cities.

In this election cycle we've extended invitations to the candidates running in the Illinois 17th district.

And Iowas first at district races.

And on the Sunday afternoon before Election day, we'll run all of the interviews back t back on WQPT public television.

We start with the race for Iowa's first congressional district that includes the Iowa Quad Cities, Clinton, Muscatine, and Burlington.

It is regarded as a toss up district featuring incumbent Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Democrat Christina Bohannan, an Independent Michael Bridgford.

And we start this wee with Mariannette Miller-Meeks.

She served in Congress since 2021.

She was an Iowa state senator and former head of the Iowa Department of Public Health.

She's a U.S.

Air Force veteran and ophthalmologist.

Well, Representative Miller-Meeks, thank you for joining us.

First of all, can you explain to us wh are you running for reelection?

Well, I think when you want to have a Congress person, and most people do, that is accessible, that's available, that is working for them.

That puts Iowa first and the district first and is there to serve them, not serve themselves.

Then I'm a Congress person that has done that.

The six years that I've been in office.

And I'll continue to put my district and Iowa, first and, continu to bring good paying jobs there, bring down healthcare costs both in premiums and prescription drugs, and then work on getting wages up in Iowa.

Have you notice since your term, first started, since you first arrived in Washington how difficult it is actually to make good on a lot of promises that are made by candidates.

Well, going from the state Senate, where you're one of 50 to Congress, where you're one of 435, I think that has been the most challenging thing as both a veteran, and a doctor and a former nurse.

I'm used to being able to solve problems and get things done.

I want to execute.

I don't want clicks.

I'm a workhorse, not a show horse.

And so, yes, it can be monumentally difficult to get things done in Washington, but nonetheless, I've managed to get bills signed into law.

I've managed to get bills put into larger packages.

And we've really done some things that have been helpful for individuals.

And I'll give you an example of that.

As I was coming out of one of our Caseys, down in Louisa County, and a person comes out of the cases, I thought they were delivering something to this store, and they look at me and they said, are you?

And I go, Miller-Meeks.

I go, yes, I am.

And he goes, I just want to thank you.

I got the biggest tax refund I've ever received.

I can really use that money.

So I just want to thank you for then I go, you're welcome.

That's why you do it.

And then he goes, And I'm a Democrat.

I'm never going to vote for you.

But I wanted to thank you.

And I said, well, we do i for all Iowans, all Americans.

That's the purpose of it, is to help put money back in people's pockets.

And I want to tal about the “Big Beautiful Bill” that you support in just a moment.

But let me talk a little bit about the war in Iran, which is impacting everybody's pocketbook, of course.

You joined a Zach Nunn and you're one of six Republicans to, actually bac the September War Powers vote.

You hadn't backed it in the past.

What changed your mind now?

Well, actually, my mind has bee very clear since this started.

Seven presidents have said, and I agree, that we cannot have a nuclear armed Iran.

This is a conflict and something that should have been done about it earlier.

We were allowing Iran to skirt sanctions, to sell oil, at below market prices to China, of all places.

And so I understand wha the president is trying to do, but at the same point in time I believe Congress has a role.

So, for those who listen to my town halls, participate in my town halls and here in DC and to the administration, I said, you know the president gets 60 to 90 days in military conflict.

President Obama, I think, had seven months in Libya and Congress never intervened.

And I did not hear the rhetoric I hear now.

But 60 to 90 days, the president can intervene or can engage in military conflict.

We then went into a cease fire.

And having been in the military for 24 years, you don't want to do somethin that's going to deter or impact a president's ability to negotiate and to have leverage when they're going into peace settlements.

As that came about, through the summer, I again warned that I would be more likely to support a War Powers Act if the cease fire did not hold, the cease fire did not hold through August.

I came back, discussed again with my team that this was what I was likely to do.

We can't have a forever war.

And we've got, diesel prices and gasoline prices that are high.

And we know that's impacting Iowans.

And so, I feel, number one Congress needs to be addressed.

Number two, we can't have a nuclear armed Iran.

But at the same point in time, we also can't have a forever war.

Well, critics say that you're doing it for political reasons because it's coming close to an election time and it's an unpopular war.

What do you say to that?

I would sa the president has 60 to 90 days.

We had a ceasefire this was the first time I had an opportunity to vote, once the ceasefire had collapsed.

And so this has been my long held belief.

You can go back and listen to my town halls, where I said exactl the same thing as I'm doing now.

So, I would say again, n one wants a nuclear armed Iran.

Both parties have said we cannot have a nuclear armed Iran, bu we also can't have forever wars With those two thoughts in mind, the Forever war and no nuclear Iran.

What does a victory look like to you?

Well that's the thing that we want.

We want the administration to come talk to us about, that was the purpose of my vote is to have the administration let us know.

What's the plan?

What is the strategy?

How do we define success?

None of us want to lose, but we have to define what success is.

You know, I work with Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who have been on multiple deployments.

It's difficult for them, difficult for their families.

We have lives that are lost.

And I think any administration I asked the same thing of President Biden when we are being asked to send money to Ukraine.

And so representative Mike Garcia and I and some of the other military members of Congress, asked the Biden administration, what's the plan?

What's the strategy?

How long are we going to fund this?

What's, you know, what do we define success?

We wanted to have metrics an a plan, an idea and a strategy.

And I want the same thing, for this conflict in Iran.

Does it bother you tha we've kind of gone at it alone?

We don't hav that much international support.

And in some ways, this war ha really hurt America's prestige.

I think that it's bette when you can have allies across.

When we saw that President Bush did that with the global war on terror, he had allies across the United States.

You know, when, Bide did the disastrous incompetent withdrawal from Afghanistan we actually harmed our allies.

We didn't tell them we were leaving.

We abandoned them, including our Afghan allies and Afghan military.

We just left in the middle of the night.

So, yes, it's important to be able to do things in a strategic way with your allies.

And we do have allies in the Middle East, allies that we have developed, that are also do not want a nuclear armed Iran, in the Middle Eastern countries through the Abraham Accords or economic modernization.

So it is important to have those allies.

But I think it's incumbent, the War Powers Act exists for a reason and that's because of Vietnam.

I'm a Vietnam era veteran.

I didn't serve in Vietnam, but my brother did.

And I saw what that war did.

I saw what it means to have forever wars.

And so there is a time where a president of either party has some latitude in conducting military operations.

But that is a very brief, limited period of time.

And we want to know what's the.. [signal interruption] ...success.

We want to win.

But we, and how much is it going to cost You say that there, you talked about the allies, and when you talk about allies in this particular conflict, it appears to be what Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, but not Europe.

It's not the traditional allies that America depends on.

And again, I am all in favor of, you know, getting those allies, talking to them, strategizing with them, involving them, in the conflict.

But, you know, at this point in time, we haven't had that direction from the white House.

And I think it's important that we get that direction, especially when you're asking Iowans and the American people to sacrifice, you nee you need to have those answers.

And we don't have those answers yet.

Well, and right now, the sacrifice really is, hitting the pocketbook.

We're talking I talk about oil prices, which, of course, impact.

Then, food and consumer goods prices.

Isn't this a self-inflicted wound to the US?

Well, I think, again, nuclear armed Iran is extraordinarily dangerous to the United States.

So there is a, you know, a US position to be had.

It is in US interes to make sure that there is not a nuclear armed Iran, just like the other Middle Eastern countries, do not want a nuclear armed Iran.

So, you know, having goods travel through the Strait of Hormuz, a nuclear armed Iran would make that extraordinarily difficult, even more difficult than it is now.

So I think to your point, there is a rationale for the United States to be involved.

And other nations, other European nations, as well as Asian nations and Middle Eastern nations, there is a reason to prevent, Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Those are valid, and justifiable reasons.

But, I would really like to hear, from the administration what their plan is, what the strategy, what the dollars are, what constitutes a win.

You said that you would support suspending gas taxes and stop exporting diesel fuel to other countries in a way to keep more of that in the United States and hopefully keep prices, down.

Is that still your position?

And that's really pretty much a short term fix, isn't it?

Exactly.

It is a short term fix.

Right now with diesel prices, we're going into harvest.

Except for all the rain, you can't we can't get in the fields right now, but, very soon we'll be able to get in th fields and harvest time and... [signal interruption] ...our economy that is already struggling, farmers that are already struggling.

I think this is a short term, it is a short term fix or short term solution.

But we need the longer term solution, which is what's our strategy for, extricating ourself from Iran allowing and, and you know, to that point, what about refineries bringing refineries on board Ukraine bombing refineries and oil and gas in, Russia?

All of those things are affecting the global price of oil.

And so there is a longer term strategy, longer term conversations to be had as well, suspending, gas taxes, both federal and state and, suspending export of diesel.

Those are short term strategies.

They're meant to be brief.

They're meant to just relieve a little of the pressure.

But they're not meant to be long term strategies.

We need both.

You introduce what you call the, Playbook for America.

Pretty much a five pillars policy initiative.

Iowa first is the first thing you have listed.

Affordable and accessible health care, the backing of the law enforcement, eliminate fraud, restore trus and to lower costs, for Iowans.

All of these seem to make sense.

Is it really a playbook or is it pretty much just a campaign?

I don't want to say campaign policy was just a campaign trick?

Well, if you look at the bills that we've introduced and we just had one, that, passed the Senate last week.

So our Critical, Infrastructure, Accessibility Act.

So that bill, our Chips Act, those bills,our recycling bills.

So we have numerous bills that we have passed through, that are all about getting more manufacturing jobs in Iowa and in the US.

And then we have bills that we've done on, pharmacy benefit managers capping insulin at $35, lowering health care premiums for all Americans Act, multi cancer early detection.

So those bills which are even over the course of my career.

But a lot of them in these past two years really do emphasize what it is that we're saying in the play [book]... [signal interruption] ...we have bills that we have passed or have introduced in order to, justify those positions.

So we're doing what we said we would do.

So bringing jobs back, that's tremendously important ah, to bring jobs back to Iowa.

And so tariffs work in some ways for that.

Some of our industries, benefit from the tariffs.

In other places there can be challenges with that.

The, you know, bringing down, taxes on our businesses, our manufacturing taxes for research and development, for depreciation.

The 199As for small businesses.

I can talk to you farmers, small business owners.

I just met with people in the office last week where there was 199A provisions are critically important to be able, for those individuals, the NFIB.

And what about no tax on tips no tax on overtimes, the $6,000 deduction, for senior citizens on social Security, the doubling of the child care tax credit, the, baby accounts, which are, you know, can be transformational to low income and middle, middle income families.

I think that the things that we're saying that we have done are a roadmap for how we're going to introduc bills, what we're going to do, but also it's all wha we've done before in the past.

And then, you know, on corruption and restoring trust in government.

I was the director of public health.

I think the trust in government and government institutions is extremely important.

And one of the, one of the things we can do is to ban inside trading by members of Congress.

So, I'm one of the lead, sponsors of that bill.

I don't own individual stocks, unlike my opponent.

But we also think that needs to be extended to members of the administration.

It's the into the white House as well.

So not only tackling corruption within government agencies, but also, corruption that, we can be susceptible to as members of Congress.

You brought up the issue of tariffs.

And of course, that's been in and out of the US Supreme Court as far as the powers that the president has.

But Congress usually is in charge of, of tariffs and that type of policy for the United States of America.

Are you worried that Congres has not acted enough in regards to the tariff question, and has pretty much just allowed the president to do as he wishes?

Well, I think, again, there are both pros and cons when it comes to tariffs.

One of the bills I introduced was, a bill to remove the, tariffs or countervailing duties from fertilizer from Morocco to help bring down fertilizer cost and get more competition here in the United States.

And so I think broad based, tariffs are less effective than tariffs that are targeted, and they're temporary and they're aimed at certain industries.

So we know that there can, the goa of bringing manufacturing back to the United States, that's a laudible goal.

I think all of us want that.

I saw my family members, both my parents-in-law and my brothers- in-law and sister-in-law in North Carolina lose their job in the textile mill over NAFTA.

And so we know that, you know, where manufacturing leaves the United States, bringing manufacturing back, levelin that playing field is important.

But bringing manufacturing back and new, new plants, that's long term.

That's something that's 4 or 5 years down the road.

It's not immediate.

So working at keeping energy costs low, tha helps manufacturing.

The tariffs I can tell you, I have businesses and manufacturers in our district right now who are very supportive of the tariffs.

And I have others where it's causing, a lot of challenges.

So I think it needs to b very targeted, not broad based.

And look at the industrie that we're trying to keep here in the United States, allow them to be, competitive in a global environment.

But then also allow some manufacturing to come back to the United States.

We, the other thing is we saw how, how challenging and how difficult and how much a disadvantage we were in the United States during COVID because we didn' have diversified supply chains.

So where we can onshore or Friend Shore I think is helpful as well too.

But you've talked to us several farmers and tariff have really hit, farmers hard.

And, and when you lose those export markets, other countries are quick to snap up, as you well know.

I mean, soybeans, you look to Brazil now, and, and once you lose those markets, it's hard to get them back.

Are you worried about agriculture, Particularly in your district, that may have long term losses because of these tariffs?

Well, it's why we put in the estate tax provisions and the death tax provisions and the Working Families Tax Cut.

It's also why we passed Year Round E15, in our farm bill, which we've already passed, the farm bill in the House as well.

So there's provisions for both crop insurance conservation, water quality.

But importantly, there' trade provisions within there.

So trade is important.

And I can tell you, farmers, they've taken the brunt of, bad trade practices and egregious trade practices for decades.

They have wanted a President, to take on the trade practices of other nations, especially thos of the Chinese Communist Party, whether it's trade manipulation, whether it is having cargo that they refuse to accept and it goes rancid while it's sitting in a port in a cargo container.

And then, so there's a refument, refusal of payment, and then the cargo goes bad and they refuse the cargo because it's bad.

So those farmers want to have, more trade opportunities, but they also want there to be trade that's fair, not trade that puts them at a disadvantage.

And Brazil does have three growing seasons.

So to your point, they hav a less carbon intensity score.

So, you know, provisions that we have put in place are helping, in Iowa to be able to compete even with Brazil.

And China, as you know, is developing infrastructure to make it easier for Brazil to get its products out, globally.

So that also is somethin that we have to be very mindful of in the United States.

We have to be competitive globally.

You do know that Eastern Iowa, of course, is dealing with issue as far as, AI and data centers.

A number of communities looking at moratoriums.

You're seeing it kind of piecemeal right now with with cities and counties trying to tackle a new frontier that nobody really knows is, what's going to happen, or how quickly this is going to unfold.

The president is very gung ho with data centers, very gung ho with AI seeing really no downside to that.

What do you see?

I mean do you fear the rapid expansion?

Do you fear that perhaps a more limits should be pu in, that Congress would enact?

Well, first and foremost, I think people's concerns about AI and data centers are valid.

So whether the concern is about what the jobs are, whether the concern is about an autonomous augmented intelligence taking over, or whether it's concerns about water quality or electricity rates, I think that those concerns are very valid concerns.

And one of the things that we've done is to pass the Ratepayer Protection Act.

So we passed the Ratepayer Protection Act in the House.

As you know the data center in Cedar Rapids had a five year moratorium on rate increases.

When that data center, a that data center is being built.

So looking at stabilizing electricity rates for communities, it's why we passed it.

And it was stopped in the Senate by a Democrat.

And so, but that is trying to address people's concerns, water utilization, job and what jobs are available.

So I think when the President looks at this, he's looking at it from a standpoint of we cannot lose an AI race wa with the Chinese Communist Party that puts the United States in a tremendous disadvantage.

But I also believe what's the most important thing is to be transparent.

So we had four years of energy subtraction under the Biden administration that has led to less available energy as demand is increasing.

So the bills that we put forward in order to increase energy generation is important.

The Ratepayer Protection Act is important.

And then meeting with individuals, being transparent, meeting with committees, not just meeting with the mayor or the economic development of a community.

I mean, open forum where people can come discuss, they can talk about the issues, they can talk about what they're concerned about, and then how those things can be resolved.

And if there is a resolution, I think that's the way to go forward.

Because I do think it's important to realize their national security implications to both data centers and AI.

I know that you're going to bring up the $15.9 million investment as far as our health care is concerned with cancer screenings.

And I just have a few moments left.

Are you worried about rural health care?

I know it's it' an issue very important to you, but you're seeing community health centers that have seen federal funding cuts, and they say it's going to hurt them.

You've seen cuts in, Medicare as well.

You've seen rural hospitals that say they're, you know, just clinging on by their fingernails.

Is Congress hurting or helping rural health care?

Well, first, I need to correct you, Jim, and I apologize.

We've made no cuts to Medicare.

So there haven't been any cuts to Medicare.

There is Medicaid, and then there's Medicare.

So work requirement that we have in, Medicaid work volunteer or educational programs and n illegal immigrants on Medicaid.

The vast majority of Americans agree with those, but we've made no cuts to Medicare.

Rural health care is very important.

I practice in a rural area.

And, you know, the reason I introduced the bills I did and I ran for Congress was because the federal government and the large insurance companies were harming the very patients I was trying to heal.

So I've lived my lif both as a nurse and a physician, trying to take care of patients and often in rural areas.

And so those are critically important.

And small hospitals and in between hospitals have been struggling for decades.

And so what provisions can we put in?

What have we done to help?

So the Rural Transformatio Grant, that is transformational.

It has been an amazing, thing to be able to help ou rural hospitals with equipment.

We had two roundtables before we submitted our application.

We did one afterward with Doctor Oz and with Chairman Guthrie, so we can figure out how we need to, you know, modify the, rural transformation grants to make them better, especially in the workforce component.

So Doctor Oz has taken that back.

We have also, were the first stat to submit and have 209 million and the rural transformation grants.

Coming back to Iowa, I asked Doctor Oz if states aren't getting their act together and they're not applying, can we have more money that comes to Iowa?

And th if that's the affirmative, it's now been affirmed that there can be money that goes, additional money that goes to a state.

So we're looking to have that money because Iowa has been very proactive, and very detailed and very organized in getting this through.

The Multi-Cancer Early Detection Test, which is, one of my bills, which is a blood test that can detect cancers, so more rapid screening can be done locally.

The blood tests can be sent out so you don't have to travel.

I think that's another thing that's important in trying to have early detection an then prevention of, of cancers.

So I think the work we've done in pharmacy benefit manager, and let me also say, the work that we have done in helping, Governor Reynolds with the waiver for, $80 million and 150 new graduate medical education positions.

And why is that important?

Because we know if doctors go to medical school in Iowa, they're 50% more likely to stay in Iowa if they do both medical school and residency in Iowa, they're 75% more likely to stay in Iowa.

And one of the things that hurts our rural communities is when we can't recruit and keep doctors in those rural communities.

So those 150 new graduate medical education positions, our work on the J-1 visa program to be abl to bring more, doctors to Iowa if another state doesn't want to use those, applications, those are things that are going to help us to keep, health care in rural Iowa.

And those are really important to be abl to get across the finish line.

So we're going to continue working on affordability, on workforce, on equipment, to our rural areas.

And those thing have been very helpful so far.

And so proud of our state being the first one to be able to, you know, go through their applications and get grants approved and $209 million, to our state.

That is nothing to sneeze at.

And more is on the way.

Our thanks to Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks.

We'll hear from Democrat Kristina Bohannan and Independent Michael Bridgford in upcoming programs.

Your local public television station has launched Keep WQPT Strong.

It's a new campaign to help raise $1.3 million to support operations for WQPT, which no longer receives federal funding and must rely on community support.

Here's WQPT general manager Dawn Schmitt.

[uplifting music] For 43 years, WQPT-PBS has been part of the story of the Quad City region.

Maybe you remember watching Kcpt as a child.

Maybe your children or grandchildren grew up with PBS Kids.

Or maybe WQPT has been part of your daily life for years.

For many of our neighbors, WQPT is a trusted companion, bringing people together through stories, ideas, and programs that inspir us, teach us, and entertain us.

WQPT is launching a new campaign, Keep WQPT Strong, Community Focused, Community Funded.

WQPT is now fully community funded, and we need to raise approximately $1.3 million to support our operations and continue providin free public media to the region.

That means our future depends on people like you a membership, a monthly gift, a business sponsorship, an underwriting partnership, a foundation gift.

Every gift helps keep WQPT here.

Because it isn't just about keeping a television station on air.

It's about keeping a resource for our children, a companion for our seniors, a source of learning for our families a connection for our community, and a trusted public medi service for generations to come.

For 43 years, WQPT has been here for the Quad City region, and we will be here for the next 43 years and beyond.

But we can't do it alone.

This is your WQPT, your stories, your programs, your community, your public media.

Together we can keep WQPT Strong.

Please join us.

Become a Wqpt member.

Start or increase your monthly gift.

Become a major donor.

Or, learn more about how you can help.

By visiting WQPT.org Or calling (309)764-2400.

For 43 years you have helped make WQPT possible.

Thank you for Keeping WQPT Strong.

[music ends] To become one of WQPTs 4200 members and join the Keep WQPT Strong community funded campaign, head to our website wqpt.org On the air, on the radio, on the web, on your mobile devic and streaming on your computer, thanks for taking some time to join us as we talk about the issues on The Cities.

[lively music] [music ends]