Iowa Public Television

Narrator: FUNDING FOR "IOWA PRESS" WAS PROVIDED BY FRIENDS OF IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION; AND BY THE IOWA BANKERS ASSOCIATION... FOR PERSONAL, BUSINESS, AND COMMERCIAL NEEDS, IOWA BANKS HELP IOWANS REACH THEIR FINANCIAL GOALS.

THIS IS THE SUNDAY, AUGUST 26 EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS." HERE IS DEAN BORG.

Borg: MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE NEARLY COMPLETED THEIR ANNUAL AUGUST RECESS. THE 32-DAY SUMMER BREAK BEGAN AUGUST 3. THE SESSION RESUMES ON SEPTEMBER 5. THE AGENDA WHEN THEY GET BACK INCLUDES THE CONTROVERSIAL PATIENTS BILL OF RIGHTS THAT'S NOW HEADED TO A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, WITH THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE VERSIONS PASSED BY THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE TO BE RECONCILED. FURTHER ACTION ON PRESIDENT BUSH'S FAITH-BASED INITIATIVE IS PENDING; AND WHILE IT'S WAITING, BOTH SIDES ARE MARSHALLING SUPPORT. AND ALSO ON THE CONGRESSIONAL AGENDA, AND OF PARTICULAR INTEREST TO THE IOWA DELEGATION, ARE NEGOTIATIONS ON A NEW FARM BILL TO REPLACE THE BELEAGUERED FREEDOM TO FARM ACT OF 1996. WELL, TO PROVIDE PERSPECTIVE ON THESE AND OTHER ISSUES, WE'VE INVITED CONGRESSMAN TOM LATHAM TO THE "IOWA PRESS" TABLE TODAY. HE'S A REPUBLICAN FROM ALEXANDER, NOW IN HIS FOURTH TERM REPRESENTING IOWA IN THE U.S. HOUSE. AND HE'S GOING TO BE CALLING THE NEWLY RECONFIGURED FOURTH DISTRICT IN CENTRAL AND NORTH CENTRAL IOWA HIS CONGRESSIONAL HOME FROM NOW ON. WELCOME BACK TO "IOWA PRESS."

Latham: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DEAN. IT'S GREAT TO BE HERE TODAY.

Borg: IT'S NICE TO HAVE YOU HERE. ACROSS THE TABLE, POLITICAL REPORTERS DAVID YEPSEN OF "THE DES MOINES REGISTER" AND MIKE GLOVER OF "THE ASSOCIATED PRESS."

Glover: CONGRESSMAN, WE'VE SEEN A SERIES OF PROJECTIONS IN RECENT DAYS WHICH SHOW THE BUDGET SURPLUS RATCHETING DOWN, DOWN, DOWN, DOWN AND, IN SOME CASES, GOING AWAY. WHY SHOULDN'T THE RATIONAL VOTER ASSUME THAT CONGRESS HAS BLOWN A ONCE-HEALTHY BUDGET SURPLUS?

Latham: WELL, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE FACTS, MIKE. WE HAVE $160-BILLION SURPLUS THIS YEAR. IT'S THE SECOND LARGEST SURPLUS IN HISTORY. WE'RE GOING TO PROTECT EVERY DIME OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND. EVERY DIME THAT GOES INTO MEDICARE IS GOING TO BE USED FOR THOSE BENEFITS. AND IT'S A STARK DIFFERENCE FROM WHEN I FIRST CAME TO CONGRESS BACK IN JANUARY OF 1995, WHEN PROJECTIONS THEN WERE FOR OVER $200-BILLION DEFICITS EVERY YEAR. SO THE IDEA OF SOMEHOW THAT $160-BILLION SURPLUS IS SMALLER, I THINK REALLY -- PEOPLE HAVE TO REALIZE WE'RE IN A GREAT POSITION IN THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A TIGHT BUDGET SITUATION. BUT WITH THE TAX RELIEF, I THINK IT'S BETTER TO HAVE FAMILIES ACTUALLY SPENDING THOSE DOLLARS THEMSELVES RATHER THAN TO HAVE JUST A WHOLE NEW BUNCH OF WASTEFUL WASHINGTON SPENDING.

Glover: IS THERE ANY SIGN AT ALL THAT THIS TAX CUT HAS BEGUN TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY? I MEAN, EVERY SIGN I'VE SEEN, IT'S JUST THE OPPOSITE.

Latham: WELL, OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE ARE JUST BEGINNING TO GET THEIR CHECKS. THERE'S ABOUT $40 BILLION; FOR IOWA, IT'S ABOUT $400 MILLION THAT IS JUST ARRIVING. I THINK IF YOU ASK FAMILIES TODAY, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY GET THE CHECK AND THEIR KIDS ARE GOING TO SCHOOL AND THEY'RE ABLE TO BUY THEM NEW CLOTHES AND TENNIS SHOES AND BE ABLE TO HELP THE FAMILY -- AND THAT'S WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO FOCUS ON.

Yepsen: SO YOU'RE NOT HAVING ANY SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT TAX CUT?

Latham: OH, NOT AT ALL. ACTUALLY, I THINK WE'RE VERY FORTUNATE THAT IT'S IN PLACE, BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN, OVER THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS, THE ECONOMY SLOWING DOWN. AND WHAT THE WORST THING WOULD BE WOULD BE TO RAISE TAXES. WHAT WE'RE DOING IS REDUCING THE TAX BURDEN TO GENERATE SOME STIMULANT FOR THE ECONOMY.

Yepsen: YOU'RE ON THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. WHAT'S THE PRIORITY NOW? YOU HAVE LESS MONEY TO SPEND IN WASHINGTON. THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE A GOOD THING, DEPENDING ON YOUR POINT OF VIEW. WHAT'S THE PRIORITY? WE HEAR TALK ABOUT DEFENSE, ABOUT PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY, PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. WHAT IS THE PRIORITY FOR THE NEXT CONGRESS? WHAT -- OR FOR THIS CONGRESS, WHAT IS YOUR PRIORITY?

Latham: WELL, NUMBER ONE IS TO CONTINUE TO PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT. AND WE ARE, WITH THE SURPLUS NUMBERS, YET ON TRACK TO PAY OFF ALL OF THE PUBLICLY HELD DEBT AVAILABLE OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS, AND THAT'S THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY. THEN TO PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, AND TO FUND PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES THAT ARE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT; BUT I THINK TO CONTINUE TO PAY DOWN THE DEBT IS NUMBER ONE.

Glover: PRESIDENT BUSH HAS ASKED FOR AN ADDITIONAL $39 BILLION FOR THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT. CAN YOU JUSTIFY OR FIND THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY TO INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING?

Latham: I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND THAT NUMBER, BUT AN INCREASE IN DEFENSE AND FOCUS ON QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE PEOPLE IN UNIFORM -- IT'S A NATIONAL DISGRACE TODAY THAT WE HAVE ABOUT 16,000 PEOPLE IN UNIFORM WILLING TO GIVE THEIR LIVES FOR THIS COUNTRY WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR WELFARE.

Glover: IF IT'S NOT $39 BILLION, GIVE ME A NUMBER.

Latham: WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF THE NUMBER HAS BEEN SETTLED YET. I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMEWHAT OF AN INCREASE. WE'RE LOOKING AT ALSO -- I DON'T THINK YOU CAN HAVE THE NUMBERS WITHOUT A REFORM OF THE PENTAGON ITSELF. AND THAT'S WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT ALL ASPECTS OF OUR DEFENSE POSTURE AND THEN PUT THE DOLLARS BEHIND THE PRIORITIES THAT ARE SET THEN. SO WITHOUT GOOD POLICY, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN PICK A NUMBER. IF WE WANT TO JUST KEEP THROWING MONEY AT THE PENTAGON, WE'VE DONE THAT FOR YEARS AND YEARS. BUT I THINK WE'VE GOT TO BE SMARTER, WE'VE GOT TO HAVE A FORCE THAT'S EFFICIENT THAT IS READY, AND VERY, VERY MOBILE. SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A NEW DEFENSE DEPARTMENT HERE IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

Yepsen: CONGRESSMAN, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT WE WILL HAVE A NEW DEFENSE DEPARTMENT? I MEAN, EVERY ADMINISTRATION COMES IN AND TALKS ABOUT DOING AWAY WITH WASTEFUL PENTAGON SPENDING, AND YET WE STILL HAVE THIS DISCUSSION IN OUR SOCIETY. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THIS TIME IS GOING TO BE ANY DIFFERENT?

Latham: WELL, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DO BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LOT OF FOLKS WHO DON'T WANT ANY CHANGE AT ALL IN THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND THE GENERALS WILL LINE UP, SAY ONE THING AS FAR AS ANY ADMINISTRATIONS LINE, AND THEN THEY'LL GO BACK DOOR AND TALK TO THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, "WELL, ACTUALLY WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS THIS, THIS, THIS, AND THIS." BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE PEOPLE WITH ENOUGH GUTS, WITH ENOUGH CONVICTION TO ACTUALLY SAY THAT WE'VE GOT TO CHANGE THE WAY THIS PLACE WORKS. I MEAN, THE PENTAGON HAS A BIG HOLE IN THE MIDDLE IN WHICH WE POUR MONEY DOWN. AND OFTENTIMES, WITHOUT REFORM, WE DON'T SEE THE BENEFITS.

Yepsen: SOCIAL SECURITY... A LOT OF IOWANS CARE ABOUT THAT ISSUE. A MULTIPART QUESTION HERE. IS SOCIAL SECURITY IN JEOPARDY, GIVEN THESE NEW BUDGET PROJECTIONS THAT WE'VE SEEN? AND SECONDLY, WHERE IS THE SYSTEM HEADED FOR BABY BOOMERS?

Latham: NO, SOCIAL SECURITY IS SECURE. THE SACRED PROMISE THAT WE HAVE AS FAR AS PEOPLE RECEIVING THEIR BENEFITS IS IN PLACE AND FOR PEOPLE CURRENTLY IN THE SYSTEM AND THOSE COMING ON IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS. AND ALL THE BUDGET NUMBERS DO IS REALLY CONFIRM THAT WE ARE PROTECTING EVERY DIME OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY DOLLARS THAT GO IN THAT. NOW, YOU ALSO HAVE TO REALIZE THAT WHEN WE GET OUT, WHEN WE RETIRE THE BABY-BOOM GENERATION, THAT WE'RE ONLY GOING TO HAVE TWO PEOPLE WORKING FOR EVERY ONE PERSON WHO IS GETTING BENEFITS FROM SOCIAL SECURITY. AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT SOCIAL SECURITY TODAY IS A PROGRAM WHERE DOLLARS ARE BASICALLY PASSED THROUGH. IT'S NOT A TRUST FUND SITTING THERE. THOSE DOLLARS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SPENT IN PREVIOUS FORTY YEARS FOR OTHER THINGS. SO TO LOOK AT A REFORM OF SOCIAL SECURITY THAT PROTECTS THE BENEFITS FOR FOLKS WHO ARE IN THE SYSTEM, WHO ARE GOING TO BE COMING IN SHORTLY, BUT ALSO TO LOOK AT OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE THE SYSTEM WORK LONG-TERM IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.

Borg: DO YOU SUPPORT LETTING POTENTIAL BENEFICIARIES INVEST IN EQUITIES?

Latham: I THINK YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL OF THE POTENTIAL REMEDIES LONG-TERM. NOW, NO ONE IS SAYING THAT INDIVIDUALS ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO TAKE SOCIAL SECURITY DOLLARS AND INVEST IN SOME RISKY STOCK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WHAT SOME FOLKS HAVE SUGGESTED IS THAT THERE BE, MAYBE, THREE OR FOUR FUNDS THAT SOMEONE COULD INVEST IN AN INTEREST BEARING BOND ACCOUNT, AN EQUITY FUND, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

Borg: BUT YOU'D SUPPORT SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW?

Latham: WELL, I THINK -- NUMBER ONE, YOU GUARANTEE THE SANCTITY OF THE CONTRACT FOR FOLKS WHO ARE IN THE SYSTEM TODAY AND COMING ON, BUT ALSO THE IDEA THAT HAVING SOMETHING IN PLACE FOR THE FUTURE FOR THE NEXT GENERATIONS IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. THE THING PEOPLE FORGET ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY, IT IS NOT FAIR TO A LOT OF FOLKS. IF YOU'RE A BLACK MAN AND YOUR AVERAGE LIFE SPAN IS 57 YEARS, THEY NEVER RECEIVE THE BENEFITS. AND WHEN THEY DIE, THOSE BENEFITS ARE GONE. TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE AN ASSET FOR THAT FAMILY AFTER AN INDIVIDUAL DIED IS, I THINK, VERY POSITIVE AND HAS SOME REAL BENEFITS.

Borg: I HAD MENTIONED, EARLY ON, FARM LEGISLATION. WHAT SHOULD BE THE PRINCIPLES OF THE NEW FARM BILL?

Latham: WELL, I THINK, NUMBER ONE, MAINTAINING THE FLEXIBILITY THAT FARMERS LIKE SO MUCH, THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES. THE FARM BILL RESPECTS THEIR INTELLIGENCE IN THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE DECISIONS. I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CONSERVATION PART OF IT; TO HAVE THE CONCERN THAT WE ALL HAVE FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT FOR PRESERVING THEIR GREATEST ASSET, OUR SOIL AND OUR WATER; AND THEN TO LOOK, OBVIOUSLY, AT THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT THAT WE CAN GIVE FARMERS; AND NOT TO INTERFERE IN THE MARKETPLACE, BUT ALSO MAKE SURE THAT OUR FARMERS ARE ABLE TO SURVIVE AND SOMEHOW TARGET THOSE DOLLARS TOWARDS THE FAMILY-FARM OPERATOR.

Glover: THERE SEEMS TO BE A GROWING CONSENSUS THAT THE FREEDOM TO FARM BILL WAS A COLOSSAL FAILURE. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

Latham: I THINK YOU HAVE TO LOOK BACK AT WHEN THE FREEDOM TO FARM BILL WAS PUT IN PLACE. AND THERE WERE FOUR PARTS TO THE FREEDOM TO FARM BILL. NUMBER ONE WAS THE FLEXIBILITY. BUT AT THAT SAME TIME WE ALSO PROMISED REGULATORY RELIEF. AND WE'VE BEEN FIGHTING, I HAVE, FOR SIX YEARS TRYING TO GET SOME REGULATORY RELIEF IN AGRICULTURE, AND IT'S ONLY GETTING WORSE. IF YOU TALK TO LIVESTOCK PRODUCERS TODAY, ESPECIALLY THE CATTLEMEN WHO ARE GETTING SLAMMED WITH A BUNCH OF NEW REGULATIONS, IT WILL PUT, POTENTIALLY, ABOUT 60 PERCENT OF THEM OUT OF BUSINESS IN IOWA. WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO HAVE AN AGGRESSIVE TRADE POLICY. WELL, WE HAVE NOT GIVEN THE PRESIDENT NEGOTIATING AUTHORITY. WE HAVE A SANCTIONS POLICY IN PLACE. IN THE LAST EIGHTY YEARS, WE'VE HAD 120 SANCTIONS, TRADE SANCTIONS, PUT ON OTHER COUNTRIES. OVER HALF OF THOSE HAVE BEEN IN THE LAST EIGHT YEARS. SO HOW ARE WE GOING TO SELL ANYTHING OVERSEAS? AND ALSO, TAX POLICY... IT'S NOT BEEN UNTIL THIS CONGRESS THAT WE'VE FINALLY GIVEN A STATE DEATH-TAX RELIEF. SO THERE HAVE BEEN -- THE WHOLE PART OF THE FARM BILL, THE FOUR LEGS OF IT, ONLY ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE, AND THAT WAS THE FLEXIBILITY.

Glover: SO THE UNDERPINNING OF THE FREEDOM TO FARM BILL WAS TO END THE TRADITIONAL FARM SUBSIDY PAYMENTS, SO WE JUST ENDED THOSE AND REPLACED THEM WITH AN ANNUAL EMERGENCY BILL.

Latham: WELL, AND IT SHOWS THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT, I THINK, FOR FARMERS IN CONGRESS. AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE, YES. BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT PRICEWISE WE'VE HAD FOUR YEARS OF OVERPRODUCTION WORLDWIDE. IT'S NOT A U.S. SITUATION. IT'S A WORLDWIDE OVERPRODUCTION. GOOD WEATHER, WHICH IS GREAT. WE HAVE AN ABUNDANT SUPPLY OF FOOD, BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT FACTORS SUCH AS THE VALUE OF THE DOLLAR. AND WHAT HAPPENED IN THE ASIAN ECONOMY, WE'RE STILL SEEING THE PROBLEMS COMING FROM THAT, THE COLLAPSE OVER THERE. BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE VALUE OF THE DOLLAR, OUR COMMODITIES TODAY COST OUR CUSTOMERS ABOUT 25 PERCENT MORE THAN IT DOES FROM OTHER COUNTRIES TODAY BECAUSE OF THE STRONG DOLLAR. OUR COMPETITORS HAVE ABOUT A 40-PERCENT VALUE -- OR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE BECAUSE OF THE STRONG DOLLAR TODAY. AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER FACTORS INVOLVED. AND ANYONE SAYS THAT A FARM BILL IS GOING TO MAKE PRICE OF COMMODITIES SIMPLY HASN'T LOOKED -- HISTORICALLY, IT'S NEVER BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT.

Yepsen: CONGRESSMAN, WHAT ARE THE PROSPECTS FOR ANY FARM LEGISLATION IN THIS SESSION? AMERICA IS GETTING MORE AND MORE URBAN ALL THE TIME. DO YOU -- ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO GET A DECENT PIECE OF LEGISLATION, OR IS THE CONGRESS STARTING TO GET TIRED OF WRITING ALL OF THESE CHECKS TO A FEW FARMERS?

Latham: WELL, I THINK EVERYONE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A FARM BILL WHERE THEY KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. AND THERE'S UNCERTAINTY EVERY YEAR, WHEN THE MARKET HAS STAYED DOWN THE PAST FOUR YEARS NOW AND WE'VE HAD TO HAVE EMERGENCY PAYMENTS, AND FARMERS AREN'T SURE THAT LEVEL OF SUPPORT IS GOING TO BE THERE. SO I THINK WE WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO WRITE A GOOD FARM BILL. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT NEW ASPECTS OF IT: RURAL DEVELOPMENT, CONSERVATION, THE ENVIRONMENT, A LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR FARMERS. AND ALSO WITH THE FARM BILL COMES THE WELFARE COMPONENT, AS FAR AS FOOD STAMPS AND WIC. AND THAT'S WHERE WE GET SUPPORT FROM EVERYBODY ELSE FOR THE FARM BILL.

Yepsen: TALK ABOUT THE CONSERVATION PIECE OF THAT FOR JUST A MOMENT. YOU KNOW, CONGRESSMAN, THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN DES MOINES WHO ARE GETTING REAL TIRED OF THEIR WATER BEING FOULED BY YOUR CONSTITUENTS UPSTREAM. NOW, WILL THERE BE SOMETHING IN THIS FARM BILL THAT IS GOING TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT WATER QUALITY?

Latham: WELL, THERE IS AN INCREASE AS FAR AS THE CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM, INCREASE IN THE WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM. THERE ARE ASPECTS OF THE HOUSE-PASSED BILL THAT ARE CERTAINLY GOING TO BE BENEFICIAL AS FAR AS THE ENVIRONMENT. BUT I THINK WE CAN'T LOOK AT JUST THE FARM BILL FOR THAT. THERE ARE MANY OTHER ASPECTS OF IT, WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR LAKES AND OUR STREAMS. AND IT'S NOT JUST A FUNCTION OF THE FARM BILL AS FAR AS ADDRESSING THOSE PROBLEMS.

Glover: TELL ME HOW THIS IS ALL GOING TO WORK OUT. WE HAVE A REPUBLICAN- CONTROLLED HOUSE, WE HAVE A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT, AND WE HAVE TOM HARKIN AS CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE. HOW DOES THIS ALL SORT THROUGH?

Latham: WELL, ONE CONCERN I HAVE IS THAT, IN THE SENATE, THEY HAVEN'T MOVED A FARM BILL YET. AND WITH OUR BUDGET RESOLUTION THAT WE HAD THIS PAST YEAR, WE HAVE ABOUT $73.5 BILLION AVAILABLE OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE BASELINE HAS BEEN, AND THAT'S GOING TO GO AWAY IF WE DON'T GET SOMETHING DONE THIS YEAR. SO IF WE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE CONSERVATION, THE ENVIRONMENT PART OF IT, AS FAR AS THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR FARMERS THAT ACTUALLY IS EFFECTIVE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING THIS YEAR. AND IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT OR THOSE DOLLARS ARE GOING TO GO AWAY.

Glover: LET'S SWITCH GEARS FOR A SECOND. THERE'S A LOT OF DEBATE IN WASHINGTON ABOUT PROVIDING A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT EITHER THROUGH MEDICARE OR THROUGH SOME KIND OF A SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM. WHAT ARE THE ODDS THAT THERE WILL BE A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT PASSED THIS COMING SESSION?

Latham: WELL, IF WE CAN TAKE POLITICS OUT OF IT.

Glover: LET'S ASSUME THAT IN CONGRESS, WE CAN'T.

Latham: AND THAT MAY BE TRUE BUT I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF WE DO NOT SEE REAL MOVEMENT IN THAT DIRECTION. HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET SOMETHING DONE YET THIS YEAR. BUT A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT IN MEDICARE, IN THAT WE'RE SEEING A WHOLE REVOLUTION AS FAR AS THE WAY HEALTH CARE IS DELIVERED. SO MANY MORE OUTPATIENT CARE IS MUCH MORE GIVEN, AND THE DRUGS HAVE BECOME SO MUCH MORE OF AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE METHODS OF DOCTORS TAKING CARE OF PATIENTS TODAY. WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE INVASIVE SURGERIES THAT WE DID GOING OFF IN THE FUTURE, SO IT'S A MUCH MORE IMPORTANT PART OF THE EQUATION. AND TO HAVE A BENEFIT AVAILABLE FOR OUR SENIORS IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT, AND WE'VE GOT TO FIND A WAY TO DO IT AND STILL HAVE DOLLARS AVAILABLE, YOU KNOW, FOR HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYONE.

Yepsen: ANOTHER ISSUE IN FRONT OF CONGRESS IS THE PATIENTS BILL OF RIGHTS. IT PASSED THE HOUSE. I'M NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE SENATE. WHAT IS YOUR READ ON A PATIENTS BILL OF RIGHTS, AND WHAT IT FINALLY GOING TO EMERGE, IF ANYTHING?

Latham: WELL, I THINK WE CAN HAVE A VERY GOOD PATIENTS BILL OF RIGHTS IN THAT WE'LL GUARANTEE WOMEN ACCESS TO SPECIALISTS, CHILDREN ACCESS TO SPECIALISTS, TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS A PROPER WAY OF EXPRESSING GRIEVANCES AND TO GET THEM RESOLVED QUICKLY AND TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY GET THE HEALTH CARE THAT THEY NEED. NINETY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE BILL -- OF BOTH BILLS IN THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE ARE IN AGREEMENT. IT'S A VERY SMALL PART OF IT AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE ABILITY OF ADDITIONAL LAWSUITS, WHICH COST A LOT OF MONEY IN THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY, AS EVERYONE KNOWS, AND WHAT PROCEDURE YOU GO THROUGH AS FAR AS GRIEVANCES. THE CONCERN I HAVE IS, AND SOME ESTIMATES SAY, THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOSE COVERAGE FOR, MAYBE, EIGHT TO NINE MILLION ADDITIONAL AMERICANS AND INCREASE COSTS ABOUT $17 BILLION A YEAR, IF WE HAVE A LOT OF THESE NEW REMEDIES AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, SUING EVERYBODY. WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO GET INTO THE EMERGENCY ROOM AND NOT NECESSARILY THE COURTROOM.

Glover: LET'S STRIP IT AWAY TO ITS BASICS. DON'T WE REALLY HAVE THE TRIAL LAWYERS FIGHTING HMOs?

Latham: WELL, THERE'S SOME OF THAT, OBVIOUSLY.

Glover: ISN'T THAT ALL OF IT?

Latham: WELL, YOU HAVE REAL CONCERNS THAT FOLKS HAVE. DOCTORS HAVE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS AS TO WHAT'S HAPPENED IN SOME PARTS OF THE COUNTRY. TRIAL LAWYERS, OBVIOUSLY, LOOK AT AN OPPORTUNITY HERE FOR SOME LITIGATION. BUT IN REALITY, YOU KNOW, MIKE, THIS WHOLE ISSUE ALMOST HAS PASSED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY. THERE'S 41 STATES INCLUDING IOWA THAT HAVE A PATIENTS BILL OF RIGHTS IN PLACE. IT'S ALMOST LIKE IF WE WOULD HAVE DONE THIS SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS AGO, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE BENEFICIAL, BUT TODAY IT'S ALMOST --

Glover: LET'S TURN THIS WHOLE DEBATE ON ITS EAR AND STEP BACK A SECOND AND LOOK AT THE BROAD PICTURE. HMOs, MANAGED CARE, ALL OF THAT WAS CREATED TO SQUEEZE MONEY OUT OF THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. IN FACT, IT'S DONE JUST THAT. HAVEN'T WE -- AREN'T WE NOW SEEING AN UPROAR OVER A POLICY THAT'S BASICALLY SUCCEEDED?

Latham: AND THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENTION OF HMOs, BUT ALSO, IF THEY WERE HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS, THE TYPE OF HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM WAS SUPPOSED TO CHANGE AND MUCH MORE BASED ON PREVENTIVE MEDICINE. NOW, WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT PORTION OF THE REFORM COME THROUGH WITH HMOs AS MUCH AS MANY OF US WOULD LIKE TO SEE, JUST BECAUSE THE EMPHASIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN ON IMMEDIATE CARE. AND SO THERE IS -- IT HASN'T BEEN FULLY IMPLEMENTED. BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, THAT WAS THE WHOLE PURPOSE BEHIND HMOs TO BEGIN WITH.

Yepsen: CONGRESSMAN, ANOTHER ISSUE IN FRONT OF THE CONGRESS IS FAITH-BASED INITIATIVE BY THE PRESIDENT. A LOT OF CONTROVERSY ABOUT WHETHER THAT'S RIGHT OR WRONG. HOW DO YOU COME DOWN ON THAT? WHERE DO YOU SEE THAT ISSUE HEADED?

Latham: WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALL SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS BE ABLE TO ACCESS FUNDING TO HELP PEOPLE. AND IT'S NOT JUST FAITH-BASED; IT'S ALSO COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS WHO DO A TREMENDOUS JOB OUT THERE. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT DRUG ADDICTION, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS, AND RECOVERY... THE MODEL OF THE ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS, WHERE YOU HAVE PEOPLE ACTUALLY HAVE TO GIVE A COMMITMENT TO A HIGHER BEING ACTUALLY TO BE SUCCESSFUL, I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. AND THAT'S WHERE THE HIGHEST SUCCESS RATES HAVE BEEN AS FAR AS REHABILITATION.

Yepsen: AT THE END OF THE DAY, DO YOU THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO GET A FAITH-BASED BILL ON HIS DESK, OR WILL THIS BE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT GETS, SORT OF, CHEWED UP IN THE SHUFFLE?

Latham: WELL, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT UNLESS PEOPLE LIKE SENATOR LIEBERMAN REALLY GET ON BOARD AND PUSH IT IN THE SENATE SIDE. BUT, YOU KNOW, THE HOUSE HAS ALREADY PASSED IT. AND I THINK IT'S VERY, VERY POSITIVE. WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL THAT WE DO NOT MANDATE FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH THOSE DOLLARS THAT FAITH-BASED GROUPS CHANGE THEIR FAITH. YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

Glover: IN FACT, A LOT OF THOSE GROUPS DON'T WANT FEDERAL DOLLARS BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT FEDERAL DOLLARS BRING FEDERAL STRINGS, RIGHT?

Latham: WELL, THE CONCERN IS THAT THERE WILL BE STRINGS ATTACHED WITH THE FEDERAL DOLLARS, ABSOLUTELY. BUT THE DOLLARS UNDER WHAT WE PASS ONLY GO TO THE SERVICES THAT THEY GIVE PEOPLE AND IS NOT TIED WITH ANY KIND OF CHANGE AS FAR AS THE RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY.

Glover: WE TALKED ABOUT STEPPING BACK JUST A MOMENT AGO. LET'S STEP BACK AND GO DOWN ANOTHER PATH CALLED POLITICS. AS DEAN MENTIONED IN THE OPENING OF THIS SHOW, YOU'RE IN A NEW DISTRICT. YOU'RE IN A NEWLY CONFIGURED FOURTH DISTRICT, CENTRAL, NORTH CENTRAL, AND INTO NORTHEAST IOWA. WHAT'S YOUR MESSAGE TO ABOUT HALF THAT DISTRICT THAT YOU HAVEN'T REPRESENTED BEFORE? TAKE A MOMENT TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF TO THOSE FOLKS.

Latham: WELL, I LIVE ON A FARM IN ALEXANDER, IOWA, AND JUST DOWN THE ROAD FROM MY HOME, WHICH IS FOUR GENERATIONS, OUR FAMILY HAS BEEN ON THAT PLACE FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS NOW. I HAVE WORKED VERY, VERY HARD. I HAVEN'T CHANGED WHAT I BELIEVE IN FROM THE FIRST DAY THAT I WENT TO CONGRESS, BELIEVING OF BALANCING THE BUDGET, PAYING OFF THE DEBT, REDUCING THE TAX BURDEN ON WORKING FAMILIES SO THAT THEY COULD BE SUCCESSFUL, AND REALLY TRYING TO BRING SOME COMMON SENSE TO WASHINGTON AND I THINK I'VE BEEN VERY, VERY SUCCESSFUL. AND I'VE WORKED VERY HARD IN THE DISTRICT TO MAKE SURE THAT I LISTEN TO PEOPLE. AND THAT'S THE KEY TO IT, I THINK, IS LISTENING TO PEOPLE, BRINGING BACK THEIR IDEAS TO WASHINGTON. SO WHAT THEY CAN EXPECT FROM ME IS SOMEONE WHO'S GOING TO LISTEN CAREFULLY, WHO'S GOING TO WORK HIS HEART OUT LIKE I HAVE, AND TOGETHER WE CAN BE VERY SUCCESSFUL. I DO A LOT OF GOOD THINGS.

Glover: IDENTIFY YOURSELF ON THAT LIBERAL TO CONSERVATIVE SCALE. WHAT DO YOU TELL PEOPLE?

Latham: YOU KNOW, I DON'T DO LABELS. I BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE AND THAT'S THAT WE'VE GOT TO HAVE SOME MODERATION IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THAT WE'VE GOT TO CONTINUE TO BALANCE THE BUDGET, TO PAY OFF OUR NATIONAL DEBT, TO HAVE GOVERNMENT BE LESS INTRUSIVE IN OUR EVERDAY LIVES. I MEAN, I DON'T DO LABELS.

Glover: NOW, I HAVEN'T ASKED YOU, BUT YOU ARE RUNNING AGAIN, RIGHT?

Latham: YES.

Yepsen: THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO RUN JOHN NORRIS AGAINST YOU, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO GOVERNOR TOM VILSACK, FORMER STATE DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN. THERE MAY BE OTHERS WHO GET IN THE RACE ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE, BUT HE'S THE ONLY ONE WE KNOW OF AT THIS POINT. SPECIFICALLY, WHY YOU OVER JOHN NORRIS? WHY SHOULD VOTERS IN THAT DISTRICT HIRE YOU OVER HIM? HE SAYS IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE.

Latham: WELL, I DON'T KNOW JOHN NORRIS AND I DON'T KNOW WHO THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO NOMINATE. I MEAN, THAT'S A QUESTION I GUESS I CAN'T ANSWER, BUT I WILL JUST TELL YOU THAT I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING VERY HARD IN THIS NEW DISTRICT. IT'S BEEN A GREAT HONOR TO REPRESENT NORTHWEST IOWA. IT'S CHANGED. THE LINES MOVED BY A BUREAUCRACY HERE IN DES MOINES, CHANGED THE LINES. BUT, YOU KNOW, I WENT TO IOWA STATE. I'VE HAD TWO KIDS GRADUATE FROM SIMPSON COLLEGE IN INDIANOLA. I'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, FAMILY, RELATIVES IN MARSHALLTOWN. I UNDERSTAND THE DISTRICT. ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT I'M GOING TO WORK VERY, VERY HARD IN THIS DISTRICT, AS I HAVE, AND TO LISTEN TO PEOPLE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RACE IS GOING TO COME OUT TO BE OR WHO THE OPPONENT WILL BE.

Yepsen: IOWA'S ECONOMY IS SPUTTERING, AS IS THE NATIONAL ECONOMY. YET, IOWANS CONTINUE TO EARN LESS THAN AMERICANS DO NATIONALLY. WHAT WILL YOU DO TO IMPROVE INCOMES IN IOWA?

Latham: WELL, I THINK WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT -- IN AGRICULTURE, WHEN WE LOOK AT RESEARCH, BASIC RESEARCH, LIKE UP AT IOWA STATE, IS SO ESSENTIAL. WHEN WE LOOK AT REDUCING THE TAX BURDEN ON WORKING PEOPLE, THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT SO THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY ABLE TO KEEP THAT MONEY THEMSELVES RATHER THAN SEND IT OFF TO WASHINGTON WHERE THEY HAVE A BUREAUCRAT SPEND IT FOR THEM. TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES... AND THAT'S WHAT IT IS. WE'VE GOT TO HAVE JOBS. AND WE NEED REDUCTIONS, SAY, IN CAPITAL GAINS TAXES, BECAUSE THAT IS SIMPLY A TAX ON SAVING INVESTMENT AND JOB CREATION. AND WHEN WE HAVE THOSE THINGS GOING ON, WE HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITIES, WE HAVE BETTER PAYING JOBS. SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS WE CAN DO, BUT I WILL ALSO SAY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO EVERYTHING AND PEOPLE HAVE GOT TO UNDERSTAND THAT WASHINGTON D.C. IS NOT GOING TO CREATE OPPORTUNITIES HERE. PEOPLE HERE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CREATE OPPORTUNITIES AND INVEST IN IOWA.

Glover: TALK ABOUT THE CLIMATE NEXT YEAR. HISTORY WOULD TELL US THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A TERRIBLY GOOD YEAR FOR REPUBLICANS. IT'S THE FIRST MID-TERM ELECTION OF A NEW REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION. HISTORY SHOWS THAT THAT'S NOT A GOOD YEAR FOR THE PARTY IN THE WHITE HOUSE. WHAT DO YOU SENSE THE CLIMATE IS GOING TO BE NEXT YEAR?

Latham: WELL, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE GOOD. I MEAN, WE HAVE A PRESIDENT -- AND I WILL AGREE THAT A LOT IS GOING TO HINGE ON HOW SUCCESSFUL HE'S BEEN. BUT YOU LOOK AT THE RECORD THAT HE'S PILED UP HERE SO FAR IN JUST ABOUT SIX MONTHS IN OFFICE, AS FAR AS THE MAJOR TAX RELIEF BILL THAT IS NOW A LAW, FORMULATING AN ENERGY POLICY WHICH WE NEEDED SO DESPERATELY. JUST IN AGRICULTURE, IT'S GOING TO COST FARMERS A BILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS MORE THIS YEAR BECAUSE OF THE COSTS OF PETROLEUM THAT THEY USE. TO HAVE --

Glover: EXCUSE ME. GASOLINE IS $1.60 A GALLON AND FARMERS ARE GOING TO LIKE THAT?

Latham: NO, I'M SAYING IT'S COSTING THEM THAT MUCH MORE FOR THEIR EXPENSES. SO WHEN THE PRESIDENT PUT AN ENERGY POLICY IN PLACE AND WE PASS THAT IN THE HOUSE, IT'S GOING TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AT LEAST TO RELIEVE US OF OUR DEPENDENCY ON FOREIGN OIL. BACK IN '73 IT WAS 35 PERCENT; NOW IT'S OVER 60 PERCENT. BUT THERE'S ALSO A HUGE OPPORTUNITY, AND THIS PRESIDENT, IN IOWA, HAS DONE MORE FOR IOWANS AS FAR AS ETHANOL AND SOY DIESEL AND BIOMASS THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT.

Glover: DO YOU WANT HIM TO CAMPAIGN FOR YOU?

Latham: ABSOLUTELY. AND I'VE WORKED VERY HARD. I HAVE A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE WHITE HOUSE, AND I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE ANYONE COME OUT HERE.

Yepsen: CONGRESSMAN, WE'VE GOT JUST ABOUT A MINUTE LEFT. I WANT YOU TO PUT YOUR OLD FIFTH DISTRICT HAT ON AND GO BACK OUT TO WESTERN IOWA AND THE MISSOURI RIVER. WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THAT ISSUE OF MISSOURI RIVER FLOWS? WE HEAR POLITICIANS ALL OVER THE MIDWEST FIGHT WITH EACH OTHER OVER WHAT OUGHT TO BE DONE. WHERE DOES THAT STAND? WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN?

Latham: WELL, IN THE HOUSE BILL, I HAVE AN AMENDMENT IN THAT THATS SAYS THAT THE ARMY CORPS WILL NOT USE THE SPRING RISE, WHICH WILL FLOOD THE RIVER AND ALSO DRY IT UP, AS FAR AS ANOTHER COMPONENT OF THAT POLICY IN THE LATER SUMMER MONTHS. WHAT THE SENATE SAID WAS THAT THEY WILL NOW CONSIDER ALL OPTIONS, POSSIBLY A SPRING RISE, BUT ALSO OTHER OPTIONS WITH INPUT. THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ALSO HAS BEEN DIRECTED BY THE ARMY THEMSELVES NOT TO DO THE SPRING RISE. SO I THINK WE WILL HAVE AN AGREEMENT, I THINK, THAT WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO EVERYONE AND NOT DESTROY THE LIVELIHOODS AND THE PROPERTY OF PEOPLE DOWNSTREAM.

Borg: PROBLEM SOLVED, THEN.

Latham: WELL, I DON'T THINK IN WASHINGTON ANY PROBLEM IS EVER SOLVED.

Borg: WE'RE OUT OF TIME. THANK YOU, CONGRESSMAN LATHAM.

Latham: THANK YOU, DEAN.

Borg: THAT'S IT FOR THIS WEEK'S EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS." WE'LL BE BACK NEXT SUNDAY AT NOON AND 7:00. I HOPE YOU WILL TOO AND THAT YOU'LL WATCH. UNTIL THEN, I'M DEAN BORG. THANKS FOR JOINING US TODAY.

Narrator: FUNDING FOR "IOWA PRESS" WAS PROVIDED BY FRIENDS OF IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION; AND BY THE IOWA BANKERS ASSOCIATION... FOR PERSONAL, BUSINESS, AND COMMERCIAL NEEDS, IOWA BANKS HELP IOWANS REACH THEIR FINANCIAL GOALS.