Iowa Senate debate, October 13, 2026

Other ▶ 0:00

I would just say across the board, healthcare. And the stakes are high not only for Iowa, but the country as the balance of power in the Senate takes center stage. The elections this November are truly the future of our country. And I think this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. Tonight, you get to decide which candidate will earn your trust. Now, from your local election headquarters at the WHO 13 studios, this is Debate Night in Iowa.

Moderator ▶ 0:53

Welcome to debate night in Iowa. I'm Amanda Krenz with WHO 13 for the first time in more than a decade. Our state has an open seat in the US Senate. Thanks for joining us tonight. I'm Tim Seaman from KCAU 9. The debate comes at a critical time. Iowa is just one of seven toss up states and the race could determine who controls the US Senate. Tonight's debate is airing statewide and will stream online. But before we get to the questions here are tonight's debate rules. Congresswoman Hinson and Representative Turk, you will have 60 seconds to answer a question for a follow up question or rebuttal. You will have 30 seconds to respond if the clarification is needed. You will get 15 seconds when time is up. You will hear this Bell. Each of you will have 30 seconds for a closing statement. Welcome. And now that we have the debate rules, it is time for us to get started. Based on a card draw, Ms. Hinson, you will go first tonight. And we're going to begin with the topic of cancer in Iowa. Iowans need to know everything possible is being done to protect them. Iowa has the second highest rate of new cancer cases in the United States. The University of Iowa study recently found 22,000 Iowans will be diagnosed and 6,000 more will die yet this year. Nitrate levels, of course, play a large part in that. Farmers get $14 billion a year in subsidies. Ms. Hinson, the question is, should those subsidies be tied to reducing fertilizer runoff and lowering the amount of nitrates in order to keep Iowans safe? You have 60 seconds.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 2:28

Well, Tim and Amanda, thank you for the questions tonight and for being here to host the debate. And Josh, thank you as well for being here. You know, it is important that we get to the bottom of our cancer rates here in Iowa. Cancer does not discriminate who it affects. It's not a Republican or Democrat that it's affecting. It's an American problem and it's an Iowa problem and we need to solve it. I think farmers are a part of the conversation. Absolutely. Farmers are the environmentalists. They know what they need to do to help make sure we have clean drinking water and all of us need to be able to turn on our faucet and know the water that we're drinking is safe to drink. Just last week I had the opportunity to tour a water treatment facility right here in the Des Moines area to learn about the process and what they're doing to take out these contaminants that are in there, whether it's nitrates or PFAS or anything else that might be concerning in our water. We need to obviously have the investments and the infrastructure to be able to clean our water. That's something I'm proud to have been able to deliver as a member of the U.S. House. Millions of dollars in investment in water infrastructure as well. So farmers, I think, should have a part in this as well. But we also need to make sure we're investing in the infrastructure to keep our water clean.

Moderator ▶ 3:36

Thank you for that. Mr. Turek, the same question. Should those subsidies be tied to reducing fertilizer runoff and lowering the amount of nitrates all in an effort to keep our Iowans healthy? You two have 60 seconds.

Josh Turek ▶ 3:46

No, but I can tell you that we certainly have a cancer crisis that is being driven by the water quality crisis and certainly it's something that has touched my life very deeply and personally. I lost my grandmother to pancreatic cancer. My father, due to his exposure to Agent Orange, was dealt with cancer and nearly the day I launched my campaign, my sister was diagnosed with stage two breast cancer. Worked very hard in the Iowa legislature to expand cancer coverage to firefighters to provide some state appropriation to cancer coverage. The reality is, is that Representative Hinson has pulled $33 million in research due to the dose cuts, four times voted in favor of reducing the Clean Water Act and taken thousands of dollars from Chinese companies and tried to provide them immunity. I think the way that we go about this is, We need more funding to infrastructure for nitrate removal plants, but also to our farmers. Our farmers want to do the right thing. And I think incentives to them for cover crops and land barriers and to not put down fertilizer in the winter months is the best way to address this.

Moderator ▶ 4:50

- Thank you. And I have a quick follow up for both of you, Mr. Turek first. Should the federal government in heavy ag states like Iowa require home water filtration systems to be built into every home perhaps? Or have homes retrofitted? 30 seconds.

Josh Turek ▶ 5:05

I'm not in favor of the government mandating anything in this area, but I will tell you, especially as our farmers are legitimately struggling, I mean, we are looking at a second farm crisis. We're looking at a farmageddon. We lead the nation in farm foreclosures and seeing farm suicide rates skyrocketing. Our farmers need the help. And I think that the best way is to provide them genuine incentives to address this water quality crisis.

Moderator ▶ 5:30

- Ms. Hinson, I'll give you the same chance there. Should the government in these heavy ag states require home filtration systems or possibly retrofit homes all in an effort to keep Iowans healthy? 30 seconds.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 5:39

- Well, if we're looking at any program, we would need to get to the bottom of the data, right? Does it actually do what we need it to do? And that would be the question I would ask about the funding that would go with any of those programs. The most important part about this is making sure that the funding streams go where they need to go, whether that's to our farmers to help support the conservation practices and techniques. We know investment in fertilizer equipment and making sure we're using less is really critical. We have great investments in R&D happening right here in Iowa to make sure that our farmers are doing more with less. But you have to show up to vote for things like pediatric cancer research. And I've invested in legislation to make sure that we're redirecting those resources to get to where it needs to go to help get to the bottom of this cancer crisis.

Moderator ▶ 6:23

- Thank you. Let's pause for just a second. You mentioned the votes. It's been very prominent during the campaign. Mr. Turek, I'll just ask, you missed those votes, and I guess my question is, why did you miss them? Were you campaigning?

Josh Turek ▶ 6:38

Yeah, look, something I'm proud of in my time in the Iowa legislature, one of the most bipartisan, one of the most effective members of the Iowa legislature, more than 700 times voted with Republicans. I think you take that in contrast with Representative Henson, the least bipartisan member of the Iowa delegation. I have gone out there and I have met with Iowans all over the state, all 99 counties. hundreds of public forums. Meanwhile, Ashley Henson, since she decided to run for U.S. Senate, has not done one in-person town forum. Also, in my first three years in the legislature, more than a 90% attendance record.

Moderator ▶ 7:16

I want to ask again, though, why did you miss those votes?

Josh Turek ▶ 7:21

I'm out campaigning. I'm out meeting Iowans all over, all 99 counties. I've done hundreds of in-person town halls. Meanwhile, Ashley Henson, since she's running for the U.S. Senate, has not done a single in-person town hall.

Moderator ▶ 7:33

Ms. Henson, I'll give you 30 seconds to respond.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 7:35

Absolutely. I've done more town halls than the percentage of time he showed up to work this year. Forty-two percent of the time is all Representative Turek showed up to work this year, and that's Two out of every five days of work. And I think Iowans, if you're watching tonight, you should know if you don't show up to work two out of five days, you're not getting a promotion. You're getting fired. I am proud of my bipartisan record working with both parties to get things across the finish line. I rank in the top 20 percent of bipartisan lawmakers in Congress, and I have a 99 percent attendance record even while running a statewide campaign.

Moderator ▶ 8:04

Thank you both for those comments. We're going to move ahead.

Josh Turek ▶ 8:07

She also missed 193 votes.

Moderator ▶ 8:08

We're going to move ahead. Thank you both. On September 28th, President Trump announced the largest steel plant in US history would be coming to Southeast Iowa. This reminds us of 2017 when President Trump announced Foxconn's plan for a $10 billion Wisconsin factory and up to 13,000 jobs. The project was scaled back after taxpayers spent hundreds of millions on infrastructure. And now Iowa has promised this $15 billion steel plant with Mesabi Metallics, but Radio Iowa just reported on October 5th that Mesabi had not acquired land, had not obtained construction permits or finalized financing. Wisconsin had performance-based tax incentives too. But tonight I am asking about the roads and utilities that are built before the jobs arrive. Mr. Turek, if this Mesabi Steel Plant is canceled or scaled back, who pays for that infrastructure, the company or Iowans? You have 60 seconds.

Josh Turek ▶ 9:04

- Well, I was proud to vote for the bill, honestly. I think that a project like this could absolutely be transformative for the state of Iowa and certainly for Southeastern Iowa. We're one of three states seeing our economy contract. We certainly need the jobs. This project is looking at providing 1,700 full-time good-paying jobs and somewhere between 6,000 and 7,000 construction workers. I think that we have good protections in place to taxpayers. There's no upfront state money. The incentives are only there if they provide the actual jobs and metrics achieved. But I would say on the infrastructure, that should be covered by the company themselves.

Moderator ▶ 9:45

- Ms. Henson, same question. If this Mesabi Steel Plant is canceled or scaled back, who pays for that infrastructure, the company or Iowans? You have 60 seconds.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 9:52

- Well, thank you, Amanda, for that question. I think it's really critical that we have this kind of investment coming to Iowa. You look at what this means for our national security and our local economy. We are gonna now be a part of this supply chain for steel right here in the United States so we can be competitive with countries that are not looking out for our best interests like the Chinese Communist Party. We're not going to be able to produce steel right here at home to supercharge our defense manufacturing base and make sure we have what we need here in the United States. So this is a critical investment in Iowa. And yeah, taxpayers should not be on the hook for this kind of investment if it goes awry. I think to Representative Turek's point, I think we would agree on that, that taxpayers should not be on the hook. We need definite accountability measures built in. And I think what's important about the policies we've put into place is that they are going to supercharge potential future investments just like this one. Hopefully we can make sure everything has those protections in place. But thanks to the Working Families Tax Cut Bill, we have the long-term tax certainty. So people are willing to make huge capital investments like the $15 billion one that's coming to Iowa.

Moderator ▶ 10:57

Ms. Hinson, I have a follow-up about this. The federal government is loaning Kizabi $770 million to get the project off the ground. Does it concern you at all that this company has filed for bankruptcy before? You have 30 seconds.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 11:09

Of course, anytime there's any concern about a past business dealing, I want to know the full transparency of a project and what's happening with the company involved. I think it's important to look at the situation and the context for what happened before. They were dealing with Minnesota that did not want to have any mining happen. It was a completely different time, a different administration. We are now unleashing American energy and American independence. which means we're going to be mining that ore in Minnesota and then bringing it right down here to Iowa. So full accountability is important and full transparency about the context of what happened is also important.

Moderator ▶ 11:42

Mr Turk, same follow up question to you. The federal government is loaning Musabi $770 million to get the project off the ground. Does it concern you that the company is filed for bankruptcy before you have 30 seconds?

Josh Turek ▶ 11:53

Yeah, certainly there is a concern. But again, I was proud to vote for this project because I think that this is something that can be genuinely transformative to the state of Iowa and to Southwest Iowa. I think that we have put good guardrails in place on this. Again, no upfront state money. We've got guardrails that the incentives only come in if the jobs and metrics are achieved. And these tax incentives come in over a 10-year period of time. And I'm really, really hopeful that this comes in. It would be transformative for the state of Iowa. We need the jobs.

Moderator ▶ 12:24

Tim has our next question about diesel prices. Thank you, Amanda. President Trump has struck a deal with Vladimir Putin to bring Russian diesel to the U.S., aiming to lower costs for farmers and truckers. But that deal also eases sanctions designed to restrict the energy revenue that helps fund Russia's war against Ukraine. Ms. Hinson, do you support buying Russian diesel to lower costs for Iowans, even if those purchases help Putin finance his war against Ukraine? Yes or no, and please explain. You have 60 seconds.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 12:52

We need to lower gas prices in this country. We need to lower diesel prices, but I don't think we need to be making a deal with Russia to do it. I think we should be doing it by lowering the gas tax temporarily, making sure we're... actually looking at potentially a diesel rebate program for our producers, investing in America's biofuels, which is the homegrown answer that we have right here in Iowa. So E15, and then I've advocated for putting into place the biodiesel tax credit, which would be an immediate $1 off to provide that relief. But again, I am proud to have voted for sanctions against Russia. I'm banned from Russia because of my stance on being tough on them and supporting Ukraine. And we cannot allow Vladimir Putin to win that war.

Moderator ▶ 13:33

Mr. Turek, same question to you. Do you support buying Russian diesel to lower the cost for Iowans, even if those purchases help Putin finance his war against Ukraine? Again, you have 60 seconds. Yes or no one, please explain.

Moderator ▶ 14:48

- Thank you. I have a follow up for both of you. First, Mr. Turek, if they support the, it should, let me start that again. Should Putin have to agree to a ceasefire before getting that sanction relief, before letting that happen? You have 30 seconds.

Josh Turek ▶ 15:03

I think that there are other ways that we can go about this without benefiting the economy or trusting someone like Vladimir Putin. And so, again, I put forth a policy that I think can really move the needle on this. And let's temporarily suspend the federal and state gas tax. Let's open up the strategic reserves and let's suspend exports to diesel. But I am laser focused on this.

Moderator ▶ 15:24

Ms. Hinson, the same follow-up there. Would you agree to that ceasefire? Should Putin have to agree to a ceasefire before getting the sanctions relief? Thirty seconds. MS.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 15:32

Absolutely. I think we need to bring an end to the war in Ukraine, and we need to bring an end to the war in Iran. It's why I called for an immediate and successful end. I do not think Iran should be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. So I think we do need to bring it to an end as quickly as possible. And I have been working directly with farmers to figure out ways where we can provide them relief. You know, you talk about fertilizer costs. We've been hearing about that for a long time before the Iran war, but I advocated directly to the administration and USDA to get the countervailing duties removed so we could lower those fertilizer prices. And we're working on making sure we're holding the big companies accountable so that we have less market fluctuation problems as well for our farmers.

Moderator ▶ 16:10

Thank you. And Amanda has our next question, and it is about the Iran war. It is indeed. This is personal to Iowans. The Iran war is to date. Two of our soldiers have died, and tonight we would like to take a moment to honor them and their sacrifice. Sergeant Declan Cody of West Des Moines and Major Jeffrey O'Brien of Waukee. You both are calling for an end to the war. Mr. Turek, what is an acceptable end? And would you accept Iran being in control of the Strait of Hormuz? You have 60 seconds.

Moderator ▶ 17:32

A 30-second follow-up for you. What would you consider to be an acceptable end to the war?

Josh Turek ▶ 17:37

As soon as possible. I think that we need to end this war as quickly as possible. I think that this war in Iran has hurt Iowans more than any other state. You're looking at the two Iowans that we've already lost. You've got gas prices that have gone up more than Iowa than any other state. You've got diesel prices at an all-time high and fertilizer prices. I'm talking to farmers, century farmers that are telling me they're looking at their input prices because of this conflict and saying, I'm not going to be able to afford this. I'm going to go into foreclosure. We need to end this war immediately.

Moderator ▶ 18:09

Ms. Henson, again, you are both calling for an end to the war. You use the word immediate and successful end. What is an acceptable end? And would you accept Iran being in control of the Strait of Hormuz? You have 60 seconds.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 18:21

First of all, I don't think we can trust Iran. That needs to be very clear. We need to go into every negotiation eyes wide open. We saw the disastrous deal that happened where our pallets of cash went to Iran to help them fund what was the makings of a huge nuclear program and the ballistic missiles that they're now using to attack our allies in the Middle East. So that's wrong. We cannot have that kind of an outcome ever again. So successful end to me means we have to have assurances that there will never be a nuclear program in Iran. I trust the U.S. military to achieve that objective, whatever that looks like. I've met with our generals, had those conversations, but I've also met with the families. You put the pictures up of our soldiers who have passed away. I've been to those funerals. I went to four funerals in the last eight, nine months. I hope I never have to go to another one. I think it's It's so challenging to sit with a family and grieve alongside of them. So I don't want to see that happen to another family. And nobody wants a forever war. My boys are 15 and 13, and it would be them fighting in that next generation of fighters. So I want it to come to a close as soon as possible. Ms.

Moderator ▶ 19:25

Henson, 30-second follow-up. Would you accept Iran being in control of the Strait of Hormuz? 30 seconds.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 19:29

again i don't think you can trust iran we've seen how they've behaved you have to take them at how they're acting not what they're saying and i think at this point making sure we have protections for our allies in the middle east i don't want to see the united states get stuck there for decades but i think we need to make sure that again the successful end of this war is that iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and that we are protecting our allies in the region long term because that's good every dollar spent abroad needs to advance american interests and i think I think it's in everybody's interest that we support our allies in the Middle East.

Moderator ▶ 20:00

One more follow-up for you, Ms. Hinson. Would you switch your vote today on the War Powers Act in order to end the conflict in Iran? Yes or no? 30 seconds.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 20:08

I don't think we need another resolution on the House floor. I think the president and the U.S. military can bring it to the end. So at this point, I take every vote at the time it comes, but I think it does need to come to a resolute and successful end as quickly as possible.

Moderator ▶ 20:23

Okay, Tim is next with more on data centers now. Let's turn to data centers. There's a controversy in Iowa, communities across the state right now, like Woodward here in central Iowa, Salix over in western Iowa. Folks living there have plenty of questions as well as mounting concerns. Ms. Hinson, do you support a federal temporary moratorium on the construction of data centers? Yes or no, and please explain. You've got 60 seconds.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 20:45

Well, thank you for that question, Tim. As I'm traveling through all 99 counties, I certainly am hearing a lot of concerns, a lot of community feedback around data centers and where they're going in our communities. And I do think that conversation needs to happen at the local level. Local communities know best. what is going to fit in their community. If they want to use it as an economic development opportunity, they should be having those conversations. But I'm hearing concerns about utility rates. What are we doing to make sure we're keeping people's utility rates protected? I was proud to vote for the ratepayer protection package. on the House floor a few weeks ago, which would make sure we're not passing that cost on to taxpayers and ratepayers. I think that's absolutely critical. And then people want to also know their water is not only safe, but that it's going to be there as a consumer as well. So those are the concerns that I continue to hear. I don't think we need to interfere on the federal level. There are some basic things that we can do, again, to control costs that are being passed on to ratepayers.

Moderator ▶ 21:39

So you would not support a federal temporary moratorium?

Ashley Hinson ▶ 21:41

I think those conversations are best had at the local level.

Moderator ▶ 21:44

Mr. Turek, the same question to you. Do you support a federal temporary moratorium on the construction of data centers? Yes or no? Please explain. You have 60 seconds as well.

Moderator ▶ 22:55

Ms. Hinson, I'll give you a quick 15 seconds to make a response if you'd like.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 22:59

Absolutely. Data centers should not get big federal tax breaks, and that's not what I supported. I actually supported making sure we're investing in opportunity zones, which are places where we need definite economic development. The only reason the ratepayer protection bill is not law is because Democrats in the Senate blocked it, and so I'm pretty sure that my colleague over here would have aligned with Chuck Schumer, his boss in the U.S. Senate, to vote no on it.

Moderator ▶ 23:21

And Mr. Turek, I do have another follow-up. Should federal law require data center developers to cover all infrastructure costs, including those left behind, if a project doesn't happen, if it closes? You have 30 seconds.

Josh Turek ▶ 23:34

Yes, absolutely. Again, we should not be looking out and giving tax breaks to these large multinational tech corporations. We should be doing what we can to protect Iowa and to protect the tax rates here. The same thing that I said on the infrastructure when it comes to the steel plant. Let's protect Iowans. No more tax breaks to these large multinational tech companies.

Moderator ▶ 23:54

- Ms. Hinson, you get 30 seconds as well. Should federal law require a data center developer to cover all the infrastructure costs including those that are left behind if it doesn't happen again you have 30 seconds

Ashley Hinson ▶ 24:05

well I think similarly to the the moratorium conversation I think that should be on the local level to make those decisions who's on the hook that should be a conversation that they're having at the local level if it's local taxpayer driven they should decide what the mechanisms are but I do think that is a serious concern that our taxpayers would demand on the local level. I know I certainly would want to make sure that I as a taxpayer myself wouldn't be on the hook, but I think it's really important again we continue to try to find ways to incentivize good development and stop bad development in our communities.

Moderator ▶ 24:35

All right let's move to another question. The Department of Energy is investing nearly two billion dollars to reopen the Dwayne Arnold Nuclear Plant in Linn County. The plant already has a contract with Google to supply its AI energy needs for the next 25 years. Mr. Turek, why are taxpayers on the hook for a private company's project like this one with Google? You have 60 seconds.

Josh Turek ▶ 24:57

Yeah, and absolutely, again, they shouldn't be. You're looking at $2 billion basically in federal funds going to this. when we know, and certainly I'm in favor of an all the above approach to energy, including nuclear, because as I'm traveling around the state, I'm hearing over and over and over from Iowans telling me that they are concerned about their energy rates going up. But in this particular plant, We are looking at 90% of the energy going to a tech company. And I do not think that taxpayers should be on the hook for them. I think that these large multinational tech corporations that are raking in billions and billions in dollars in profit should be on the hook for this.

Moderator ▶ 25:38

Ms. Hinson, same question. Why are taxpayers on the hook for a private company's, again, we're talking about Google, their AI project? You have 60 seconds.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 25:46

I don't know the details of the actual arrangement between Google and Dwayne Arnold, but what I can say is it is really critical that we have enough energy production in this country to handle the necessary needs of whether it's a data center or another big energy consumer. We want to reinvigorate American manufacturing in this country. We need to make sure we have the energy to do it. And so I am so pleased to have Dwayne Arnold opening up again right in my backyard. That's where I live and I'm raising my family, Matt and the boys, in Linn County. So we love the idea of having all of this new power generation happening in our backyard. I think it's exciting. What we really need to be doing on the federal level is getting the barriers out of the way so that energy generation is abundant and available and it's moving fast enough, right? We just had the EPA administrator Lee Zeldin here in Iowa yesterday. I was touring wastewater treatment facilities with him, but we had a conversation about the speed in which we need to be able to get these things moving. We need to do it safely and we need to make sure that we are respecting the environment and the process, but we need to get big government out of the way.

Moderator ▶ 26:52

And with that candidates, it is time to take a break. But for those of you that are watching us tonight, we want to remind you, let you know that our coverage does continue on WHO 13 plus and make sure that you take time to scan the QR code to see the reaction from the spin room coming up later tonight. This is debate night in Iowa. In this half hour you will see a QR code on the right of your screen that will link to post debate coverage on the WHO 13+ app with candidate interviews and analysis coming. Right now we are going to start with individual questions for each of our candidates. And I have the first one to Mr. Turek. Title IX helped expand opportunities for female athletes like Kaitlyn Clark here in Iowa. Now we turn to who should set the rules for transgender athletes competing in girls and women's sports. Mr. Turek, when Chuck Todd asked you about this back on November 19th, 2025, this is what you had to say. You know, I have personal experience with this. I actually, I wanted to try out for my team in high school and play basketball. And yet there was an equipment rule that prevented me from being able to play. And yet it was not my congressman or my mayor or my senator that was making the decision on this issue. It was the sports governing bodies. And so my position on this is that this should be decided by the sports governing bodies. Mr. Turek, Congress passed Title IX, a federal law protecting women's opportunities in school sports. So Washington already has a role. Do you believe Congress should step in and rule on participation of transgender people in women's sports? Yes or no, and you can explain in 60 seconds.

Josh Turek ▶ 31:40

I can speak to this on a level of credibility that most can't. I was a professional wheelchair basketball player. I represented the United States in four Paralympic Games. I won two gold medals. Both my brother and sister both ended up playing high-level basketball. I've been really clear and unequivocal on this issue. I do not believe that biological males should compete in female sports. And this is something that has already been decided in Iowa. But yes, I do agree that this should be decided by sports governing bodies because we don't want to see a patchwork of 50 different standards be in place or even when it comes to Olympic and Paralympic competition, international standards. I was happy to see the IOC made a ruling on this. And so, yeah, again, I believe that biological males should not compete in female sports.

Moderator ▶ 32:31

A follow-up for you then, Mr. Turk. Based on Title IX, is it fair and legal for transgender women to compete in women's sports?

Josh Turek ▶ 32:38

I do not believe that biological males should compete in female sports. And this is already decided in Iowa law as well.

Moderator ▶ 32:45

All right. Thank you for that answer. Miss Henson, you have been outspoken, saying no one in Congress should be trading stocks, going so far as to say immediately after being elected to Congress, you and your husband sold all of your stock. Here's the rationale you shared in the debate last week. We had a conversation about it. We decided to sell our individual stocks right away in 2021. So we made it very clear that I want Iowans to know the decisions that I'm making in Washington, D.C. have nothing to do with the inside information I might be getting as a public servant. However, in that debate, your opponent said this about your holdings. The reality is, is that in just six years of being up in D.C., Ashley Henson is up to 15 times more wealthy, still owns up to $5 million of private stock, even though she said she was going to sell everything. So, Ms. Henson, our question is not about public stock, but do you or your husband own stock or have ownership interest in privately owned companies? 60 seconds to respond.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 33:45

Yes, well, I'm glad I get the chance to clarify because I think probably a few people are seeing some TV ads about this. So I'm proud that my husband built a successful business before I was even in Congress and sold it in 2021. That's exactly what happened. He sold the business. That went on our financial disclosure report. And Also, at the same time, we had that discussion about selling our publicly traded stocks. So that's what we did. I think it's important that the best investment on Wall Street is not a seat in Congress. And so I wanted Iowans to know that I was leading by example. I don't think members of Congress should trade public stocks. I don't think they should be playing on prediction markets, and it's why I led the efforts to ban that. The real reason that's not actually a law and why members are still able to trade stocks is because Chuck Schumer and the Democrats in the Senate banned it, or did not vote to ban it. So what I think is important here is that, again, we lead by example. I have made sure that Iowans know I'm not trading stocks, and while my husband sold his business and has private holdings in that business, we are not actively trading stocks.

Moderator ▶ 34:47

- In the sound bite that we played, yeah, in just a moment, I have a follow up and then you can weigh in as well. In the sound bite that we played, your opponent said that you have five million in private stock. Is that true? 30 seconds.

Moderator ▶ 35:35

Turk, we will give you 30 seconds to respond.

Moderator ▶ 36:20

- Ms. Henson, I wanna give you one more chance to answer the question about do you or your husband own stock or have ownership interest in privately owned companies? I'll give you 30 seconds.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 36:29

- As I mentioned, my husband sold his business and private stock is not trading stock. That's very, very clear. And what I think is also important in this conversation, and I'm really glad that you chose to bring it up again, Josh, There is a per diem program in Washington, D.C. for members of Congress to use. You only can use it on days that you're actually in session. You can use it toward an apartment or toward a hotel. I use that program much like lawmakers here in Iowa do. Josh Turek used that program here in Iowa even though he was only showing up to work two out of every five days. So that's criminal. If it isn't already, it should be. You should refund that money to the Iowa taxpayers. And don't worry, I did the math. It's $11,600 that you should write a check back. And I think you have some questions to answer about your financial disclosure report. Why did your net worth go up 187% or up to?

Moderator ▶ 37:15

We're going to move on to health care now. Yes, Iowa is seeing rural hospital closures across the state each day and it's becoming a bigger and bigger concern. And this includes Mercy One's clinic in Ottumwa, Iowa, where patients received this letter about its closing. Two health care companies, Mercy One and UnityPoint, operate more than 50% of hospital facilities across the state. Ms. Hinson, to you first, should they be mandated to maintain a certain level of coverage in rural areas in order to get government subsidies? You have 60 seconds.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 37:46

Thank you. I think the state of health care in Iowa needs improvement, to say it mildly, and that's why I've made sure we're making key investments in rural health care. I was proud to support the Rural Health Transformation Fund as a part of the Working Families Tax Cut Bill so that we could make sure people can access that health care no matter what their zip code is. So whether it's Ottumwa or whether it's Entrayer where I was able to help make sure we got People's Clinic back in when Mercy Care had closed, right? I think it's really important that we're making those key investments in rural health care. I'm proud that those funds are actually being deployed to help make sure rural health care stays open. So you talk about federal investment. Those funds are now being used in north central Iowa to make sure that they have a new PA and a nurse midwife. In Mason City area, they are investing in a new lung cancer detection machine. I was just at Grinnell Medical Center at the regional medical center last week. And we were talking about the new MRI machine that they're able to invest in. So absolutely there should be a federal stake in this. And we have programs in place like 340B that help make sure that there is federal investment, but also accountability there. I think the important conversation here around it as well is that my opponent supports a federalized healthcare option, which would make healthcare less affordable and less expensive.

Moderator ▶ 39:00

- And we'll have to move ahead with that to Mr. Turek. Should they be mandated to maintain a certain level of coverage We're talking about in the rural areas in order to get government subsidies. 60 seconds.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 40:14

May I respond?

Moderator ▶ 40:15

Yes, you have 15 seconds.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 40:16

You actually have to show up to work in order to be able to deliver for rural health care. You skipped the vote to deploy $209 million in funds to rural hospitals. So what I just talked about, that MRI machine, that's going to be a huge cost to the rural community. that cancer detection machine, these services that are providing cancer treatment in rural Iowa, I was proud to vote for and get across the finish line. And the people who are losing Medicaid coverage, it's because you're either illegally obtaining it or you shouldn't be on it.

Moderator ▶ 40:43

- We're gonna move ahead to Social Security. - Mr. Turek, you support raising the payroll tax that supports Social Security. Only 6% though of workers in the United States make more than that $184,500 threshold. And it's not nearly enough to keep Social Security solvent long term. What secondary fix would you support? You have 60 seconds.

Josh Turek ▶ 41:03

- Well, I can tell you that Social Security is an earned benefit and I wanna do everything that I can to protect this earned benefit to the 700,000 Iowans that rely on Social Security and Medicare. And Ashley Henson, she has floated the idea of raising the age of retirement. She's voted against caps on things like insulin. You know, even the last time that we debated, she talked about the solution to Social Security. Millennials who are putting their groceries on a credit card who can't afford a house, that's the solution. The solution is to take the cap off. I think that it's fundamentally wrong that every teacher and nurse, police officer is paying year round. Meanwhile, you've got Elon Musk and Bill Gates paying in for the first few minutes. By almost every single metric, this will end up generating $3.4 trillion over a decade. This can keep Social Security solvent for decades.

Moderator ▶ 42:04

What secondary fix would you support? We've heard you talk about the other one. What secondary fix would you support? 30 seconds.

Josh Turek ▶ 42:11

I think we could look at a bipartisan commission, something as well that Representative Henson has talked about. And we can look at ways to keep this solvent. But honestly, the best way to keep this solvent is let's tax billionaires. Again, Again, not off the backs of the working class or making sure that millennials are saving all the money that they can. Let's take the cap off. It is unfair that Elon Musk and Bill Gates are paying for the first few minutes. Meanwhile, every single one of our working families is paying year round. We can keep social security solvent.

Moderator ▶ 42:40

- Ms. Henson, in 2020, you said we should be talking about raising retirement age to receive social security benefits. But when you were asked just last week on the Iowa Public Television debate, this is what you said. If you're 20 years old, it's a very different conversation than if you're at retirement age is what I would say as I think about that. So what did you mean by saying we should have a different conversation with 20-year-olds? Is raising the retirement age on the table for you? You have 60 seconds.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 43:06

No, I do not support raising the retirement age and I do not support cuts to Social Security benefits. This is a program that our seniors rely on and we need to make sure it is solvent. And my pledge to you watching tonight is that I will work with anyone to make sure we keep that promise and keep that pledge because it is a promise we've made. Look, what I think is important is that we do make it easier for everyone to save. across the board, whether you're a millennial, whether you're a senior, or whether you're Gen Z, or now we're really focusing on our young people, right, with the new investment accounts for newborns, right? I think we need to be having conversations across the board about how we better save as Americans. But I think it's really important, again, that we come together, we take the politics out of it, because anyone who's saying there's not more things to -- about again taking the politics out a bit is saying in doing anything that they want to win an election I think that's wrong we need to be able to work together to make sure that we keep social security solvent for generations to come

Moderator ▶ 44:04

this is in a follow-up your opponent has one idea to help keep social security solvent, maybe not for long term, but do you have one idea that could at least help keep it solvent for some matter of time? You have 30 seconds.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 44:17

- I think there's been a lot of good conversations around maybe separate investment funds and utilizing those resources. I would wanna make sure that every idea is properly vetted and that's where I think the commission structure is really good because again, every run, every analysis is gonna have an impact on 30, 40 years down the road. I would want to make sure we have all those numbers and all the data before making any decision.

Moderator ▶ 44:40

Tim, we're moving on to tariff science.

Josh Turek ▶ 44:41

Can I follow up on that real quick, just one time?

Moderator ▶ 44:44

So you can have 30 seconds for a follow-up. Sure.

Josh Turek ▶ 44:47

Just to be clear on this again, she has floated the idea of raising the retirement age, and now she's going back on that. She was in support of the Doge cuts, which made cuts to Social Security Administration, which even closed the Social Security office into CORA. She voted against caps on insulin and she voted against negotiate drug costs. She only has a 10% support score for Social Security and for Medicaid. I am in the United States Senate. I give my pledge. I will support and protect Social Security and Medicare to every single one of our seniors. It's an earned benefit. -

Moderator ▶ 45:17

Ms. Henson, we will give you 15 seconds for a response and then we're moving on.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 45:21

- I can absolutely clarify in 15 seconds. I don't know if Representative Turek was fundraising in Nantucket when it happened, but it was due to my advocacy to the administration that we were able to get that Social Security office in Decorah back open. So I'm proud to help support our seniors who are needing that access to Social Security I AM FOR NO CUTS TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION. I AM FOR NO TAX ON TIPS OVER TIME AND ALSO SOCIAL SECURITY.

Moderator ▶ 45:58

Okay, we're going to move ahead and we're going to talk about trade between the United States and Canada and what tariffs are costing Iowans. Ms. Hinson, Name one tariff that you would support and one that you would not. And the principle behind that, and you get 60 seconds, excuse me.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 46:15

Well, thank you, Tim. And I think nobody loves tariffs, but what I like even less is an unlevel playing field for Americans and for our farmers. And I am traveling the state talking directly with our farmers about what they need, where they're feeling pain. And I know they're, uneasy about where things are right now, but we are seeing things move forward. We just had President Xi come and we had a good announcement out of that trade deal that they are going to be buying more of our products, $17 billion of our agricultural products. When President Biden took over, no new trade deals and there was actually a trade deficit. So we're reversing course on that. One example I would point to, though, is when you look at what other countries are doing to help China cheat, Steel is one example. Look at Canada. They were actually using Canadian companies to cheat and get Chinese steel into the United States without paying the proper duties or tariffs. Those companies have now paid a proper fine. So accountability is also part of this conversation. But look at the investment we're getting here in the United States now because of that conversation. We have a steel mill coming to southeast Iowa, 1,700 new jobs.

Moderator ▶ 47:20

We'll move ahead to Mr. Turek. The same question. Name one tariff that you would support and one that you would not. And give us the principle behind that. You have 60 seconds.

Josh Turek ▶ 47:29

I can tell you that when I'm out there talking to farmers out in Iowa, they are telling me that the tariffs are absolutely decimating them. It has led to a loss of markets, a loss of commodities. Our farmers rely on open markets and free trade more than any other group. We certainly need to have strategic tariffs to protect American manufacturing and American jobs, but not off the backs of the agricultural industry or off of our farmers. A tariff that I'm in favor of, protecting the tariffs on the automobile industry. Again, protecting American jobs, American manufacturings. One, I'm against the chaotic tariffs that we've seen with Canada that have led up to 50%. When I'm talking to small businesses here in Iowa, they talk about that one really, really affecting them. And as well, when you're talking about importing things like potash for our farmers, for fertilizer, that one hurts them. I would also say that one I would really like to see end is is the 10% tariffs on soybeans. We produce more soybeans here in Iowa than any other state. Our farmers are hurting and it is because of the tariffs, which Ashley Henson voted in favor of five times.

Moderator ▶ 48:37

- I have a follow up for you there to get to too, and you mentioned the potash. Rising costs on Canadian fertilizer and machinery parts are financially squeezing our farmers. The Bad Deal Act in the Senate right now would limit the president's ability to tariff. Mr. Turek, would you support the Bad Deal Act that could lower costs for Iowa farmers, or would you allow the president to still have tariff authority?

Josh Turek ▶ 48:59

Well, I think that the power of the tariffs, just like the power of the purse, was meant to be in the hands of the legislature. It was never meant to be in the hands of the executive branch. And yes, I am absolutely in favor of doing away with these tariffs. Again, Ashley Hinson has voted in favor of five times. But if we're really going to move the needle for our farmers, we need to have year-round E15, mandatory of country of origin labeling. We need a federal right to repair so they can actually repair their equipment. And we need to pass a damn farm bill and not allow Congress to adjourn until they pass it. Our farmers are hurting.

Moderator ▶ 49:32

Ms. Hinson, the same thing. Would you support the Bad Deal Act that, of course, could lower the cost for our Iowa farmers? Or would you allow the president to still have that tariff authority? And you have 30 seconds.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 49:42

Well, I would want to review it before I give you a yes or no answer on that. But generally, I can tell you that I am advocating for Iowa farmers every single day. I'm listening to their concerns. And when they do have an issue, I'm advocating directly to the administration. I talked to President Trump just last Wednesday about soybeans and making sure we are getting that deal across the finish line. Corn exports are up 5%, ethanol exports are up, DDG exports are up. So we are having those conversations about how do we support Iowa farmers. My opponent didn't even show up to vote for the Iowa Farm Bill. So you talk about actually having farmers backs. Again, Josh, you have to show up to work more than two out of every five days.

Moderator ▶ 50:16

We're going to move ahead on that thought.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 50:18

It's a point though, I mean, and he's supporting climate activists to sue our farmers.

Moderator ▶ 50:22

On to our next question. Turning now to the topic of immigration. A few days ago in the PBS debate, Mr. Turek, You said this: "The Ag workers bill. What I am talking about is we can have safe and secure borders and we need to have a pathway to earn citizenship for those that have come here legally." Mr. Turek, what about those who are here illegally, but they have not committed a criminal offense? Should there be a pathway to citizenship for them? You have 60 seconds.

Josh Turek ▶ 50:51

Not a pathway to citizenship for them. I've been really clear that, one, we need to have safe and secure borders. I went down to the border in Laredo. I saw it. We still aren't doing enough for stopping illegal drugs, fentanyl, human trafficking, drugs. And we need to have an earned pathway to citizenship for those that have come here legally. Now, I would say that I agree with Representative Nunn, with Representative Miller-Meeks, and Representative Feenstra that we should pass the Dignity Act, which provides work permits to individuals in that situation, and also the Ag Worker Act, which provides an ease of visas for ag workers.

Moderator ▶ 51:32

- Ms. Hinson, staying with the same topic, immigration, has the administration gone too far on immigration enforcement? You have 60 seconds.

Josh Turek ▶ 52:45

That is a lie. And actually, I am the only one on this stage that has actually voted in a bipartisan manner to address immigration. I voted with, I was one of only three Democrats to vote.

Moderator ▶ 52:55

- I'm gonna give you 30 seconds by the way.

Josh Turek ▶ 52:57

- Sure, sure, to vote with Republicans because if you have come here illegally and you have committed crimes, you should be deported. And I'm proud of that. Meanwhile, Ashley Hinson had an opportunity to vote for a bipartisan bill that was called the most conservative, the most robust, endorsed by the Border Patrol, and she preferred to play political games. I acted because of the failure of D.C., because of the failure of people like Ashley Hinson. I believe that we need to have safe and secure borders.

Moderator ▶ 53:21

32nd rebuttal, Ms. Hinton.

Ashley Hinson ▶ 53:23

Yeah, I'd be happy to. The Dignity Act, which my opponent is talking about, allows people convicted of serious misdemeanors to stay, and that includes drunk driving. So I would say tell that to the mother of Sarah Root, Michelle Root, who lost her daughter to an illegal immigrant who killed Sarah Root because he was here illegally and he was driving drunk. I think it's also important to talk about the specifics of that legislation, which would have allowed up to 5,000 more illegal immigrants to cross across the southern border every single day. We needed to turn off that spigot of illegal immigration, and we did that. We've taken care of the problem, and my opponent doesn't want to recognize that his votes would actually make our country less safe.

Moderator ▶ 53:59

Thank you, Miss Henson. Tim, you have a question now on Iowa's farmland. Yeah, let's talk about this. Both of you have expressed concerns about outside ownership of Iowa assets. Who poses the bigger threat to Iowa farmland, foreign governments or large domestic investment firms? Miss Henson, you get the first 60 seconds.

Moderator ▶ 55:12

Mr. Turek, you get 60 seconds as well. And the same question to you. Who poses the bigger threat to Iowa farmland, foreign governments or large domestic investment firms? 60 seconds.

Moderator ▶ 56:06

Yeah, we have to stop right there. Those are going to be our last questions of the night. It's hard to believe that the debate is over. We have come to the end. It is time, though, for closing statements. Mr. Turek, based on a card draw, we're going to begin with you. You have 30 seconds.

Josh Turek ▶ 56:21

I want to thank each and every Iowan for turning in. Iowans, as I've been traveling this state, I know, I've heard from you. I feel your pain. I know that you're struggling just to keep food on the table, a roof above your head, and keep gas in your tank. I want to go to D.C., not to make myself more wealthy. not to go up there and fight for billionaires and large corporations like Ashley Hinson has voted for cuts to health care, food assistance, and Social Security just to give tax breaks to billionaires. I want to go up there and fight for you because I'm one of you. I've been in that same struggle, and you deserve someone in the United States Senate that is fighting for the average family, the working families, the middle class. Thank you all. God bless you all. God bless Iowa.

Moderator ▶ 57:03

Ms. Hinson, you get 30 seconds as well for your closing statement.

Moderator ▶ 57:38

Thank you both for being with us tonight.

Other ▶ 57:40

Here in Des Moines, your late news is next, where you'll have full coverage of tonight's debate. If you're looking for more post-debate coverage, use the QR code.