Iowa Public Television

Iowa Press Transcripts

Iowa Press Links

Yepsen: IN WASHINGTON IT'S BACK TO WORK FOR THE 106TH CONGRESS. WE'LL FOCUS ON THE FALL AGENDA WITH A MEMBER OF THE IOWA DELEGATION, REPRESENTATIVE GREG GANSKE, ON THIS EDITION OF IOWA PRESS.

FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM WAS PROVIDED BY FRIENDS OF IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION. 80,000 MEMBERS SUPPORTING QUALITY PUBLIC TELEVISION PROGRAMMING.

THIS IS THE SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 26th EDITION OF IOWA PRESS. HERE IS DAVID YEPSEN.

Yepsen: THE 106TH U.S. CONGRESS RETURNED FROM ITS ONE-MONTH SUMMER RECESS ON SEPTEMBER 7th, AND GREETING THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES IS A FULL PLATE. TOPS ON THE AGENDA IS HOW TO DEAL WITH PRESIDENT CLINTON'S VETO OF THE REPUBLICAN SPONSORED $792-BILLION DOLLAR TAX CUT. ADDITIONALLY, THE HOUSE AND SENATE ARE EXPECTED TO COME TOGETHER ON THE FINAL DETAILS FOR THE $7.5-BILLION EMERGENCY AID PACKAGE HEADED TO FARMLAND AMERICA. AND, THERE ARE SOME STRONG HINTS THAT THE MARKET-DRIVEN FREEDOM TO FARM ACT OF 1996 IS IN FOR A MAJOR RETOOLING. AND THEN THERE'S HEALTH CARE. IT'S AN ISSUE THAT'S BEEN PARTICULARLY CLOSE TO OUR GUEST TODAY, REPRESENTATIVE GREG GANSKE, WHO IS NOW IN HIS THIRD TERM REPRESENTING IOWA'S FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IN SOUTH CENTRAL AND SOUTHWESTERN IOWA. HE JOINS US. CONGRESSMAN GANSKE, WELCOME BACK. GOOD TO HAVE YOU BACK.

Ganske: THANKS, DAVE AND KATHIE AND MIKE. NICE TO BE HERE.

Yepsen: AND ALSO JOINING US AT THE IOWA PRESS TABLE ARE REPORTERS KATHIE OBRADOVICH OF THE LEE NEWSPAPERS AND MIKE GLOVER OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS.

Glover: CONGRESSMAN, PERHAPS THE CENTERPIECE OF THE REPUBLICAN AGENDA IN CONGRESS WAS THE $792-BILLION TAX CUT. CONGRESS PASSED IT. PRESIDENT CLINTON VETOED IT. WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP? WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE ON TAX CUTS?

Ganske: WELL, LET ME JUST MAKE A DISCLAIMER, MIKE, AND THAT'S I'VE GOT A SORE THROAT. MY VOICE CRACKS ONCE IN A WHILE, AND I'LL TRY NOT TO COUGH IN YOUR DIRECTION. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW IF YOU COME DOWN WITH A COLD, I'M NOT LIABLE; I GAVE YOU A WARNING.

Glover: ABSOLUTELY.

Ganske: THE TAX CUT. WELL, I VOTED AGAINST THE $785-BILLION TAX CUT. I AM WORRIED THAT THIS SO-CALLED $1-TRILLION SURPLUS IS NOT ACTUALLY THERE. IT'S PREMISED ON A COUPLE THINGS WHICH ARE PRETTY SHAKY. ONE IS THAT WE WOULD KEEP THE SPENDING CAPS UNDER THE 1997 BALANCED BUDGET ACT, WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN BROKEN. TWO, THAT THERE WOULD BE NO EMERGENCY FUNDING FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS. AND THIS YEAR ALONE WE'VE ALREADY DONE EMERGENCY FUNDING FOR KOSOVO. WE'VE DONE EMERGENCY FUNDING, QUOTE UNQUOTE, FOR THE CENSUS THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. AND WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE A FARM CRISIS GOING ON, AND I'M SURE THAT I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR A $7-BILLION EMERGENCY PACKAGE FOR THE FARMERS. PLUS, WE JUST HAD THIS GREAT BIG HURRICANE GO UP THE EAST COAST, AND WHO KNOWS HOW MANY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT'S GOING TO COST. SO I WAS CONCERNED THAT THE SIZE OF THE SURPLUS IS NOT ACTUALLY AS LARGE AS IT HAS BEEN TOUTED TO BE. I VOTED FOR AN ALTERNATIVE TAX CUT OF ABOUT $250 TO $300 BILLION. IT ACTUALLY HAD MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF, THAT WOULD HAVE INCREASED THE DEDUCTION FOR CHILD TAX CREDIT -- OR INCREASED THE CHILD TAX CREDIT $250, MADE DEDUCTIBILITY FOR YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE 100 PERCENT FOR INDIVIDUALS, AND DONE A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS IMPORTANT TO THIS AREA, LIKE A PERMANENT EXTENSION OF THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT. I THINK I'VE BEEN A LITTLE UNHAPPY WITH SOME OF THE STRATEGY GOING ON IN TERMS OF ACTUALLY GETTING A TAX CUT SIGNED INTO LAW. CONGRESS GOT POSITIONED SO FAR OUT, SO FAR AWAY FROM THE PRESIDENT THAT I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HARD, THEN, TO COME TO A COMPROMISE, TO SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE AND ACTUALLY END UP WITH A TAX CUT. I WANT TO SEE A TAX CUT. Glover: DO YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO END UP WITH A TAX CUT LIKE THE ONE YOU DESCRIBED?

Ganske: I THINK IT'S LESS LIKELY NOW BECAUSE THEY'RE SO FAR APART IN TERMS OF THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT.

Obradovich: WELL, CONGRESSMAN, MAYBE YOU CAN GIVE US A LITTLE INSIGHT INTO WHAT FOLKS IN YOUR PARTY ARE THINKING. A LOT OF THE PARTY LEADERS HAVE SAID THEY'RE NOT GOING TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE PRESIDENT. DO YOU THINK THAT REPUBLICANS WANT A TAX CUT ON THE BOOKS THIS YEAR, OR DO THEY JUST WANT AN ISSUE FOR THE NEXT ELECTION?

Ganske: WELL, AS A REPUBLICAN I'D LIKE TO SEE A TAX CUT SIGNED INTO LAW. WE DID ONE IN 1997, ABOUT $280 BILLION. LET'S DO ANOTHER ONE AT $250 OR $300 BILLION IN 1999. AND THEN IF WE HAVE A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT, WE CAN DO ANOTHER ONE IN 2000 OR 2001. WHAT'S WRONG WITH, STEPWISE, GIVING THE TAXPAYERS TAX RELIEF? BUT, WHAT I'M SEEING IN CONGRESS, IS I'M SEEING A STRATEGY BY SOME OF MY LEADERSHIP THAT REMINDS ME AN AWFUL LOT OF WHERE WE WERE IN 1996 ON THE WELFARE REFORM ISSUE. REMEMBER WHEN PRESIDENT CLINTON VETOED THE WELFARE REFORM BILL TWICE? WELL, THERE WERE SOME IN LEADERSHIP THAT SAID, "OH, WELL, LET'S JUST LET IT LIE NOW. WE'LL TAKE IT TO THE ELECTION. WE'LL USE IT AS AN ELECTION ISSUE." AND SOME OF US, ESPECIALLY FROM MY CLASS, A CLASS THAT WAS ELECTED IN 1994, SAID, "WAIT A MINUTE, WE COULD DO SOME MINOR CHANGES IN THIS. WE THINK WE COULD GET THE PRESIDENT TO SIGN IT." AND I THINK THAT'S BEEN ONE OF THE BEST THINGS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN OUT OF THIS REPUBLICAN CONGRESS.

Glover: WHEN IS YOUR REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP GOING TO GET IT? I MEAN I'VE SEEN A LOT OF POLLS, WHICH SUGGEST THAT VOTERS ARE NOT TERRIBLY INTERESTED IN TAX CUTS. THEY'RE A LOT LIKE YOU. THEY'RE A LITTLE SHAKY ABOUT WHETHER THERE IS A SURPLUS, AND IF THERE IS, THEY'D LIKE TO SEE IT USED TO CURE SOCIAL SECURITY, TO PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT. WHEN IS YOUR LEADERSHIP GOING TO WAKE UP AND READ THOSE POLLS?

Ganske: WELL, I THINK THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN OVERALL STRATEGY ON HOW TO DEAL WITH REDUCING THE DEBT, HOW TO DO DEAL WITH SECURING MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY. THE MEGAPROBLEM FOR THE NEXT TEN TO TWENTY YEARS IS SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE, NOT JUST FOR OUR COUNTRY BUT FOR ALL OF THE DEVELOPED NATION'S BECAUSE OF OUR AGEING POPULATION. AND WITHIN THAT CONTEXT, I THINK YOU CAN DO A TAX CUT, BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME GUIDELINES AT THE BEGINNING TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOCATE TO EACH OF THOSE. AND I'VE BEEN A LITTLE FRUSTRATED. LOOK, I WENT OVER TO ARMENIA IN AUGUST AND DID SOME SURGERY. I DO THAT EVERY SO OFTEN. EVERY TIME I DO THAT, I'M STRUCK BY HOW YOU CAN SOLVE PROBLEMS SO QUICKLY, YOU KNOW, IN SOME AREAS. I CAN HOLD OUT MY HAND AND I CAN GET AN INSTRUMENT SLAPPED IN THE PALM AND WE CAN FIX SOMETHING, BUT POLITICS IS A HARD THING. IT IS A HARD THING, I WILL TELL YOU.

Obradovich: WELL, YOU MENTIONED THE DEBT REDUCTION, AND WHY NOT - YOU MENTIONED YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO MAYBE A LITTLE TAX CUT THIS YEAR, MAYBE A LITTLE NEXT YEAR. WHY NOT JUST PUT ALL THAT MONEY INTO DEBT REDUCTION, WHICH WILL ULTIMATELY STRENGTHEN THE ECONOMY, AND PROBABLY IMPROVE REVENUES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALONG THE WAY?

Ganske: WELL, THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I VOTED AGAINST THE LARGER TAX CUT, BECAUSE IT WAS TAKING, I THOUGHT, TOO MUCH AWAY FROM ACTUAL DEBT REDUCTION. AND DEBT REDUCTION IS ONE WAY THAT YOU CAN HELP SHORE UP SOCIAL SECURITY IN THE LONG RUN, BECAUSE BY REDUCING OUR OVERALL NATIONAL DEBT, THEN WHEN THE BABY BOOMERS START TO MOVE INTO RETIREMENT IN ABOUT FIFTEEN YEARS, YOU HAVE A BIGGER CUSHION. AND IT ALSO HELPS TO KEEP THE INTEREST RATES DOWN WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS LESS DEBT.

Yepsen: ISN'T DOING NOTHING ONE OF THESE PUBLIC POLICY OPTIONS THAT MAY, IN FACT, BE THE BEST? BECAUSE THE NATIONAL SURPLUS WILL CONTINUE TO PILE UP AND THE NATIONAL DEBT WILL AUTOMATICALLY GO DOWN; RIGHT?

Ganske: THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO MAKE THAT POINT, DAVE, AND IT TIES IN WITH HOW YOU WOULD RESTRUCTURE EITHER SOCIAL SECURITY OR MEDICARE. PRESIDENT CLINTON WANTS TO ADD A DRUG BENEFIT, AND IT IS A BIG PROBLEM FOR THE ELDERLY. THEY SPEND AN AWFUL LOT OF MONEY ON THEIR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS A VERY BIG-TICKET ITEM, AND SO WE'VE BEEN STRUGGLING JUST TO TRY TO KEEP MEDICARE SOLVENT PAST THE NEXT, SAY, TWELVE OR FOURTEEN YEARS. ADDING A HUGE BENEFIT THAT COULD COST $40 OR $50 BILLION A YEAR COULD MAKE THAT HARDER. AND SO YOUR POINT WOULD BE, WELL, MAYBE IT'S BETTER JUST TO NOT DO A TAX CUT, NOT GET INTO A MAJOR ENTITLEMENT ADDITION, AND JUST LET THINGS GO FOR THE YEAR.

Yepsen: HOW DO YOU FEEL CONGRESSMAN, ABOUT -- WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT MEDICARE, SPECIFICALLY? BUT SPECIFICALLY TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT, IS THAT A GOOD DEAL? YOU'RE A PHYSICIAN AND THE ARGUMENT WE HEAR OUT OF THE ADMINISTRATION IS THAT IF YOU HAVE A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT, YES, IT'S GOING TO COST YOU, BUT IT'S GOING TO SAVE YOU A LOT MORE MONEY IN THE LONG-TERM. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO STAY HEALTHIER. THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE THEIR MEDICATIONS, AND THIS WILL SAVE US MONEY. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT?

Ganske: WELL, I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH FORMER MEDICARE ADMINISTRATOR, BRUCE VLADICK, AND THAT IS THAT THERE HAVE RARELY BEEN ADDITIONAL BENEFITS ADDED TO MEDICARE THAT HAS ACTUALLY SAVED MONEY. I MEAN I THINK THIS IS A COSTER, BUT IT'S BEEN IMPORTANT ISSUE. I THINK THAT YOU HAVE TO COME UP WITH A CUT -- IN ORDER TO TALK ABOUT ADDING A BENEFIT, LIKE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS YOU HAVE TO DO IT IN THE CONTEXT OF A COMPREHENSIVE OVERHAUL.

Glover: WELL, LET'S LOOK AT THAT COMPREHENSIVE OVERHAUL. THE OTHER IMPORTANT PART OF THAT PACKAGE THAT YOU MENTIONED IS SOCIAL SECURITY. WHAT IS YOUR PRESCRIPTION FOR SOLVING SOCIAL SECURITY PROBLEMS?

Ganske: THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PLANS ON CAPITOL HILL. SENATOR BOB KERREY AND PATRICK MOYNIHAN, DEMOCRATS, HAVE ONE THAT WOULD BASICALLY INVOLVE TAKING 2 PERCENT OF THE 12.4 PERCENT SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAX AND ALLOWING A PERSON TO PUT IT INTO AN INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT, KEEPING THAT IN THEIR NAME. REPUBLICANS HAVE LOOKED AT SOME OF THOSE. BUT THE OPTIONS ARE THESE... WE KNOW THIS. THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TELLS US. LOOK, WHEN THE BABY BOOMERS RETIRE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THREE CHOICES. YOU'RE EITHER GOING TO HAVE TO REDUCE BENEFITS; YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO INCREASE THE PAYROLL TAX, WHICH ALREADY ACCOUNTS FOR A HUGE AMOUNT OF THE AVERAGE FAMILY'S INCOME. THE AVERAGE FAMILY INCOME IN THIS COUNTRY, THE MEDIAN INCOME, IS ABOUT $50 THOUSAND, BECAUSE BOTH HUSBAND AND WIFE ARE WORKING. OKAY, THEIR TAX BURDEN IS $8,000 FOR PAYROLL TAXES AND $4,000 FOR INCOME TAX. SO, RAISING THE PAYROLL TAX DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A VERY GOOD IDEA TO MOST WORKING AMERICANS. THE THIRD OPTION IS, DO YOU GET SOME INCREASED RETURN ON THE INVESTMENT THAT YOU'RE ALREADY PUTTING IN. THE DETAILS ON HOW YOU DO THAT ARE GOING TO BE EXCEEDINGLY IMPORTANT. I JUST DON'T SEE ON CAPITOL HILL TODAY, A DIALOGUE GOING ON WITH THE ADMINISTRATION TO MAKE THAT TYPE OF SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC-POLICY DECISION. SO WHAT I REALLY WANT TO SEE IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION THAT'S COMING UP, I HOPE THAT YOU REPORTERS JUST REALLY HOUND THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES TO GET THEM TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE BECAUSE ONLY IN THE CONTEXT, I BELIEVE, OF A NATIONAL DEBATE, PROBABLY IN THE FORM OF A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ARE YOU GOING TO GET THIS ISSUE DECIDED BY THE PUBLIC.

Glover: HAVE YOU HEARD THAT DEBATE FROM THE CANDIDATES SO FAR?

Ganske: NOT TOO MUCH.

Yepsen: DO YOU REALISTICALLY THINK -- EXCUSE ME, KATHIE, -- DO YOU REALISTICALLY THINK THAT WE WILL SEE THIS? AREN'T POLITICIANS AFRAID TO COME IN AND TOUCH THIS FOR FEAR OF ALIENATING SOMEBODY?

Ganske: WELL, THEY ARE. I MEAN IT'S A -- SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE HAVE BEEN CALLED A THIRD RAIL OF POLITICS, AND THEY ARE HUGELY POPULAR PROGRAMS, AND THEY SHOULD BE. AND THEY PROVIDE A SAFETY NET FOR THE ELDERLY THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE THIRTY-FIVE YEARS AGO, WHICH MEANT THAT THE ELDERLY WERE BASICALLY DESTITUTE, A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THEM, SO IT'S REALLY HELPED. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, THE STATISTICS ARE THERE. WE KNOW THAT IN ABOUT TWENTY YEARS THERE WILL ONLY BE TWO WORKERS FOR EVERY RETIREE.

Obradovich: ANOTHER GROUP OF FOLKS WHO ARE IN NEED OF A SAFETY NET ARE FARMERS IN IOWA TODAY. CONGRESS DID NOT ACT DURING THE SUMMER ON THE $7 1/2 BILLION EMERGENCY AID PACKAGE FOR FARMERS, IS THAT GOING TO HAPPEN THIS FALL?

Ganske: YES, IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

Obradovich: IS IT GOING TO BE ENOUGH? IS IT GOING TO BE IN TIME TO HELP FARMERS IN IOWA?

Ganske: WE HAVE, KATHIE, GOING ON IN CONGRESS RIGHT NOW -- I HAD A LONG TALK WITH CONGRESSMAN, TOM LATHAM, WHO'S ON THE AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE THAT'S DEALING WITH THIS. THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT WILL HELP. FIRST, WE'RE GOING TO PASS A BILL AUTHORIZING AN IMPROVEMENT IN CROP INSURANCE. AND THAT'S ALREADY IN THE BUDGET, SO IT'S ALREADY IN 1997 B.B.A. THEN WE'LL ADD ABOUT $7 BILLION TO THE CROP INSURANCE PROGRAM, WHICH WILL MEAN THAT THERE'LL BE AN INCREASED INDUCEMENT TO A FARMER TO ACTUALLY PURCHASE CROP INSURANCE. THIS WILL HELP BECAUSE A LOT OF FARMERS DON'T HAVE A CROP. WE'VE GOT A CROP IN IOWA. THE OTHER THING IS THAT WE HAVE THIS EMERGENCY AID, PROBABLY ABOUT $7 OR $8 BILLION THAT WILL BE ADDED INTO THE APPROPRIATIONS BILL. IT'S BEING HELD UP RIGHT NOW, NOT BECAUSE OF A PARTISAN PROBLEM, BUT BECAUSE OF A GEOGRAPHIC PROBLEM. AND THERE ARE TWO SENATORS. ONE REPRESENTS A DAIRY STATE AND ONE REPRESENTS -- IN THE NORTHEAST, AND ONE REPRESENTS A DAIRY STATE IN THE MIDWEST. THEY ARE OF DIFFERENT PARTIES. AND THIS IS WHAT I ALLUDED TO EARLIER... SOMETIMES THESE THINGS TAKE A LITTLE WHILE TO GET WORKED OUT. IT'S HUGELY IMPORTANT TO THE DAIRY FARMERS, BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF WHERE WE NEED TO BE, WE NEED TO START GETTING THIS MONEY OUT TO OUR FARMERS NOW.

Glover: ANOTHER ISSUE THAT'S FLOATING AROUND WASHINGTON IS THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT REWORKING THE FREEDOM TO FARM ACT, THE 1996 FARM LAW. THERE SEEMS TO BE A CONSENSUS IT'S GOING TO BE CHANGED. (A) DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? AND (B) WHAT SORT OF CHANGES CAN BE WE EXPECT IN THAT LAW?

Ganske: WELL, NUMBER ONE, I THINK THAT IN THE LONG-RUN, IOWA IS BETTER OFF IF WE DO NOT HAVE SET-ASIDES. WE'VE GOT THE BEST FARMLAND IN THE WORLD. AND WE HAVE, GENERALLY, VERY LOW INCIDENCE OF CROP FAILURE IN TERMS OF THE WEATHER. ALSO, OUR UNIT PRODUCTION COSTS ARE LOWER THAN MANY PARTS OF THE COUNTRY, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE TO IRRIGATE LIKE THEY DO DOWN ACROSS THE SOUTH TO GET A CORN CROP OR BEANS OR WHATEVER ELSE. SO THAT WE DON'T WANT, I THINK, IN THE LONG-RUN AS REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE UPPER MIDWEST TO ENCOURAGE PRODUCTION IN MARGINAL ACRES. AND SO THE FREEDOM TO FARM MOVED TOWARDS, I THINK, A MORE REALISTIC MARKET FOR COMMODITY -- FOR COMMODITIES. HOWEVER, WE'VE HIT A REALLY BIG BUMP IN THE ROAD BECAUSE WE ENDED UP LOSING SOME OF OUR FOREIGN MARKETS FROM THE SOUTHEAST ASIA CRASH. WE'VE HAD SEVERAL YEARS OF EXCEEDINGLY GOOD WEATHER AROUND THE WORLD, LIKE IN BRAZIL AND OTHER PLACES, WHICH HAVE BUMPED UP CROPS. AND SO WE HAVE AN OVERSUPPLY OF CROPS RIGHT NOW. I THINK THAT -- I THINK THAT THE SOLUTION LIES MORE IN AN IMPROVED CROP INSURANCE PROGRAM AND SOME HELP FOR THE FAMILY FARMER TO GET OVER THIS HURDLE RIGHT NOW. AND FINALLY, WE NEED TO -- CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATION NEEDS TO REDEDICATE OURSELVES TO GETTING FAIR TRADE WITH THESE FOREIGN COUNTRIES. LET'S LOOK AT CHINA AS AN EXAMPLE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A $60-BILLION TRADE DEFICIT WITH CHINA THIS YEAR, $60 BILLION. JUST A FEW YEARS AGO IT WAS, LIKE, $6 BILLION. OKAY. WHEN WE TRY TO EXPORT OUR AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES TO CHINA, THEY SLAP AN AVERAGE OF 40-PERCENT IMPORT TARIFFS ON OUR AMERICAN AGRICULTURE COMMODITIES. 40 PERCENT! SOME OF THEM ARE MORE THAN A HUNDRED PERCENT. AT THE SAME TIME, THEY CAN BRING THEIR GOODS INTO OUR COUNTRY AT 5 OR 6 PERCENT. THAT'S NOT FAIR. THAT'S WHY THE PRESIDENT SHOULD HAVE FAST-TRACK NEGOTIATING AUTHORITY, AND THAT'S WHY THE ADMINISTRATION, QUITE FRANKLY, SHOULD BE TOUGHER ON GETTING A MORE FAIR TRADE AGREEMENT WITH SOME OF OUR BIG TRADING PARTNERS.

Glover: HAVE FARMERS LOST CLOUT IN CONGRESS? THERE ARE FEWER FARMERS THAN THERE HAVE EVER BEEN, AND THE NUMBERS ARE GOING DOWN. HAS THE FARM CLOUT IN CONGRESS SIMPLY DIMINISHED TO THE POINT WHERE YOU CAN'T ENACT LEGISLATION?

Ganske: I THINK THAT WE NEEDED TO HAVE SOME ADMINISTRATION HELP ON FAST TRACK. THE PRESIDENT'S TROUBLES WITH HIS IMPEACHMENT, I THINK, PREVENTED HIM FROM BEING AS FORCEFUL WITH SOME DEMOCRATS TO HELP BRING THEM ALONG ON THAT, AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT. BUT, I WOULD SAY THAT FARMERS STILL HAVE QUITE A BIT OF INFLUENCE, PARTICULARLY IN THE SENATE, AND THE EXAMPLE I JUST GAVE YOU WAS HOW TWO SENATORS, FOR INSTANCE, CAN HOLD UP A BILL ON AN AG ISSUE.

Yepsen: CONGRESSMAN, RELATED TO THIS TRADE ISSUE ARE SANCTIONS AGAINST CUBA. WE'VE HAD THESE SANCTIONS IMPOSED AGAINST CUBA AND, YEAH, YOU KNOW, WHILE I CAN'T BUY A CUBAN CIGAR, IT MEANS SOMETHING TO A LOT OF FARMERS AND PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SELL SERIOUS GOODS TO THAT COUNTRY. WHY DO WE STILL HAVE TRADE SANCTIONS WITH CUBA?

Ganske: WE -- THE HOUSE PASSED A BILL, A RESOLUTION OR AN AUTHORIZATION THAT BASICALLY SAID THAT WE COULD TRADE -- WE COULD LIFT THE EMBARGO FOR AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES AND FOR MEDICAL SUPPLIES WITH CUBA. AND THAT IS RIGHT IN LINE WITH THE FACT THAT I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE USING FOOD AS A WEAPON IN OUR FOREIGN POLICY. AND CUBA IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF HOW WE CONTINUE TO DO THIS. WE'VE DONE THIS FOR FORTY YEARS NOW.

Yepsen: ISN'T THIS ALL POLITICS?

Ganske: IT'S TIME TO GET IT -- YES, IT IS POLITICS, DAVE, BECAUSE --

Yepsen: NOBODY WANTS TO ALIENATE FLORIDA VOTERS IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE; RIGHT?

Ganske: THAT HAS TO DO WITH IT, YES.

Obradovich: ANOTHER ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN TAKING UP A LOT OF YOUR TIME I KNOW, CONGRESSMAN, IS THE PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS, TRYING TO GET SOME POWER BACK FROM THE MANAGED CARE ORGANIZATIONS. AND YOU'VE TRIED NOW FOR A WHILE TO GET THIS GOING. IS SOMETHING GOING TO HAPPEN THIS YEAR?

Ganske: I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD CHANCE THIS YEAR. WE HAVE A BILL THAT IS BIPARTISAN. IT HAS WAY MORE THAN A MAJORITY OF VOTES IN THE HOUSE, IF WE GET A FAIR AND A CLEAN VOTE ON IT. WHAT THE BILL DOES IS THIS, IT SAYS THAT IT ALLOWS A PATIENT THAT'S TRULY HAVING AN EMERGENCY TO GO TO AN EMERGENCY ROOM. YOU CAN BE SURE IF YOU'RE A PATIENT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE WHOLE STORY FROM YOUR DOCTOR AND NOT JUST WHAT THE HMO TELLS THEM. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IF AN HMO DENIES CARE, THEN IT SETS UP A FAIR PROCESS FOR A PATIENT TO APPEAL THAT AND HAVE THAT DENIAL OVERTURNED.

Obradovich: WHAT WOULD STOP YOU FROM GETTING A FAIR AND A CLEAN VOTE?

Ganske: I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE A PROCEDURAL RULE ON THIS DEBATE, WHICH WILL OCCUR ACCORDING TO DENNY HASTERT, THE SPEAKER AND MY GOOD FRIEND, A WEEK FROM MONDAY, AND THE RULE, I THINK, IS GOING TO BE, THAT SETS UP THE TERMS FOR THE DEBATE, IS GOING TO BE VERY SIMILAR TO THE HURDLES THAT WERE SET UP IN TERMS OF PASSING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. THEY'RE SOME MEMBERS IN LEADERSHIP THAT DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS LEGISLATION PASS, BUT I SAY LET THE WILL OF THE HOUSE WORK.

Glover: IF YOU LOOK AT THIS DEBATE OVER MANAGED CARE, A LOT OF PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT HMOs, A LOT OF PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT MANAGED CARE. IN FACT, AREN'T THOSE THINGS DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE SET UP TO DO, WHICH IS SQUEEZE MONEY OUT OF THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM?

Ganske: I THINK MANAGED CARE HAS LARGELY GOTTEN ONE-TIME DISCOUNTS, AND A LOT OF MEDICAL EXPERTS AROUND THE COUNTRY HAVE BEEN DISAPPOINTED WITH THE CONTINUED SOFT, PRICE SAVINGS, COST SAVINGS. LOOK, I THINK SOME HMOs DO A FINE JOB FOR FAMILIES. IT'S JUST A FACT THAT IT'S A VERY COMPETITIVE MARKET OUT THERE, AND SOME OF THEM CUT CORNERS TOO CLOSELY AND IT HAS RESULTED IN INJURY TO SOME PEOPLE, LOSS OF LIMB OR EVEN LIFE, AND I COULD GIVE YOU SOME EXAMPLES ON THAT. WE SIMPLY WANT THEM TO FOLLOW SOME OF THE SAME RULES THAT, IF YOU RECEIVE YOUR INSURANCE THROUGH YOUR EMPLOYER, THAT THAT HEALTH PLAN WOULD ALSO HAVE TO FOLLOW IF IT WERE JUST SELLING YOU AN INDIVIDUAL POLICY. I MEAN STATE INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS HAVE OVERSEEN HEALTH PLANS FOR A LONG TIME, BUT THERE'S A FEDERAL LAW THAT EXEMPTS THAT TYPE OF OVERSIGHT FOR EMPLOYER PLANS. I THINK WE CAN FIX THIS. IT WON'T SIGNIFICANTLY RAISE COSTS. IT WILL ACTUALLY, IN THE LONG-RUN, I THINK, REASSURE PEOPLE SO THAT THEY KNOW THAT ALL THAT MONEY THEY'RE CURRENTLY SPENDING ON HEALTH CARE WILL ACTUALLY MEAN SOMETHING IF THEY GET SICK SO THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY GET THE CARE THEY NEED AND I THINK IN THE LONG-RUN WILL HELP PRESERVE A MARKET HEALTH SYSTEM RATHER THAN MOVING TOWARDS A GOVERNMENT SYSTEM, WHICH I DON'T WANT TO SEE.

Yepsen: IF YOU PASS A PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS, WON'T YOU INCREASE LAWSUITS IN AMERICA?

Ganske: DAVE, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. TEXAS PASSED A BILL THAT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES LIMITS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR BILL A COUPLE YEARS AGO. THEY'VE ONLY SEEN ONE LAWSUIT DESPITE ALL THE PREDICTIONS THAT THEY WOULD SEE AN AVALANCHE OF LAWSUITS. AND THAT WAS WHEN AN HMO OVERRODE A PSYCHIATRIST'S RECOMMENDATION TO KEEP A PATIENT IN THE HOSPITAL BECAUSE HE WAS SUICIDAL. THE PATIENT WENT HOME AND DRANK HALF A GALLON OF ANTIFREEZE AND DIED. I MEAN THAT HEALTH PLAN MADE A MEDICAL DECISION, AND THEY SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. BUT WE HAVEN'T SEEN AN ACTUAL PRACTICE, THE TYPE OF SCARE TACTICS THAT THE HMOs HAVE PUT OUT EITHER IN TERMS OF COST, ACCESS, OR A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE OF LIABILITY BECAUSE THE LIABILITY PROVISIONS ARE IN TANDEM WITH A WAY TO RESOLVE THOSE DISPUTES BEFORE AN INJURY OCCURS.

Obradovich: ANOTHER THING A LOT OF PEOPLE IN AMERICA ARE SCARED ABOUT IS THAT SOME CRAZY PERSON WITH A GUN IS GOING TO WALK INTO THEIR OFFICE OR WALK INTO A SCHOOL OR WALK INTO THEIR CHURCHES, AS WE'VE SEEN ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY, WITH A GUN. CAN THIS CONGRESS GO HOME AND FACE THE VOTERS THIS YEAR WITHOUT PUTTING IN PLACE SOME SORT OF GUN CONTROLS?

Ganske: WELL, I BELIEVE THAT THE PACKAGE THAT THE SENATE PASSED, WHICH SAID THAT GUN SELLERS AT GUN SHOWS SHOULD FOLLOW THE SAME RULES THAT A RETAILER FOLLOWS, ARE REASONABLE. AND ALSO, FOR INSTANCE, PROVIDING GUN LOCKS ON THE PURCHASE OF A GUN. IN FACT, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT INTERNAL SURVEYS IN THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION HAVE SHOWN THAT THE MAJORITY OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP AGREED WITH THOSE PROVISIONS AS WELL. SO I FIRMLY HOPE THAT MY LEADERSHIP COMES BACK AGAIN ON THIS ISSUE AND SIMPLY ALLOWS US TO VOTE AGAIN ON, I THINK, A RATHER MODEST PROPOSAL THAT CAME OUT OF THE SENATE.

Glover: THERE WAS ANOTHER ISSUE YOU MENTIONED EARLIER IN TERMS OF THE RULES AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES WAS CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. THIS CONGRESS HAS NOT ACTED ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THIS CONGRESS IS GOING TO ACT ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. WHY?

Ganske: WELL, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THERE'S NO CHANCE. WE PASSED THIS NOW IN THE HOUSE. I SUPPORTED A CAMPAIGN FINANCE BILL THAT I THOUGHT WAS PRETTY FAIR. YOU KNOW, THE POLITICAL SYSTEM IS BEING OVERRUN BY UNREGULATED SOFT-MONEY DONATIONS. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO'S GIVING IT. THERE'S NO REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, AND ALSO ISSUE ADS, WHICH MASQUERADE AS TALKING ABOUT AN ISSUE, BUT EVERYONE CLEARLY KNOWS WE NEED A LAYPERSON'S DEFINITION. THAT'S A CAMPAIGN AD, AND SO THOSE TWO THINGS, I THOUGHT, BALANCED OUT FAIRLY EVENLY FOR THE PARTIES, AND THAT'S WHY I SUPPORTED THEM. AND IT DID PASS THE HOUSE DESPITE OVERCOMING A LOT OF HURDLES. THE ISSUE'S GOING BACK TO THE SENATE. I BELIEVE THAT NEXT YEAR AS THE ELECTION APPROACHES THERE'S GOING TO BE INCREASED EXAMINATION OF THIS ISSUE, AND IT'S GOING TO BE HARDER. YOU'RE GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, THE OPPONENTS TO THIS LEGISLATION ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FILIBUSTER AGAINST IT.

Yepsen: WELL, AND THEY WILL.

Ganske: AND THEY WILL.

Glover: AND YOU'RE RELATIVELY NEW TO POLITICS, CONGRESSMAN, BUT YOU'VE BEEN AROUND A LITTLE BIT. AND YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THERE'S NO CHANCE THAT BILL'S GOING TO MAKE IT TO THE SENATE.

Ganske: I WOULD SAY THAT THE CHANCES ARE SMALL BUT, MIKE, IF THE ELECTION GETS REALLY TIGHT, IF YOU START LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY LOSING A MAJORITY IN THE SENATE BECAUSE OF NOT JUST THIS ISSUE BUT A SERIES OF ISSUES, THEN PEOPLE CHANGE THEIR OPINIONS. ALL OF A SUDDEN THINGS HAPPEN.

Yepsen: TO MIKE'S POINT, CONGRESSMAN, WILL YOU PICK UP THE PHONE AND ASK SENATOR GRASSLEY TO SUPPORT A CLOSURE MOTION TO ALLOW THIS BILL TO BE DEBATED?

Ganske: YES, I WILL. I'VE ALREADY TALKED TO HIM ON HOW I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE.

Glover: CONGRESSMAN, ALONG THE WAY WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF ISSUES, AND YOU SEEM TO HAVE INDICATED ON A LOT OF THESE THINGS THE CHANCES OF SOMETHING HAPPENING ARE NOT ALL THAT GREAT. WHAT ARE THE ODDS THIS IS GOING TO END UP BEING LABELED A DO-NOTHING CONGRESS AS WE HEAD INTO THE ELECTION SEASON?

Ganske: WELL, THE FIRST THING THAT WE -- THE FIRST THING THAT WE NEED TO GET DONE HERE, MIKE, IN THE NEXT MONTH OR TWO IS WE NEED TO FINISH UP OUR SPENDING AND APPROPRIATIONS BILLS SO THAT WE DON'T END UP WITH A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN. EVEN THOUGH AT TIMES I HAVE BEEN AT VARIANCE WITH MY LEADERSHIP, I WANT TO GIVE SPEAKER HASSERT A KUDO. HE IS A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE. I CALL HIM MY COACH, AND HE IS DEALING WITH A VERY TOUGH SITUATION WHERE WE ONLY HAVE LIKE A FIVE-VOTE MARGIN IN THE HOUSE. IT'S NOT EASY TO DO SOME OF THIS STUFF. AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, I THINK HE'S HONESTLY DOING A PRETTY GOOD JOB. I'D JUST LIKE TO MOVE HIM ALONG IN A COUPLE ISSUES.

Obradovich: WE'VE GOT TO MOVE ALONG REAL QUICK HERE AND TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT POLITICS. WE KNOW THAT YOU'RE SUPPORTING TEXAS GOVERNOR GEORGE W. BUSH. IS IT INEVITABLE THAT HE'S GOING TO GET THE NOMINATION, AND DO YOU THINK HE'S GOING TO BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT?

Ganske: NOTHING IS INEVITABLE. BUT I THINK HE HAS A GOOD CHANCE OF GETTING THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION, CLEARLY. AND I THINK THAT HE'S THE BEST CHANCE FOR US TO WIN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION, AS WELL.

Obradovich: ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT A REFORM PARTY SIDESHOW WITH PAT BUCHANAN OR DONALD TRUMP TAKING A LOT OF VOTERS' ATTENTIONS AWAY FROM THE GENERAL ELECTION?

Ganske: I WOULD QUESTION WHETHER PAT BUCHANAN, FOR INSTANCE, AS A REFORM PARTY CANDIDATE, WOULD ACTUALLY GET VERY MANY VOTES.

Glover: WE DON'T HAVE VERY MUCH TIME LEFT, BUT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF SPECULATION THAT YOU'RE GOING TO RUN AGAINST SENATOR HARKIN IN 2002. WHAT'S YOUR FUTURE?

Ganske: MY FUTURE IS ONE ELECTION AT A TIME; NEVER TAKE ANYTHING FOR GRANTED. AND SO I'M RUNNING FOR REELECTION, AND I'M RUNNING HARD. I DON'T KNOW WHO MY OPPONENT WILL BE YET FOR THIS 2000 ELECTION.

Yepsen: ASSUMING YOU DO RUN, ASSUMING YOU DO WIN, THE DEMOCRATS DON'T HAVE ANYBODY TO RUN AGAINST YOU RIGHT NOW. ASSUMING YOU DO WIN, WILL YOU BE A CANDIDATE AGAINST SENATOR HARKIN?

Ganske: I THINK THAT'S A DECISION THAT MY WIFE AND I WILL JUST HAVE TO SIT DOWN AND TALK ABOUT SOME FAMILY THINGS, AND WE'LL SEE AT THAT TIME.

Yepsen: YOU'RE SAVED BY THE GONG, CONGRESSMAN. WE'RE OUT OF TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING WITH US. AND THAT'S IT FOR THIS WEEK'S EDITION OF IOWA PRESS. WE'LL BE RETURNING NEXT SUNDAY AT NOON AND SEVEN, AND DEAN BORG WILL BE REJOINING US AT THAT TIME. UNTIL THEN, I'M DAVID YEPSEN OF THE DES MOINES REGISTER. AND THANKS FOR JOINING US HERE ON STATEWIDE IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION.

FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM WAS PROVIDED BY FRIENDS OF IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION, EIGHTY THOUSAND MEMBERS SUPPORTING QUALITY PUBLIC TELEVISION PROGRAMMING.