Iowa Public Television

ON STATEWIDE   IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION,   THIS IS THE FRIDAY,   SEPTEMBER 27 EDITION   OF "IOWA PRESS."    HERE IS DEAN BORG.  

Borg: IOWA CONTINUES TO BE AT THE EPICENTER OF THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS THAT WILL DETERMINE WHETHER THE DEMOCRATS OR THE REPUBLICANS CONTROL THE NEW CONGRESS.    ON NOVEMBER 5 IOWA WILL ELECT A SENATOR AND FIVE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND IOWA HAS NATIONAL ATTENTION BECAUSE THOSE RACES ARE TIGHT.    TODAY'S "IOWA PRESS" IS THE FOURTH OF FIVE PROGRAMS WE'RE DEVOTING TO THE MAJOR-PARTY CANDIDATES FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.    TODAY IT'S THE FOURTH DISTRICT IN CENTRAL AND NORTH CENTRAL IOWA.   REPUBLICAN TOM LATHAM OF ALEXANDER SEEKS A FIFTH TWO-YEAR TERM.    HE'S IN WASHINGTON AND JOINS US BY SATELLITE.    CONGRESSMAN LATHAM, WELCOME BACK TO "IOWA PRESS."  

Latham: THANK YOU, DEAN.    IT'S GREAT TO BE WITH YOU THIS MORNING.  

Borg: AND HERE AT THE TABLE IS THE MAN WHO'S CAMPAIGNING TO REPLACE MR. LATHAM, DEMOCRAT JOHN NORRIS OF AMES.    HE'S AN ATTORNEY AND HAS SERVED AS STATE DEMOCRATIC CHAIR AND CHIEF OF STAFF FOR GOVERNOR TOM VILSACK.    MR. NORRIS, WELCOME TO "IOWA PRESS."  

Norris: THANKS, DEAN.    GREAT TO BE HERE.  

Borg: AND ACROSS THE TABLE:    "KUNI PUBLIC RADIO" STATEHOUSE REPORTER JENEANE BECK   AND "ASSOCIATED PRESS" SENIOR POLITICAL WRITER MIKE GLOVER.  

Glover: CONGRESSMAN LATHAM, WE LIKE TO GIVE PEOPLE ON THIS SHOW AN OPPORTUNITY TO SOUND THEIR OWN COMMERCIAL, ASSUMING THEY WOULD AT SOME POINT ANYWAY.    SO LET'S HEAR YOURS.   WHAT'S THE CASE FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS FOR TOM LATHAM IN CONGRESS?

Latham: WELL, MIKE, I'M SOMEONE WHO HAS DEEP ROOTS IN THIS CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.    I'M A HUSBAND, FATHER ,   MOST PROUD OF THE FACT BEING A GRANDFATHER, A FARMER, SMALL BUSINESSPERSON, FOURTH-GENERATION LATHAM.    I LIVE JUST DOWN THE ROAD FROM OUR FAMILY FARM THAT'S BEEN IN THE FAMILY FOR 110 YEARS.    I'VE WORKED VERY HARD IN CONGRESS TO MAKE SOME REAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS.    I LOOK BACK AND SAY THE TRAINING CENTER OVER IN SIOUX CITY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO FIGHT THIS PROBLEM WE HAVE WITH METHAMPHETAMINES, FOR THE FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL ANIMAL DISEASE LAB IN AMES, THOSE ARE VERY IMPORTANT THINGS, BUT WHAT THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT IS FOR THE FUTURE.    AND I'M IN A POSITION IN CONGRESS AS A SENIOR MEMBER OF THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, THE ONLY MEMBER ON THAT IMPORTANT COMMITTEE FROM IOWA, TO DO A LOT OF GOOD THINGS FOR THE FUTURE, TO TACKLE THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE AS FAR AS JOB OPPORTUNITIES AND GROWTH.

Glover: OKAY, MR. NORRIS.    MR. NORRIS, MAKE THE CASE FOR REMOVING TOM LATHAM FROM CONGRESS AND REPLACING HIM WITH JOHN NORRIS.  

Norris: WELL, MIKE, EVER SINCE I GREW UP ON MY FAMILY'S FARM DOWN BY RED OAK IOWA, MY FAMILY HAS ALWAYS BEEN INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY AND CHURCH ACTIVITIES.    I'M STILL INVOLVED IN MY SIMPSON COMMUNITY, WHERE I'M ON THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND SERVE AS PRESIDENT OF THE ALUMNI ASSOCIATION.   WHEN I HAD MY RESTAURANT BUSINESS IN GREENFIELD, IOWA, I SERVED AS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CHAMBER OF CONGRESS.    MY WIFE, JACKIE, AND I LIVE IN AMES, AND I'M SO PROUD OF HER.   SHE'S DEDICATED HER LIFE TO TEACHING YOUNG CHILDREN AS A HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER IN PERRY.    ONE OF OUR GREATEST ASSETS IN IOWA, I THINK, IS OUR SENSE OF COMMUNITY. SO MANY IOWANS GIVE GENEROUSLY TO THEIR COMMUNITY AND THEIR COUNTRY.   I THINK WE NEED A CHANGE IN CONGRESS BECAUSE WE NEED A CONGRESS THAT REFLECTS THAT SENSE OF COMMUNITY, A CONGRESS THAT REFLECTS COMMUNITY VALUES.    YOU KNOW, THAT DOME OVER OUR NATION'S CAPITOL, IT DOESN'T SAY REPUBLICAN, IT DOESN'T SAY DEMOCRAT, AND IT SURE DOESN'T SAY SPECIAL INTERESTS.    I WANT TO BE AN INDEPENDENT VOICE FOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS FOURTH DISTRICT TO WORK TO STRENGTHEN OUR COMMUNITIES.  

Beck: CONGRESSMAN LATHAM, CONGRESS WILL LIKELY BE ASKED TO VOTE ON GOING TO WAR WITH IRAQ BEFORE THE ELECTION.    HOW WILL YOU VOTE ON THAT?  

Latham: WELL, I HAVEN'T SEEN THE RESOLUTION AND I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK THAT THE TIMING SHOULD HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS.    THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT VOTE.    WHETHER IT COMES BEFORE THE ELECTION OR NOT, THAT SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. SENDING YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN OFF TO WAR IS EXTRAORDINARILY SERIOUS.    NOW, THERE IS NO QUESTION THE CASE HAS BEEN MADE BY SADDAM HUSSEIN HIMSELF THAT HE SHOULD BE ELIMINATED.    HE HAS THUMBED HIS NOSE AT THE UNITED NATIONS, AT THE WORLD.    HE IS SOMEONE WHO IS A REAL THREAT TO PEACE.    HE HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION   -- CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL --   AND HE IS IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING NUCLEAR WEAPONS, AND THAT'S JUST A FEW SHORT MONTHS AWAY.    SO CERTAINLY, MY POSITION --

Borg: SOUNDS TO ME, CONGRESSMAN, LIKE YOU'RE PRETTY MUCH CONVINCED THAT YOU'D VOTE TO GO TO WAR.  

Latham: WELL, I WOULD WANT TO SEE THE RESOLUTION, BUT CERTAINLY I BELIEVE THAT OUR PRESIDENT HAS LAID OUT A VERY STRONG CASE AND I SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT IN HIS EFFORTS.  

Glover: MR. NORRIS --   MR. NORRIS, SHOULD YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WAR WITH IRAQ, HOW WOULD YOU VOTE?

Norris: ABSOLUTELY THE CONGRESS SHOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO VOTE ON THAT.    I'M PLEASED TO SEE THE PRESIDENT IS APPROACHING CONGRESS NOW, FINALLY, TO INVOLVE CONGRESS IN THAT DEBATE.    I'M NOT PRIVY TO THE INSIDE INFORMATION THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE, BUT I WILL BE AN INDEPENDENT VOICE FOR OUR DISTRICT AND MAKE SURE THAT THERE TRULY IS IMMINENT DANGER TO OUR COUNTRY.    IF THERE IS IMMINENT DANGER TO OUR COUNTRY, WE HAVE TO PROTECT AMERICAN CITIZENS.    THAT SHOULD ALWAYS BE THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY OF OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, TO OUR STRONG DEFENSE, TO PROTECT OUR HOMELAND.   BUT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS THREAT IS REAL.    AND IF IT'S REAL AND AMERICANS' LIVES ARE THREATENED, I'LL SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT.  

Glover: DOES THIS CRISIS REQUIRE THE INTERVENTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS, OR CAN THE UNITED STATES DO IT ON ITS OWN?  

Norris: WELL, I THINK IT BEHOOVES US TO SEEK THE SUPPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.    YOU KNOW, WE NEED THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY SUPPORT IN OUR PURSUIT OF OSAMA BIN LADEN AND THE AL QUAEDA NETWORK.    THAT'S IMPORTANT TO FINISH THAT JOB.    I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD HAMPER OUR ABILITY TO HAVE THE WORLD COMMUNITY SUPPORT TO BOTH PURSUE THE AL QUAEDA NETWORK BUT ALSO THE WORLD SUPPORT AND THE UNITED NATIONS SUPPORT TO PURSUE SADDAM HUSSEIN.    IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE OUR ALLIES ON BOARD WITH US.  

Glover: CONGRESSMAN LATHAM ,   SAME QUESTION TO YOU.    DOES THIS ENDEAVOR REQUIRE THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, OR CAN THE UNITED STATES DO IT ON ITS OWN?  

Latham: WELL, IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL, I THINK, TO HAVE INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT, TO HAVE OUR COALITION GO WITH US.    BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE NUMBER ONE RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS TO SECURE, DEFEND THE UNITED STATES CITIZENS, AND THAT IS NUMBER ONE.    IF WE HAVE TO GO IT ALONE, WE MAY HAVE TO DO THAT.    BUT THE FACT IS THAT OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS THE SECURITY OF PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES, AND WE HAVE TO TAKE THAT NUMBER ONE RESPONSIBILITY VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY.  

Borg: MR. NORRIS, THERE'S BEEN SOME SPECULATION THAT ALL OF THE ANTI-IRAQ AND PRO-WAR AGAINST IRAQ RHETORIC RIGHT NOW BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN RAMPED UP TO DIVERT ATTENTION AWAY FROM DOMESTIC ISSUES.    NOW, YOU'RE IN A CAMPAIGN AND YOU COULD STAND TO BE HURT BY THE IRAQ RHETORIC AND DIVERTING THINGS AWAY FROM WHAT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT.   HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT?  DO YOU THINK IT'S A VALID CHARGE?  

Norris: I THINK THERE ARE VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT WE HAVE TO FACE DOMESTICALLY, PARTICULARLY HERE IN IOWA.    GETTING THIS MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT RATE FIXED IS IMPORTANT TO IOWANS, GETTING THE ECONOMY BACK ON TRACK IS IMPORTANT TO IOWANS, AND MAKING HEALTH CARE MORE AFFORDABLE IS IMPORTANT TO IOWANS.    BUT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY IS OUR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY.    I DON'T WANT TO ACCUSE ANYONE OF BEING POLITICAL ABOUT GOING TO WAR.    I JUST THINK THAT WE SHOULD NEVER GO TO WAR BECAUSE WE WANT TO GO TO WAR.    IT SHOULD ALWAYS BE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GO TO WAR.    THAT SHOULD ALWAYS BE THE LAST RESORT.    THAT'S WHY I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE PURSUE SUPPORT FROM THE WORLD COMMUNITY.  

Borg: YOU FEEL YOUR MESSAGE ISN'T GETTING DROWNED OUT, THEN, BY IRAQ.  

Norris: YOU KNOW , IF IT IS, IT'S IMPORTANT.    IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE PROTECT OUR NATION.    BUT I DO THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO ARE STRUGGLING EVERY DAY TO MAKE ENDS MEET, AND FOR OUR GOVERNMENT TO IGNORE THEM IS A MISTAKE AS WELL.  

Borg: CONGRESSMAN, YOU'VE HEARD MY QUESTION.    DO YOU THINK THERE IS A VALIDITY THERE, AND ARE YOU BENEFITING FROM THE -- BEING INCUMBENT AND AN INCUMBENT REPUBLICAN?  

Latham: WELL, I WOULD NEVER LOOK AT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AS A POLITICAL ISSUE, AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT AN ISSUE THAT SHOULD EVEN BE IN THE POLITICAL ARENA AT ALL.    I AM CONVINCED, FROM THE BRIEFINGS I'VE HAD FROM INFORMATION THAT I'VE HAD ACCESS TO, THAT THERE IS A VERY REAL AND CREDIBLE THREAT TODAY.    SO MY CONCERN IS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY, AND CERTAINLY POLITICS SHOULD NEVER PLAY ANY KIND OF A ROLE IN THAT.    AND ANY KIND OF IMPLICATION THAT THERE ARE POLITICS INVOLVED, I THINK, IS NOT VERY HELPFUL AT ALL.  

Beck: CONGRESSMAN LATHAM, IF WE GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ, HOW DO WE PAY FOR THAT, CONSIDERING THAT PROJECTED DEFICITS ARE COMING OUR WAY?  

Latham: WELL, IT IS CERTAINLY GOING TO BE A COST, AND I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT ANY COST TODAY MAY BE VERY SMALL INTO WHAT COULD BE THE COST OF OUR OWN SECURITY HERE IN THE FUTURE AND FOR WORLD PEACE.    SO YOU HAVE TO WEIGH THE COST TODAY AGAINST THE COST IN THE FUTURE, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFICULT TO DO --

Glover: CONGRESSMAN, THE ONLY THING I DON'T HEAR IN YOUR ANSWER IS HOW DO YOU PAY FOR IT.    WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?   DO YOU RUN UP THE DEFICITS HIGHER?    DO YOU RAISE TAXES?    DO YOU CUT OTHER PROGRAMS?    WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?    DON'T TELL US HOW HARD IT IS TO PAY FOR IT.    TELL US WHERE IT COMES FROM.  

Latham: WELL, IT'S GOING TO COME FROM THE FEDERAL TREASURY.    AND IF IN FACT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY IS AT RISK, I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND, FROM BACK LAST SEPTEMBER 11, A YEAR AGO, WHAT CAN HAPPEN IN THIS COUNTRY IF WE DO NOT --

Glover: SO BIGGER DEFICITS.  BIGGER DEFICITS?  

Latham: YOU KNOW, IF NECESSARY TO DEFEND AND SECURE THIS COUNTRY, AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT.    BUT THE COST COULD BE MUCH, MUCH GREATER IN THE FUTURE.    NO ONE LIKES TO SEE DEFICITS.    AND I FOUGHT ALL MY CAREER TO GET FEDERAL SPENDING UNDER CONTROL, BUT THIS IS A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE.  

Beck: ARE YOU WORRIED, MR. NORRIS, THAT MONEY TO GO TO WAR COULD COME FROM SHORING UP SOCIAL SECURITY, COME FROM PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT FOR MEDICARE?   ARE THERE PROGRAMS THAT DEMOCRATS ARE PUSHING?  

Norris: YEAH, WE PUT OURSELVES --   CONGRESSMAN LATHAM VOTED TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING LAST YEAR, VOTED FOR DEFICIT SPENDING, VOTED TO BORROW INTO THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND $800 BILLION IN THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS.    THOSE WERE ALL IRRESPONSIBLE FISCAL MOVES ON HIS PART.    NOW WE'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE NEED RESOURCES TO GO TO WAR, AND WE'RE IN DEFICIT SPENDING AGAIN BECAUSE OF THIS IRRESPONSIBLE CONGRESS.    YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE NEED TO DO.   FIRST OF ALL, WE ARE SPENDING $120 BILLION ON A STAR WARS DEFENSE PROGRAM THAT DOESN'T MEET CURRENT-DAY THREAT.    PERHAPS WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT REALIGNING THOSE DEFENSE EXPENDITURES FOR STAR WARS INTO MODERN-DAY APPLICATIONS TO OUR REAL THREAT, WHICH IS TERRORISM AND A MOBILE ARMY FORCE THAT CAN GO INTO IRAQ.    THERE'S GOT TO BE A WAY THAT WE CAN STREAMLINE BOTH DEFENSE AND DOMESTIC SPENDING TO PAY FOR THIS WAR ON IRAQ IF WE CHOOSE TO GO TO WAR, IF WE HAVE TO GO TO WAR.    AND ALSO WE HAVE TO LOOK --   I MEAN CONGRESSMAN LATHAM WAS ALL ABOUT GIVING TAX CUTS TO MILLIONAIRES A YEAR AGO, A NICE TAX CUT.    WELL, PERHAPS THOSE MILLIONAIRES SHOULD HELP PAY FOR THIS WAR RATHER THAN ELABORATE --  

Beck: RAISE TAXES?  

Norris: NO.

Borg: CONGRESSMAN, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND HERE. HE'S CHARGED YOU WITH SOME VOTES THAT HE SAYS ARE IRRESPONSIBLE. HOW DO YOU RATIONALIZE THE VOTES?  

Latham: WELL, APPARENTLY, HE WOULD PREFER A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN. I MEAN THAT WOULD BE THE RESULT OF -- WHEN WE'RE FACED WITH REALITY OF NOT HAVING TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING.    I MEAN I DON'T LIKE THAT ANY MORE THAN ANYONE DOES, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS WE HAVE HAD SIX BALANCED BUDGETS.    WE HAVE PAID OFF OVER $450 BILLION IN THE NATIONAL DEBT.    AND LAST YEAR WE WERE HIT WITH AN EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION.    WE WERE IN A RECESSION.    WE HAD 9/11, WHICH IS GOING TO COST THE FEDERAL TREASURY, OVER THESE TWO FISCAL YEARS, ABOUT $270 BILLION OF NEW SPENDING.   AND THOSE TYPE OF --   IT'S HAD A REAL DRAMATIC IMPACT ON OUR ECONOMY.    THE ONLY THING THAT HAS KEPT THIS ECONOMY GOING   -- AND WE'RE SEEING GROWTH IN THIS ECONOMY --   IS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE ALLOWED PEOPLE TO KEEP MORE OF THEIR OWN HARD EARNED MONEY SO THAT WE CAN INVEST THAT AND KEEP THE ECONOMY GOING.    THAT'S HOW YOU GENERATE TAX REVENUES.    THAT'S HOW YOU SUPPORT THIS GOVERNMENT --

Glover: CONGRESSMAN, JUST ONE SECOND.

Latham: -- IS PEOPLE PAYING TAXES.  

Glover: MR. NORRIS, DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT?  

Norris: YOU KNOW, THE REAL ISSUE HERE IS TOM LATHAM SAID HE WOULDN'T DIP INTO THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND AND HE HAS, THAT HE WOULDN'T DEFICIT SPEND AND HE HAS, THAT HE WOULDN'T RAISE THE DEBT CEILING AND HE HAS.    HAD HE BEEN MORE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE, WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE IN THIS SITUATION WE'RE IN TODAY, TO HAVE TO PAY FOR EMERGENCY SITUATIONS LIKE THE WAR ON IRAQ.   WE NEED TO HAVE A CONGRESS THAT'S GOING TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE AND BALANCE THIS BUDGET AND NOT DIP INTO THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND TO PAY FOR OTHER GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS.    AND HE HAS, MANY TIMES IN PAST CAMPAIGNS, SAID HE WOULD NEVER DO THAT, AND HERE HE'S RIGHT BACK INTO FLIP-FLOPPING AND BREAKING HIS PROMISE TO IOWA'S VOTERS.  

Glover: CONGRESSMAN, THERE ARE TWO ISSUES THAT WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.    ONE IS IOWA IS FIFTIETH IN THE NATION IN MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT AND, TWO, THERE IS NO PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM UNDER MEDICARE.    BOTH ARE VERY EXPENSIVE TO FIX.    WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT AND WHICH WOULD YOU PICK, ASSUMING THE COUNTRY CAN'T AFFORD BOTH?  

Latham: WELL, I'M VERY PLEASED THAT JUST YESTERDAY SENATOR GRASSLEY AND SENATOR BAUCUS FROM MONTANA HAVE JOINED TOGETHER AND INCLUDED THE MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT PROVISIONS THAT WE HAD IN THE HOUSE.    AND I PUT THOSE PROVISIONS AS A SEPARATE BILL SO THAT WE COULD DO EXACTLY THIS, TO ADD IT ONTO OTHER LEGISLATION.    THIS IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT, AND I THINK THE TOP PRIORITY FOR US IS TO GET THIS REIMBURSEMENT ISSUE TAKEN CARE OF.    AND IT'S DONE ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS.    AND WHEN WE INJECT POLITICS INTO THIS ISSUE, WE'RE GOING TO PAY THE PRICE IN IOWA.    WE'VE GOT TO WORK ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS.  

Glover: SO MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT TRUMPS PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.  

Latham: OH, I THINK SO IN IOWA.    WE'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ACCESS TO THE TOP QUALITY HEALTH CARE FOR OUR SENIORS AND FOR ALL THE FAMILIES --

Glover: MR. NORRIS, IF YOU HAD TO CHOOSE BETWEEN MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT AND PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, WHICH WOULD YOU PICK?  

Norris: WE'VE GOT TO FIX THE MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT RATE.    TOM LATHAM HAS BEEN THERE FOR EIGHT YEARS, AND IT'S BEEN RHETORIC FOR EIGHT YEARS IN DOING NOTHING.    THIS MEASURE THAT PASSED -- THAT'S PROPOSED BEING PASSED, THAT THE SENATE CAME TO AGREEMENT ON, WOULD ADD ROUGHLY $120 MILLION TO MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT RATES FOR IOWA IN THE NEXT THREE YEARS.    WE WILL BE REIMBURSED $3,450,000,000 LESS THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.    AFTER THIS BILL WE'LL BE REIMBURSED $3,320,000,000 BELOW THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.    THIS IS MAYBE A START, BUT IT'S A DROP IN THE BUCKET.    WE'VE GOT TO FOCUS AND MAKE THIS A TOP PRIORITY OF THE IOWA DELEGATION TO GET A FAIR MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT RATE FOR IOWA.   WE CAN ALSO, HOWEVER, START A MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM THAT LOWERS THE PRICE OF DRUGS FOR OUR SENIORS, AND THAT IS SO CRITICAL FOR OUR SENIORS.  

Beck: CONGRESSMAN LATHAM, JOHN NORRIS ACCUSED YOU OF VOTING FOR A TAX CUT THAT HE SAID BENEFITED THE WEALTHY.    WOULD YOU MAKE PRESIDENT BUSH'S TAX CUTS PERMANENT?    WHEN HE'S BEEN TO IOWA, THE PRESIDENT HAS CALLED ON THAT REPEATEDLY.  

Latham: I CERTAINLY WOULD.    AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE "WEALTHY," YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS WHO HAVE ALL OF THE BUSINESS REVENUES IN THEIR PERSONAL INCOME.    AND TO RAISE TAXES ON THOSE FOLKS, WHEN THAT'S WHERE OUR JOB CREATION COMES FROM   -- THE ENGINE THAT DRIVES THIS ECONOMY IS SMALL BUSINESS --   AND TO RAISE TAXES ON THEM, AS MR. NORRIS APPARENTLY IS SAYING WE SHOULD DO, I THINK IS OUTRAGEOUS.    WE'VE GOT TO MAKE THESE -- WHAT WE'VE DONE PERMANENT SO PEOPLE CAN PLAN FOR THE FUTURE, SO THAT YOU CAN PLAN YOUR ESTATE, SO THAT YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE IS GOING TO BRING.    ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S SLOWING DOWN THE GROWTH IN THE ECONOMY IS THAT PEOPLE CANNOT PLAN.    THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TAX CODE IS GOING TO SAY A FEW YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.    AND IF PEOPLE KEEP WANTING TO CHANGE PROVISIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE, THAT IS VERY DISRUPTIVE TO THE ECONOMY.  

Beck: ON THE OTHER HAND, MR. NORRIS, HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE FUTURE.    THE FUTURE COULD INVOLVE A WAR, SO CAN YOU AFFORD TO MAKE THOSE TAX CUTS PERMANENT?  

Norris: LET ME TELL YOU, TOM LATHAM IS NOT WALKING THE SAME MAIN STREET I'M WALKING ON.   I WAS IN CHARLES CITY A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, TALKED TO A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER WHO'S PAYING ALMOST $8,000 A YEAR FOR HEALTH INSURANCE FOR HIS FAMILY.    HE'S NOT MAKING A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, I GUARANTEE YOU.    THE NEXT DAY I WAS IN NEW HAMPTON, TALKED TO A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER WHO'S PAYING $12,000 A YEAR FOR A BARE-BONES HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY FOR HIS FAMILY, HAVING A HARD TIME MAKING ENDS MEET.   HE'S NOT MAKING A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, WHICH IS WHERE THE BULK OF WHERE TOM LATHAM'S TAX CUT WENT TO.    WE SHOULD ALWAYS PURSUE TAX CUTS AND KEEP SPENDING TO A MINIMUM.    BUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MAYBE PAYING FOR THE EXPENSE OF A WAR, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TREMENDOUS NEEDS IN EDUCATION IN OUR COUNTRY, AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT TO HELP OUR SENIORS WHO ARE SUFFERING FROM THESE HIGH COSTS OF DRUGS BUT HE'S TALKING ABOUT MAKING A TAX CUT PERMANENT FOR MILLIONAIRES, OUR PRIORITIES ARE DIFFERENT.    MY PRIORITY IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TAKE CARE OF EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE, AND THOSE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS ON MAIN STREET WHO ARE HURTING RIGHT NOW, AND NOT TRY AND JUST CONTINUE TO HELP THE VERY WEALTHY IN OUR COUNTRY.  

Glover: MR. NORRIS, THE GENERATION BEHIND US, POLLS HAVE SHOWN, BELIEVE IT'S MORE LIKELY THEY'RE GOING TO MEET AN ALIEN THAN THEY'LL COLLECT SOCIAL SECURITY WHEN THEY COME TO RETIREMENT AGE.    CAN YOU ASSURE THE GENERATION BEHIND US THAT IF YOU'RE ELECTED TO CONGRESS THERE WILL BE A SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM WHEN THEY COME TO RETIREMENT AGE?  

Norris: YES.    WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE SOCIAL SECURITY STAYS THE PUBLIC ENTITY IT IS AND IT'S FUNDED ADEQUATELY TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE GETS THEIR BENEFITS.    WHAT REALLY --   WHAT REALLY --   MY QUESTION ON SOCIAL SECURITY IS, TOM LATHAM SAID TO THE CHRISTIAN COALITION IN THEIR QUESTIONNAIRE THAT HE SUPPORTED PRIVATIZATION.    HE SAID TO THE NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION, IN THEIR QUESTIONNAIRE, THAT HE SUPPORTS PRIVATIZATION.    YET HE SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF TAXPAYERS' MONEY SENDING SOME OF THE PRETTIEST TAXPAYER PAID-FOR MAIL TELLING HIS CONSTITUENTS HE OPPOSED PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY.    I THINK THE VOTERS IN THIS DISTRICT DESERVE TO KNOW WHICH IS IT:    WAS TOM LATHAM MISLEADING THE CHRISTIAN COALITION AND THE NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION IN THEIR QUESTIONNAIRE, OR WAS HE MISLEADING THE PEOPLE IN HIS DISTRICT BY SAYING THAT HE WAS OPPOSED TO PRIVATIZATION?  

Glover: CONGRESSMAN LATHAM, QUESTION TO YOU.    DO YOU FAVOR A PARTIAL PRIVATIZATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM OR DO YOU NOT?  

Latham: ABSOLUTELY NOT.    AND TO MAKE A STATEMENT LIKE THAT IS, AT THE LEAST, DISINGENUOUS.   WE HAVE LOOKED AT REFORM AS THE BIPARTISAN COMMISSION.   DEMOCRAT SENATOR PAT MOYNAHAN FROM NEW YORK OFFERED -- SAID ANYONE WHO CONSIDERS ANY KIND OF PRIVATIZATION INTO THEIR SUGGESTIONS CERTAINLY JUST DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE.    IN FACT, THERE IS NOT EVEN A PROPOSAL ANYWHERE TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY.  

Beck: ISN'T THAT A TERMINOLOGY ISSUE?  

Latham: NOT AT ALL.    NOT AT ALL.  

Beck: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ALLOWING SOMEBODY TO TAKE 2 PERCENT OF THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY EARNINGS AND PUT IT INTO AN ACCOUNT?    THAT'S NOT, IN YOUR OPINION, PRIVATIZATION?  

Latham: EVERYTHING WOULD GO INTO SOCIAL SECURITY, MANAGED BY SOCIAL SECURITY. AND I'M SAYING THAT WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T RAISE TAXES ON SOCIAL SECURITY, THAT WE GUARANTEE THE BENEFITS OF SOCIAL SECURITY, THAT WE DON'T RAISE THE AGE LIMIT ON SOCIAL SECURITY, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS.  

Glover: BUT WHAT DO YOU SAY TO --

Latham: THERE WAS NEVER A CONSIDERATION, NOT EVEN A TALK ABOUT PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY.  

Glover: WELL, WHAT DO YOU SAY --   WHAT DO YOU SAY TO MR. NORRIS'S CHARGE THAT YOU TOLD GROUPS THAT YOU DO FAVOR THAT?    HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT?  

Latham: I'VE NEVER SAID THAT.    I'VE SAID THAT WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT OPTIONS FOR YOUNGER PEOPLE --

Glover: WELL, WHAT ARE THOSE OPTIONS?  

Latham: THAT I CAN GUARANTEE --   WELL, TO LOOK AT OPTIONS AS PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSION, SUCH AS DEMOCRAT SENATOR MOYNAHAN TALKED ABOUT, THAT YOU DO HAVE AN OWNERSHIP OF A BENEFIT ITSELF IN SOCIAL SECURITY.    BUT THERE'S NO TALK OF IT BY ANYONE ABOUT PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY.  

Glover: MR. NORRIS?  

Norris: WELL, THEN I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD HAVE FILLED OUT THAT QUESTIONNAIRE, TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONNAIRES SAYING HE SUPPORTS PRIVATIZATION. LOOK, THE SIXTIES-PLUS ASSOCIATION GAVE TOM LATHAM THEIR LEGISLATOR OF THE MONTH AWARD, AND THEIR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY ITEM IS THE PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY.    HE ALSO HAS RECEIVED MONEY FROM THE IOWA SENIORS ASSOCIATION TO RUN TV ADS FOR HIM, AND THEY'RE SUPPORTING PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY.    IN HIS TV ADS HE SAYS HE'S THE HERO OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER ASSOCIATION, TAXPAYERS FOR REFORM, AND THEIR NUMBER ONE ITEM IS THE PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY.    YET HE MAILS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS SAYING, "I WOULD NEVER SUPPORT PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY."    YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS ON THIS THING, TOM.  

Borg: JUST A QUICK RESPONSE, CONGRESSMAN.    I'LL LET YOU HAVE A LAST WORD ON THIS.  

Latham: MAYBE MR. NORRIS IS CONFUSED --

Norris: I'M NOT CONFUSED.  

Latham: -- BUT THERE IS NOT EVEN A PROPOSAL OUT THERE TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY.    AND I WOULD OPPOSE THAT --   YOU TALK ABOUT MONEY GOING INTO PRIVATE ACCOUNTS MANAGED BY A PRIVATE COMPANY OR SOMETHING, IT'S TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS AND THERE'S NOT EVEN A --

Norris: IF YOU PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY --

Latham: -- PROPOSAL IN CONGRESS TO DO THAT.

Norris: -- BENEFITS WILL HAVE TO BE CUT.    AND TOM LATHAM VOTED --   HE VOTED TO SUPPORT THE PRESENT STUDY OF THE PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY.    AND HE'S FILLED OUT FORMS SAYING HE'S FOR IT, BUT YET HE'S TELLING HIS VOTERS HE'S NOT.    IF YOU CUT SOCIAL SECURITY, YOU'LL CUT BENEFITS.  

Borg: WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO JENEANE.

Beck: WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE FARM BILL.    CONGRESSMAN LATHAM, THAT'S SOMETHING YOU VOTED AGAINST.    YOU DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS RIGHT FOR IOWA PRODUCERS.    TELL US, ONE, WHY YOU DIDN'T VOTE FOR IT. IS IT GOING TO WORK NOW THAT IT'S IN PLACE?  

Latham: WELL, YOU KNOW, SENATOR HARKIN HAS ALREADY PROPOSED A DISASTER BAILOUT BILL, AND HE'D SAID WHEN THIS BILL PASSED THAT IT WAS GOING TO DO AWAY WITH ANY KIND OF DISASTER ASSISTANCE IN THE FUTURE.    OBVIOUSLY THE FARM BILL IS NOT WORKING.    AND MY REASON FOR VOTING FOR IT IS JUST THE WAY THE POLICY IS WRITTEN -- VOTING AGAINST IT WAS THE POLICY IS WRITTEN TO HELP THE LARGEST FARMERS ONLY AND IT DOES NOTHING TO HELP FOLKS TODAY WHO ARE FACING A DROUGHT SITUATION.    IT'S BASED ON PRICE.   IT'S BASED ON YIELD.    AND I THINK ONE OF THE MOST AGGRIEVOUS PARTS OF THIS IS THE FACT THAT THE LARGEST HOG LOT PRODUCERS IN THE STATE, THE MEGA HOG LOTS, COULD QUALIFY FOR $450,000 OF TAXPAYER FUNDS TO BUILD MORE FACILITIES.    I MEAN IT IS SIMPLY OUTRAGEOUS.    WE NEED TO HAVE A POLICY THAT WORKS FOR FARMERS.    I'M A FARMER MYSELF, BEEN ENDORSED BY THE FARM BUREAU AS A FRIEND OF AGRICULTURE.    I UNDERSTAND THESE ISSUES.    AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE ADMISSION, BASICALLY, THAT THE FARM BILL IS NOT WORKING ALREADY TOTALLY MAKES MY POSITION CORRECT.  

Beck: MR. NORRIS, THAT DID PUMP A LOT OF MONEY INTO IOWA.    WAS IT THE APPROPRIATE BILL FOR FARMERS?  

Norris: THIS IS THE HEIGHT OF HYPOCRISY FOR TOM LATHAM TO CRITICIZE THAT FARM BILL. HE VOTED IN THE HOUSE FOR A FARM BILL I NEVER WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR.    HE COMPLAINS ABOUT HAVING SUBSIDIES FOR THE LARGE HOG CONFINEMENT OPERATIONS.    THE BILL HE VOTED FOR HAD FOUR -- THREE TIMES AS MANY, UP TO $1.2 MILLION.    HE VOTED FOR HIGHER PAYMENT LIMITATIONS IN THE HOUSE BILL.    HE WAS TOTALLY SILENT WHEN IT CAME TO A BAN ON PACKER OWNERSHIP AND WHEN HE VOTED FOR THE HOUSE BILL.    AND THEN HE'S CRITICAL OF SENATOR HARKIN AND THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE BILL WHEN IT HAD LOWER PAYMENT LIMITS, IT HAD LOWER PAYMENTS OF SUBSIDIES FOR LARGE CONFINEMENT OPERATIONS.    AND HE SERIOUSLY HAMPERED THE ABILITY IN CONFERENCE COMMITTEE TO GET A BAN ON PACKER OWNERSHIP BECAUSE HE DID NOTHING ABOUT IT IN THE HOUSE BILL.    AND FOR HIM TO VOTE FOR THAT HOUSE BILL, WHICH WAS MUCH WORSE THAN THE CONFERENCE BILL, AND THEN VOTE AGAINST THE CONFERENCE BILL, IT'S BLATANT PARTISAN POLITICS.    WHAT IOWANS WANT IS AN INDEPENDENT VOICE WHO'S GOING TO FIGHT FOR FAMILY FARMERS, WITH LOWER PAYMENT LIMITATIONS, A BAN ON PACKER OWNERSHIP, AND STOP THE SUBSIDY OF THESE LARGE CONFINEMENT OPERATIONS.    THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SUPPORT.    AND I WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED IT IN THE HOUSE BILL.  

Glover: MR. NORRIS, THE PORTION OF THE STATE THAT INCLUDES THE FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IS AMONG THE MOST CONCENTRATED AREAS OF LARGE HOG OPERATIONS IN IOWA.    IN CONGRESS SHOULD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE SOME KIND OF A ROLE IN REGULATING THESE HOG LOT OPERATIONS?    SHOULD THE STATE REGULATE THEM?    SHOULD LOCAL GOVERNMENTS REGULATE THEM?    WHERE SHOULD THE REGULATION FALL?  

Norris: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WE SHOULD STOP SUBSIDIZING THEM.    WE ARE SUBSIDIZING THROUGH THE EQUIP FUNDS FOR THOSE CONFINEMENT OPERATIONS TO MEET THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS.    WE SHOULD NOT DO THAT.    THAT'S NOT FAIR TO THE FAMILY FARMER WHO DOESN'T GET NEAR AS MANY SUBSIDIES.   SECOND OF ALL, WE HAVE TO ENFORCE THE CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN WATER ACT.    WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LONG-TERM DEGRADATION TO OUR GROUNDWATER QUALITY IS FROM THESE LARGE LAGOON SYSTEMS.    THEY CERTAINLY ARE ADDING PHOSPHORUS CONTENT TO OUR WATER SUPPLY FROM THE APPLICATION OF FERTILIZER IN TOO SMALL OF AN AGRICULTURAL AREA, AND WE HAVE TO ENFORCE THE CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN WATER ACT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER FARM PROGRAMS WE HAVE HELP FAMILY FARMERS AND NOT FURTHER THE EROSION OF OUR INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS IN RURAL IOWA WHO MEAN SO MUCH TO THE FABRIC OF OUR ECONOMY IN RURAL IOWA, AND WE'RE LOSING THAT FABRIC.  

Glover: CONGRESSMAN LATHAM, SAME QUESTION TO YOU.    THE FOURTH DISTRICT INCLUDES SOME OF THE HEAVIEST CONCENTRATION OF LARGE HOG OPERATIONS IN IOWA. WHERE SHOULD THE REGULATION OF THOSE OPERATIONS FALL?    SHOULD CONGRESS HAVE A ROLE?    SHOULD THE STATE HAVE A ROLE?    SHOULD LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE A ROLE?    SHOULD THEY SHARE IT?    WHERE DOES THIS FALL DOWN?  

Latham: WELL, CONGRESS DOES HAVE A ROLE.    AND I CAN TELL YOU I LIVE ON A FARM AND VERY CLOSE TO KIND OF THE EPICENTER OF THE CONFINEMENT AREA THERE, SO I AM EXTRAORDINARILY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ISSUE.    ONE MAJOR PROBLEM WE HAVE IS JUST THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY WHEN WE TRY TO FIX PROBLEMS AS FAR AS AG DRAINAGE WELLS.    WHEN YOU'VE GOT FOUR FEDERAL BUREAUCRACIES ALL CLAIMING JURISDICTION OVER WETLANDS AND YOU CANNOT GET A STRAIGHT ANSWER FROM ANY OF THEM, THAT'S A REAL PROBLEM.    BUT WE DO HAVE --   THERE'S FEDERAL LAW, AS FAR AS THE CLEAN WATER ACT IS CONCERNED, THAT NEEDS TO BE ENFORCED.    THE STATE HAS REGULATIONS THAT NEED TO BE ENFORCED, AND I BELIEVE THAT WHEN THEY FINALLY GET THE DETAILS WORKED OUT THAT WITH LOCAL INPUT --

Glover: JENEANE I THINK HAS A QUESTION, CONGRESSMAN.  

Latham: -- THAT WE CAN HAVE A SYSTEM THAT WORKS.  

Beck: LET'S MOVE ALONG REAL QUICK.    WE HAVE JUST A FEW SECONDS LEFT.   LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT ISSUE YOU'RE FINDING AS YOU'RE OUT CAMPAIGNING IS MOVING VOTERS THE MOST THIS ELECTION CYCLE.

Latham: WAS THAT DIRECTED AT ME?  

Beck: YES, CONGRESSMAN LATHAM.    I APOLOGIZE.  

Latham: WELL, THANK YOU.    I THINK CONCERN, OBVIOUSLY, FOR OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, WHAT'S HAPPENING, THE THREAT THAT WE HAVE FROM IRAQ, AND THE PROBLEMS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.    OUR ECONOMIC SECURITY IS EXTRAORDINARILY --

Beck: NATIONAL AND ECONOMIC SECURITY --   [ SPEAKING AT ONCE ]

Norris: I WOULD ENCOURAGE TOM LATHAM TO COME OUT AND TALK TO PEOPLE ON MAIN STREET BECAUSE WHAT I'M HEARING IS CONCERNS ABOUT HEALTH CARE, FROM THE HIGH COST OF DRUGS TO THE POOR MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT RATE AND INCREASING COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE FOR OUR FAMILIES.    THAT HAS PEOPLE WORRIED AND STRESSED IN RURAL IOWA, AND WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.  

Borg: MR. NORRIS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING WITH US TODAY.    CONGRESSMAN, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US BY SATELLITE.  

Latham: THANK YOU, DEAN.  

Borg: ON OUR NEXT EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS," WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO IOWA'S FIFTH U.S. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.    WE'LL BE QUESTIONING THE MAJOR-PARTY CANDIDATES, DEMOCRATIC PAUL SHOMSHOR OF COUNCIL BLUFFS AND REPUBLICAN STATE SENATOR STEVE KING OF KIRON.   THAT WILL BE FRIDAY AT 6:30 ,   SUNDAY AT NOON,   HERE ON STATEWIDE   IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION.    EARLIER IN THIS EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS," WE MENTIONED THAT THE HIGH-PROFILE CAMPAIGNS ARE INTENSIFYING.   THAT CONTINUES THIS WEEKEND.    ON SUNDAY NIGHT   "WOI PUBLIC RADIO" PRESENTS   THE "WOI ROUNDTABLE."    THAT'S AT 8:00 THAT NIGHT.    SENATORIAL CANDIDATES TOM HARKIN AND GREG GANSKE WILL BE INVOLVED IN A ONE-HOUR QUESTION-AND-ANSWER SESSION MODERATED BY WOI'S POLITICAL REPORTER JOYCE RUSSELL.    AND YOU CAN HEAR THE HARKIN-GANSKE COMMENTS ON "WOI" AT 640 ON THE "AM" DIAL.    AND WOI, TOO, WILL BE FEEDING THE HARKIN-GANSKE DISCUSSION TO A NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL AND PUBLIC RADIO STATIONS ACROSS THE STATE.    THAT'S SUNDAY NIGHT AT 8:00 FOR THAT HARKIN-GANSKE APPEARANCE ON RADIO.    AND THAT'S IT FOR THIS WEEKEND'S EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS."    WE'LL BE BACK   NEXT FRIDAY, 6:30;   SUNDAY AT NOON.    I'M DEAN BORG.    THANKS FOR JOINING US TODAY.