I'm going to ask you a question. Elizabeth Shaw is a Republican from Davenport. This is your third term. Exactly. And the House. And how does it differ from the term before? Well, I would say it certainly becomes more exciting because one becomes more part of the operation of the legislature, more knowledge about how to proceed and has more voice in the decisions and that makes it more fun. Okay, now before we get into the background part, what legislative committees are you on this year? I'm chairman of the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Reapportionment. No, you would not have been able to have had that chairmanship as a... Certainly not. The First Amendment are never committee chairman, occasionally. Second term members are committee chairman, but more often not. I have served as the ranking member of that committee for both of my preceding terms. Is this like Vice Chairman in a sense? Exactly. I like Vice Chairman. I also serve on the Judiciary Committee on the Schools Committee. Now, I'm going back to some of your background. I said I don't want to campaign speech, but tell us a few of your qualifications because my impression is that the women are very well qualified that become members of the legislature. A woman who choose to run at least certainly have some kind of a background in government. I think they have to be motivated to do it by work they've done or other offices they've held, community activities in which they've engaged. I did study political science in college. It was a matter of some interest to me. I had relatives who were active in government, both in party organizations, and I had an uncle who served in the legislature many, many years ago. When I first met my husband, he asked me to marry him and go to law school with him in the same breath. So I said yes to both of the proposals, and I did graduate from law school as well, and did practice law. I think that practice in the legal areas is a good training and background for the legislature. It's certainly not an essential, but it does cause people to think a lot about the type of laws which are being passed. No, it has the benefit of being able to recognize the implications of legal materials. And this is actually how laws are written in this language, isn't it? Yes, I think so, and it leads people to make a closer scrutiny of the language of laws and so on. Many, many times bills are passed which do not read, and therefore are not interpreted as they were intended to. What happens then when you recognize this before you get even out of that session of the legislature? Well, by and large, well, it's possible to amend a bill before the end of the session, and this has been done. This is the happier instance of what happens. Sometimes it's not discovered until sometime later that the language actually does not do what was intended, and then perhaps some hardship is wrought. Now, obviously committee, the committees that you participate in, are there any that perhaps have priority in your mind? Well, of course I would have put you, the committee of which I'm the chairman first, it is an area that I've long been interested in because of my political science background and also work as a member of the League of Women Voters who take a good deal of interest in keeping the Constitution current and also in reapportionment matters. That was a group which was one of the earliest proponents of redistricting of the state legislature and of fair district of Congress. And their premises have been proved true by Supreme Court decisions, and we really have come a long way and will complete the work now as we redistrict on the 1970 census. The redistricting that was done in the legislature last time was on the one man one vote principle, but it was on the basis of the 1960 census. So we're about to enter the final step, and then of course because of the census here, we're also redistricting our congressional districts, and that is a tremendous challenge. Now, who does this? Does the state legislature do this to? Now, what will be the big issues in this? The biggest issue is that we now have seven congressmen and we only have six, so it means we're redistricting somebody out of a district, and that's the very great problem. What are the major reasons for the various fights? I mean, we know we have to get rid of one. Well, it's on basis of total population and that there are only a certain number of representatives in Congress. And if the state is population grows and other states grow more rapidly than Iowa, then we lose a congressman. Well, I was meeting within the state, though, as to where the lines are drawn. What are the main issues and fights as to where you draw these lines? Which district somebody? Well, of course, the first consideration is where existing congressmen dwell. This is not a persuasive consideration, but it's one of considerable interest to the incumbents. We have a constitutional provision that prohibits the crossing of county lines in congressional district, and yet at the same time, the Supreme Court has said that that's not a valid reason to draw a district, which isn't equal. So we will, first of all, have to make some kind of an assumption as to whether the Iowa Constitutional provision governs or whether the Supreme Court mandate governs or whether, perhaps, they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. And continue to have one man one vote or earn, as in, spiritually equally, equal districts, and still observe our county lines. And we're rolling in the process right now of analyzing some computer runs and trying to make some plans of our own and doing a study job on it rather than doing anything in an actual way. Now, of course, money isn't going to be at a very, very important factor affecting all legislation I would assume. Yes, it is. And my second most important committee, I would say, is appropriations. I only committed to mention it when you asked me earlier, but I consider that, apart from being a chairman of a committee, I consider the appropriations committee the most challenging, and it's also the most demanding of legislators' time. But I think it does give one the opportunity to make some of the final determinations in where the money goes and how it's spent, which determines how the government functions. Now, you also, on the education committee, I can't remember. Schools. It's divided between higher education and schools and I'm on school. Now, between appropriations and schools, are you going to have any conflicts of getting the ones on the one hand and financing and one the other? That's always true because we keep having greater demands for state money, but not anymore from the educational sector than from all of the others, I think. Good deal of our state money does go to education, but a good deal of it goes to building roads and many other things. Now, at this particular stage of the legislature, what sort of work takes up most of your time? Early part of the session, I think the committee work is of the utmost importance early in the session. Some states actually only meet in session two or three days a week in the early part of their session. The remainder of the time is allocated to committee meetings. We determined that we would stay in session for five days a week, but that our sessions would be shorter on each day, and the work is being done on the bills and committee. And until they're considered by subcommittees and reported out, there's not as much work to be done in general session. Now, how can the constituent affect your attitude or their particular legislators attitude best? And what point? Any legislator in my view who is worth his salt, observes as much as he can the wishes of his constituents? I think any legislature must equate that with things he knows perhaps, which the individual who writes about some particular issue, which is paramount in his mind, does not know. This is a perennial question, and there's not any easy answer. It's one that legislators struggle with continually, when particularly when a constituent wishes you to proceed in some fashion that you've determined isn't in the general interest. And yet you must modify your constituent. Often it's not possible to change his mind because he has one thing in his mind, and it's his primary consideration, and he's not disposed to consider the general welfare. He wants his consideration to come first. And we thank Elizabeth Shaw, Republican from Davenport, and we have to realize her position of representing the poor, the rich, the educated, the uneducated, the young and the old. And thank you very much. Thank you.