| Home |  |
| Republican Tom Latham and Democratic Challenger Paul Johnson
IOWA PRESS #3203 >> Borg: A SEAT IN THE U.S. CONGRESS; TWO POLITICAL VETERANS CAMPAIGN TO BE IOWA'S FOURTH DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE. WE'LL QUESTION INCUMBENT REPUBLICAN TOM LATHAM AND DEMOCRATIC CHALLENGER PAUL JOHNSON ON THIS EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS." FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM WAS PROVIDED BY "FRIENDS," THE IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION FOUNDATION... GENERATIONS OF FAMILIES AND FRIENDS WHO FEEL PASSIONATE ABOUT THE PROGRAMS THEY WATCH ON IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION; AND BY THE IOWA BANKERS ASSOCIATION... FOR PERSONAL, BUSINESS, AND COMMERCIAL NEEDS, IOWA BANKS HELP IOWANS REACH THEIR FINANCIAL GOALS. ON STATEWIDE IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION, THIS IS THE FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 17 EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS." HERE IS DEAN BORG. Borg: LAST WEEK WE BEGAN OUR REVIEW OF THE CANDIDATES SEEKING TO REPRESENT IOWA IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS. WE LOOKED AT THE CONTEST IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF WESTERN IOWA. THIS WEEK IT'S NORTH CENTRAL IOWA, THE FOURTH DISTRICT. THERE, REPUBLICAN INCUMBENT TOM LATHAM OF ALEXANDER, WANTS TO GO BACK TO WASHINGTON FOR A SIXTH TERM IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. MR. LATHAM'S CHALLENGER IS DECORAH DEMOCRAT PAUL JOHNSON. MR. JOHNSON IS A FORMER STATE LEGISLATOR, SERVED IN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AND ALSO DIRECTED IOWA'S DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. GENTLEMEN, YOU'VE BEEN AT THIS TABLE SEVERAL TIMES. WELCOME BACK TO "IOWA PRESS." Johnson: THANK YOU. Latham: THANK YOU. IT'S GREAT TO BE HERE. Borg: ALSO HERE AT THE "IOWA PRESS" TABLE: "DES MOINES REGISTER" POLITICAL COLUMNIST DAVID YEPSEN AND "ASSOCIATED PRESS" SENIOR POLITICAL WRITER MIKE GLOVER. Glover: MR. JOHNSON, LET'S START THIS DISCUSSION WITH YOU. IT'S OFTEN SAID THAT ANYTIME SOMEONE CHALLENGES AN INCUMBENT POLITICIAN, THE FIRST HURDLE THEY HAVE TO GET OVER IS CONVINCING VOTERS THAT INCUMBENT OUGHT TO GO. WHY SHOULD MR. LATHAM GO? Johnson: MR. LATHAM HAS BEEN IN CONGRESS FOR TEN YEARS NOW. OUR COUNTRY IS FACED WITH A NUMBER OF VERY, VERY SERIOUS ISSUES, VERY SERIOUS PROBLEMS, FROM HEALTH CARE TO OUR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, EDUCATION, A NUMBER OF THESE THINGS. AND BEING A BIOLOGIST AND A FARMER, I DO KNOW THAT PERIODICALLY, IT'S GOOD TO HAVE A PRAIRIE FIRE, OR A CHANCE TO REMOVE WHAT WAS THERE AND JUST START OVER AGAIN AND TO TAKE A FRESH LOOK AT THINGS. AND I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT AT THIS TIME IN OUR COUNTRY'S HISTORY THAT WE BRING SOME FRESH BLOOD INTO CONGRESS. Glover: SO HE HASN'T MET THOSE CHALLENGES, IN YOUR VIEW? Johnson: HE'S MY CONGRESSMAN AND I WOULD RATHER SEE A CHANGE. Glover: REPRESENTATIVE LATHAM, LET'S START WITH YOU. WHY SHOULD YOU GET A SIXTH TERM IN CONGRESS? Latham: WELL, I THINK I'VE REPRESENTED THE DISTRICT AS -- YOU KNOW, I'M A FARMER, A SMALL-BUSINESS PERSON, A HUSBAND, FATHER, A GRANDFATHER NOW. AND I CONTINUE TO TRY TO BRING OUR IOWA VALUES TO WASHINGTON. AFTER TEN YEARS I'M IN A POSITION ON THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE AS A SENIOR MEMBER, AS VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE AG APPROPRIATION SUBCOMMITTEE, BEING ABLE TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITIES, BEING ABLE TO WORK WITH INDIVIDUALS, AND TO BE OF SERVICE TO THEM. AND I THINK THAT IS SO IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE SOMEONE THERE WHO UNDERSTANDS HOW TO GET THINGS DONE FOR IOWA, AND THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. Glover: MR. LATHAM -- Borg: BUT YOU'RE A SEED MAN. THAT'S YOUR FAMILY BUSINESS. HE'S JUST SAID WE NEED TO -- NEW SEED IN WASHINGTON, WE NEED A PRAIRIE FIRE TO DESTROY WHAT WE HAVE THERE, AND PUT SOME NEW SEED IN WASHINGTON. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT? Latham: WELL, I THINK THAT FOR IOWA IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO HAVE SOMEONE THERE WHO IS EFFECTIVE SERVING ON THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE IN THE MAJORITY PARTY, UNDERSTANDING THE IOWA SITUATION, HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO HAVE SOMEONE WHO'S EFFECTIVE THERE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN GET THE PRIORITIES MET FOR IOWA -- Yepsen: MR. JOHNSON, HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT ARGUMENT ABOUT SENIORITY? I MEAN THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, SENIORITY DOES COUNT FOR SOMETHING IN THE CONGRESS. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT. YOU WORKED IN WASHINGTON. WHY SHOULD WE THROW OUT A GUY WHO HAS -- IS GOING TO BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO BRING HOME THE BACON THAN YOU WOULD BE AS A FRESHMAN? Johnson: WELL, LET'S LOOK AT OUR RECORDS. I SERVED SIX YEARS IN THE IOWA LEGISLATURE. IT DIDN'T TAKE ME TEN YEARS TO FINALLY SETTLE IN AND GET SOME GOOD LEGISLATION PASSED. WITHIN THOSE SIX YEARS, I LED THE EFFORT FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION. I LED THE EFFORT FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY. I LED THE EFFORT FOR THE RESOURCE AND HAZMAT AND PROTECTION ACT IN FOUR YEARS IN WASHINGTON. I'LL STACK THAT RECORD UP AGAINST JUST ABOUT ANYBODY IN WASHINGTON'S RECORD. I DIDN'T NEED TEN YEARS TO GET MY FEET ON THE GROUND. I STEPPED RIGHT IN. I WORKED WITH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ALIKE, AND I THINK YOU COULD SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT MY WORK IN THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. Glover: MR. LATHAM, IS IT YOUR VIEW THAT REGARDLESS OF WHO WINS THIS PARTICULAR ELECTION, REPUBLICANS WILL CONTROL THE HOUSE AFTER NOVEMBER 2? Latham: THAT IS THE CONSENSUS, I THINK, BOTH NATIONALLY AND -- YOU KNOW, YOU TALK TO BOTH SIDES; THERE IS THAT FEELING, CERTAINLY. AND I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR PAUL; I REALLY DO. AND AS AN INDIVIDUAL, I ADMIRE HIM VERY MUCH, AND HE'S DONE SOME VERY GOOD THINGS. Glover: YOU KNOW, YOU TWO ARE AWFULLY NICE TO EACH OTHER BUT -- Latham: HE'S A GOOD GUY. Glover: -- DON'T YOU HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITY TO TELL VOTERS WHAT THE DIFFERENCES ARE? Latham: OH, ABSOLUTELY. AND I THINK THERE ARE -- THERE ARE GREAT DIFFERENCES. WE AGREE ON THINGS CERTAINLY AS FAR AS ENERGY PRODUCTION, RENEWABLE ENERGY, ETHANOL, BIOMASS, WIND ENERGY, ALL OF THOSE TYPE OF THINGS THAT HAVE GREAT POTENTIAL FOR US. BUT I THINK ON OUR APPROACH TO GOVERNMENT, I WANT TO EMPOWER PEOPLE. AND FROM EVERYTHING I'VE SEEN, YOU KNOW, WITH PAUL, I THINK HE'D RATHER EMPOWER THE GOVERNMENT AND THE BUREAUCRATS. AND PAUL I KNOW WAS A REGULATOR AND A BUREAUCRAT, AND HE UNDERSTANDS THAT. BUT I THINK WE SHOULD EMPOWER PEOPLE TO BE SUCCESSFUL THEMSELVES RATHER THAN TO JUST GROW THE GOVERNMENT. Glover: MR. JOHNSON? Johnson: IF YOU'LL LOOK AT EVERY PIECE OF LEGISLATION I'VE EVER LED, I DID NOT REGULATE. I PROVIDED OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE, WHETHER THEY BE TOOLS IN THE CONSERVATION BOX OR WHETHER THEY BE ENCOURAGING RECYCLING PROGRAMS IN IOWA. IN NO WAY DID I DICTATE AND SAY THIS IS THE ROAD THAT WE OUGHT TO GO DOWN BUT, RATHER, LET'S PROVIDE OUR CITIZENS WITH THE TOOLS TO BE BETTER. AND IN FACT, THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED. I'VE NEVER HAD ALL THE ANSWERS, BUT I'VE CERTAINLY TRIED TO GET US ON THE RIGHT PATH. Yepsen: CONGRESSMAN LATHAM, I WANT TO BROADEN THE DISCUSSION HERE TO RURAL AMERICA AND RURAL IOWA. YOU REPRESENT THIS DISTRICT AS ONE OF THE MOST RURAL IN THE COUNTRY FROM THE GREAT LAND GRANT COLLEGES IN IT TO THE SMALL FARMS AND SMALL TOWNS. WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE TO DO IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS TO GIVE RURAL AMERICA A BETTER FUTURE? Latham: WELL, COMING FROM ALEXANDER, IOWA, WHICH IS A TOWN OF 168 PEOPLE, AND I STILL LIVE ON A FARM THERE, INVOLVED IN THE OPERATION, YOU KNOW, I KNOW FIRSTHAND WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE DISTRICT. WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS TO FINALLY LOOK AT VALUE-ADDED AGRICULTURE TO FINALLY BE SUCCESSFUL IN THAT. AND WE'RE MAKING A GREAT START WITH ETHANOL. I'M GOING TO BE AT A GROUND-BREAKING TOMORROW ON A HUGE NEW ETHANOL PLANT. THE GREAT THING ABOUT THESE ARE THAT FARMERS ARE OWNING THEM THEMSELVES, IOWA INVESTORS. WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS POTENTIAL FOR BIOMASS, FOR SOY DIESEL, FOR WIND ENERGY, AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE INCENTIVES IN PLACE SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE THOSE DOLLARS STAY RIGHT HERE IN IOWA. AND THAT IS WHERE OUR HOPE IS FOR THE FUTURE. ALSO, WE'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT EDUCATION IS EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT SO THAT PEOPLE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK TO IOWA, TO HAVE CAREERS HERE, NOT JUST A JOB BUT HAVE A CAREER AND HAVE THEIR FAMILIES GROW AND PROSPER RIGHT HERE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK FOR. WE HAVE GREAT OPPORTUNITIES HERE IF WE JUST TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND KEEP PUSHING. Yepsen: CONGRESSMAN, EVERYBODY IS FOR VALUE-ADDED. EVERYBODY IS FOR EDUCATION. IT'S LIKE MOTHERHOOD, APPLE PIE, AND THE FLAG. ALL POLITICIANS ARE FOR THOSE. MY QUESTION IS MORE SPECIFIC THOUGH, SIR. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO DIFFERENTLY TO HELP EDUCATION? WHAT WILL YOU DO DIFFERENTLY TO CREATE MORE VALUE-ADDED AGRICULTURE? Latham: WELL, WHAT I HAVE DONE AND CONTINUE TO DO, AND THAT'S TO MAKE SURE THAT THE GREAT ASSET WE HAVE AS FAR AS OUR COMMUNITY COLLEGES HAVE THE RESOURCES THEY NEED FOR TECHNICAL TRAINING, FOR A LIFE-LONG LEARNING PROCESS FOR EVERYONE HERE, TO TRANSFER TECHNOLOGY LIKE WE'VE DONE UP AT IOWA STATE, AND TO PUT INCENTIVES IN PLACE FOR THOSE SMALL BUSINESSES. WE HAVE UNBELIEVABLE OPPORTUNITIES IF WE CAN GET THOSE BUSINESSES STARTED UP THERE. THE RESEARCH PARK IS DOING A GREAT JOB. I'VE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN SECURING FUNDS FOR SEVERAL OF THOSE BUSINESSES TO BE ABLE TO GROW AND PROSPER. THOSE ARE THE KIND OF JOBS WE WANT HERE, AND THOSE ARE THE KIND OF JOBS THAT BECOME CAREERS. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HOPING FOR. Yepsen: MR. JOHNSON, SAME QUESTION TO YOU. WHAT DO YOU DO TO MAKE A BETTER FUTURE FOR RURAL AMERICA? Johnson: I THINK THERE ARE TWO SIDES TO THIS USUALLY. THE FIRST IS TO LOOK AT THE DRAINS ON OUR ECONOMY RIGHT NOW AND LOOK AT WAYS IN WHICH WE CAN PERHAPS HELP WITH THAT. FOR EXAMPLE, HEALTH CARE WITHIN OUR STATE, IT'S A HUGE DRAIN ON RURAL AMERICANS. IT'S A HUGE DRAIN ON SENIORS. IT'S A HUGE DRAIN ON YOUNG FAMILIES. UNTIL WE CAN PUT TOGETHER A GOOD NATIONAL HEALTH CARE PLAN, I THINK OUR PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE IN TROUBLE. AND YOU COULD ASK OUR SMALL BUSINESSES; YOU COULD ASK OUR SCHOOLS ACROSS THE BOARD. IT'S A HUGE DRAIN ON OUR ECONOMY RIGHT NOW. SO ON THE ONE HAND, YOU HAVE TO PLUG THE LEAKS. ON THE OTHER, YOU HAVE TO LOOK TO THE FUTURE AND NOT JUST WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. AND FOR EXAMPLE, AS WE LOOK TO AG POLICY IN THE FUTURE, THERE IS A GROWING CONCERN THAT PERHAPS WE WON'T BE PUTTING THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO IOWA AGRICULTURE AS WE ARE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF WORLD TRADE RULES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I'VE PROPOSED WE PUT TOGETHER A NATIONAL PRIVATE LANDS CONSERVATION ACT WHERE WE EXTEND A HAND TO PRIVATE LANDOWNERS ACROSS OUR STATE AND ACROSS OUR COUNTRY SO THAT WE CAN REWARD THEM FOR CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THIS WOULD BE A HUGE BOOM TO OUR DISTRICT IF IN FACT WE MOVE FORWARD ON THIS. WE HAVE PROGRAMS OUT THERE RIGHT NOW THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN FUNDED AT THE LEVEL THAT THEY OUGHT TO BE. AND THOSE ARE -- IT COULD BE IN THE TUNE OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS COMING INTO OUR DISTRICT, AND I DON'T KNOW -- I'VE YET TO FIND A FARMER WHO DOESN'T SPEND MOST OF THAT ON MAIN STREET. Borg: MR. LATHAM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DOTS THE LANDSCAPE IN YOUR DISTRICT IS LARGE LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT FEEDING OPERATIONS. IN -- THAT'S RURAL DEVELOPMENT. BUT IT ALSO CLASHES AND HAS CLASHED HERE IN IOWA WITH THOSE WHO FIND THOSE OFFENSIVE. IS THERE A FEDERAL ROLE IN RESOLVING THAT CLASH? Latham: WELL, CERTAINLY THERE ARE FEDERAL STANDARDS IN PLACE, AND WHAT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE IS THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULES, TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE PLAYING BY THE RULES, THAT THEY'RE RESPECTIVE RESPECTFUL OF THE ENVIRONMENT, OF CONSERVATION -- Borg: ARE YOU SAYING THEY'RE NOT BEING ENFORCED NOW? Latham: WELL, I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE RESOURCES -- IT'S MORE OF A STATE ISSUE AS FAR AS THE ENFORCEMENT, AND PAUL IS AWARE OF THAT WITH THE DNR. BUT THAT'S REALLY WHERE THE TOOL IS TO ENFORCE THOSE RULES. BUT ALSO, IT GETS BACK TO EVERYONE BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR IN IOWA AND BEING CONCERNED ABOUT THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT ENVIRONMENT, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT CONSERVATION, IT REALLY GETS DOWN TO INDIVIDUALS, TO BUSINESSES, AND CERTAINLY THE ENFORCEMENT PART HAS A ROLE IN GOVERNMENT. Borg: DO YOU SEE -- MR. JOHNSON, YOU'VE BEEN, AS HE SAID, WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, WHICH HAS AN ENFORCEMENT ROLE IN IOWA. DO YOU SEE THAT AS A STATE ISSUE RATHER THAN FEDERAL? Johnson: IT'S BOTH. MOST OF THE RULES THAT WE ABIDE BY WHEN IT COMES TO ANIMAL CONFINEMENTS ARE WATER QUALITY RULES, AND THE CLEAN WATER ACT DEFINES THAT BASIC LEVEL THAT WE SHOULD ALL BE AT. NOW, AGRICULTURE HAS ALWAYS SORT OF HAD A PASS ON THAT INDUSTRY IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR THE LAST THIRTY YEARS. AND SO WE'VE GOT SOME FAIRLY STRONG REQUIREMENTS FOR INDUSTRY. AGRICULTURE, ON THE OTHER HAND, AS TOM HAS SAID, SEEMS TO WORK BETTER WHEN WE PROVIDE TOOLS FOR PEOPLE AND HAVE THEM DO IT IN A MORE VOLUNTARY WAY. WE'VE DECOUPLED ANIMALS FROM LAND RIGHT NOW, AND THEY ARE NO LONGER PART OF THAT OLDER MODEL. THEY'RE MORE AN INDUSTRIAL MODEL. NOT ENTIRELY. WE CERTAINLY HAVE AN AWFUL LOT OF INDEPENDENT FARMERS IN IOWA TODAY THAT STILL -- STILL ARE WHAT YOU WOULD CALL FAMILY FARMS. BUT MOST OF THE ANIMAL AGRICULTURE TODAY IS MOVING VERY QUICKLY TO AN INDUSTRIAL MODEL. YET THE CLEAN WATER ACT HAS NOT MOVED QUICKLY ENOUGH TO SET THAT BAR WHERE IT OUGHT TO BE. Borg: SO LAWS NEED TO BE CHANGED TO ADAPT TO THE INDUSTRIAL MODEL? Johnson: IN FACT, WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THAT FOR MANY YEARS NOW IN WASHINGTON: AT WHAT POINT DOES WHAT WE CALL NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION AND OUR ANIMAL CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS FALL UNDER THAT RIGHT NOW; AT WHAT POINT DOES THAT BECOME LIKE THE REST OF INDUSTRY? AND I THINK IT'S TIME WE DO THAT. Glover: MR. LATHAM, FOR TWO CENTURIES RURAL AMERICA HAS BEEN FADING. IT'S BEEN LOSING POPULATION. THE NUMBER OF FARMERS HAVE BEEN DROPPING. THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN RURAL AMERICA, THE NUMBER OF JOBS IN RURAL AMERICA HAVE BEEN DROPPING. CAN YOU REALISTICALLY PROMISE RESIDENTS OF YOUR DISTRICT THAT THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE? Latham: UNLESS WE HAVE A SEA CHANGE AS FAR AS THOUGHT PROCESS, AS FAR AS INVESTMENT IN RURAL IOWA, AS FAR AS WANTING TO ENCOURAGE OUR YOUNG FOLKS TO COME BACK HOME. AND WHAT THAT TAKES IS SOMEONE WHO THINKS THAT WE HAVE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE EMPOWER PEOPLE THEMSELVES. WE TALKED ABOUT ANIMAL LIVESTOCK. THE ETHANOL DOESN'T WORK UNLESS WE HAVE ANIMALS TO FEED THOSE BY-PRODUCTS TO. WE'VE GOT TO MAINTAIN A VIABLE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY IN THIS STATE. BUT ALSO, WE'VE GOT TO THINK ABOUT NEW OPPORTUNITIES. AND THAT'S WHY I'M SO EXCITED ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, LIKE AT IOWA STATE. WE HAVE HUGE OPPORTUNITIES. THAT'S WHY I WORK SO HARD IN FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL ANIMAL DISEASE CENTER UP IN AMES, BECAUSE THAT WILL BE A MAGNET TO BRING IN NEW HIGH-PAYING JOBS INTO THIS AREA AND TO THE STATE OF IOWA AND MY DISTRICT. Glover: MR. JOHNSON, CAN YOU REVERSE TWO CENTURIES OF DECLINE IN RURAL AMERICA? Johnson: I THINK THAT WE HAVE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY WITHIN THIS DISTRICT. WE OFTEN TALK ABOUT IOWA BEING IN THE HEARTLAND. I THINK THIS DISTRICT IS THE HEART OF THE HEARTLAND. IT IS EXTREMELY PRODUCTIVE. IT'S GOT VERY HARD-WORKING PEOPLE. IT'S GOT GOOD RURAL COMMUNITIES. I THINK WE HAVE GREAT OPPORTUNITIES AS WE MOVE FORWARD INTO THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ERA TO BE ABLE TO BRING SOME OF THAT ACTIVITY BACK INTO RURAL IOWA AND INTO OUR DISTRICT. I'VE BEEN IN AN AWFUL LOT OF COMMUNITIES IN THE LAST TWO OR THREE MONTHS, AND THERE ARE GOOD PEOPLE THERE. AND THESE ARE STILL VERY, VERY GOOD PLACES TO LIVE, AND SO I THINK THAT WE DO HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THAT. Yepsen: MR. JOHNSON, A VERY QUICK SPECIFIC QUESTION. WHAT WILL YOU DO AS A CONGRESSMAN TO MAKE SURE FARMERS ARE MORE PROFITABLE? Johnson: I THINK THAT WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS TO FIRST -- AND I'VE SAID THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND I THINK THAT WE'RE UNDERESTIMATING THE IMPORTANCE OF IT -- IS TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURE IN PRODUCING WATER AND PRODUCING BIODIVERSITY AND PRODUCING GOOD AIR, THINGS LIKE THAT. OUR DISTRICT IS PROBABLY 98 PERCENT AGRICULTURE. IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE CLEAN WATER COMING DOWN THE DES MOINES AND THE RACCOON RIVERS, IT'S BECAUSE THE PEOPLE UP IN OUR DISTRICT ARE TAKING GOOD CARE OF THEIR LAND. MANY FARMERS ARE DOING THAT AND I THINK THAT IT'S ABOUT TIME WE RECOGNIZE THAT AND WE START REWARDING THEM IN A BIG WAY FOR DOING SO. AND I THINK THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS THERE AS WELL. OVER HALF OUR LAND IN THIS COUNTRY IS IN FARMING AND IN RANCHING. EIGHTY-EIGHT PERCENT OF THE PRECIPITATION IN THIS COUNTRY FALLS ON THOSE PRIVATE LANDS. IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE CLEAN WATER, IT'S BECAUSE FARMERS ARE TAKING GOOD CARE OF IT. AND I THINK THAT ONE WAY TO MAKE FARMING PROFITABLE IS TO START REWARDING THEM FOR ALL THE GOOD THINGS THAT THEY ARE DOING AND TO BRING THOSE WHO ARE NOT DOING IT ALONG. Yepsen: MR. LATHAM, SAME QUESTION. HOW DO YOU MAKE FARMING MORE PROFITABLE? Latham: WELL, I THINK YOU EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES. AND ONE REASON I VOTED AGAINST THE FARM BILL LAST TIME WAS BECAUSE IT ONLY REWARDS FARMERS FOR RAISING CERTAIN CROPS. RIGHT NOW IF YOU WANT TO GET INTO BIOMASS, THERE'S NO GOVERNMENT PROGRAM THERE FOR SWITCH GRASS OR ANY OTHER ENVIRONMENTALLY-FRIENDLY TYPE CROPS THAT COULD BE RAISED. I THINK WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT AN ENTIRE PICTURE FOR AGRICULTURE TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE -- LIKE YOU SAY, VALUE-ADDED IS A TERM THAT'S WAY OVERUSED BUT, IN FACT, WE DO HAVE TREMENDOUS OPPORTUNITIES OUT THERE IF WE CHANGE OUR POLICIES SO THAT WE CAN REWARD PEOPLE FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING, REWARD THEM FOR RAISING CROPS THAT ARE VERY ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY. THE BIOMASS THING HAS A HUGE POTENTIAL FOR US. WE CAN BECOME THE ENERGY PRODUCING AREA FOR THIS COUNTRY ON CLEAN, RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES, AND MAKE THIS THE MIDDLE EAST OF ENERGY PRODUCTION FOR OUR COUNTRY. AND THAT'S WHERE OUR OPPORTUNITIES ARE, AND WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CONTINUE THE POLICIES THAT ENCOURAGE THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO CHANGE THOSE POLICIES THAT ENCOURAGE ONLY CORN AND SOYBEANS AND HAVE A REAL TUNNEL VISION ABOUT WHAT WE ARE HERE. WE HAVE TO EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES, AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO DO. Glover: CONGRESSMAN LATHAM, LET'S GO BACK TO THE QUESTION I ASKED YOU A FEW MINUTES AGO ABOUT THE FADING POPULATION IN RURAL AMERICA, REALLY, NOT JUST RURAL IOWA. HOW DO YOU ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN RURAL IOWA WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGHT PEOPLE TO STAFF? I'M THINKING OF WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES CAN'T FIND PEOPLE TO WORK AT THEIR BUSINESS. HOW DO YOU DEVELOP THE ECONOMY WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE WORKERS? Latham: WELL, WE HAVE TO FIND A WAY. AND THERE ARE REASONS WHY WE CANNOT ATTRACT YOUNG PEOPLE. ONE IS THERE ARE 37 COUNTIES IN THE STATE OF IOWA WHERE THERE IS NO DOCTOR WHO WILL DELIVER A BABY BECAUSE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LIABILITY, OF THE COST. AND HOW CAN YOU EVER HAVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN A COMMUNITY OR IN A COUNTY IF YOU CAN'T EVEN HAVE A DOCTOR THERE SO THAT A YOUNG FAMILY CAN HAVE THEIR HEALTH CARE PROVIDED FOR THEM. IT'S THINGS LIKE THIS THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN HAVE THE CHANGES IN PLACE. WE HAVE TO HAVE BASIC SERVICES. WE HAVE TO HAVE QUALITY OF LIFE AND THOSE TYPE OF THINGS HERE. AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, WORKING ON, TRYING TO CHANGE THIS, BUT WE HAVE GOT TREMENDOUS OPPOSITION TO THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO HERE. WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR ENERGY POLICY AND HAVING OPPORTUNITIES HERE, THERE'S A FILIBUSTER GOING ON WITH THE OTHER PARTY IN THE SENATE, WHICH HAS STOPPED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO GROW AND PROSPER HERE. Glover: MR. JOHNSON, SAME QUESTION. HOW DO YOU DEVELOP THE ECONOMY WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE WORKERS? Johnson: WELL, AGAIN, YOU DO HAVE TO MAKE IT A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE. AND IN MANY CASES, THAT MEANS A LIVING WAGE AS WELL. WE HAVE PEOPLE WORKING IN OUR DISTRICT RIGHT NOW, BUT THEY'RE WORKING AT POVERTY WAGES. MANY OF THEM FIND MUCH BETTER OPPORTUNITIES ELSEWHERE BECAUSE THE WAGES ARE HIGHER. SO WHAT WE END UP DOING IS BUILDING INDUSTRIES BASED ON VERY LOW-WAGE JOBS. I THINK THAT THAT CERTAINLY HAS TO CHANGE. Yepsen: MR. JOHNSON -- Johnson: YES. Yepsen: I'M SORRY. HEALTH CARE. BOTH OF YOU AT DIFFERENT TIMES TODAY HAVE MENTIONED THIS ISSUE OF RURAL HEALTH CARE, SO LET'S EXAMINE THAT. SPECIFICALLY WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF RURAL HEALTH CARE? Johnson: I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT A NATIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. WE ARE THE ONLY INDUSTRIALIZED NATION IN THE WORLD TODAY THAT STILL HAS A HODGEPODGE OF HEALTH CARE. IT'S COSTING US A HUGE AMOUNT. THE AVERAGE COST PER PERSON IN THIS COUNTRY IS $6,200. Yepsen: HOW DO YOU PAY FOR THIS? Johnson: WELL, RIGHT NOW 3,600 OF THOSE $6,200 ARE PAID FOR BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALREADY, BY FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT THROUGH MEDICARE AND MEDICAID, THAT ARRAY OF PROGRAMS, VETERANS AND SO ON. I THINK YOU DO IT BY GOING TO A SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM, SIMILAR TO WHAT MOST COUNTRIES HAVE TODAY. IN OTHER WORDS, A MEDICARE FOR ALL. A GREAT DEAL OF OUR COST RIGHT NOW ARE IN ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. OUR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS RUN TWICE WHAT THEY DO IN CANADA, FOR EXAMPLE, AND MORE THAN TWICE WHAT THEY DO IN THE MEDICARE SYSTEM. I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE MOVE THAT WAY. NOW, THAT MEANS THAT WE STILL WILL HAVE A PRIVATE DELIVERY SYSTEM. I'M ALL FOR COMPETITION THERE AND FOR INNOVATION AND PROVIDING DIFFERENT THINGS. I DON'T IN ANY WAY THINK THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TAKE OVER THAT PART OF IT. Yepsen: CONGRESSMAN LATHAM, SAME QUESTION TO YOU. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO ABOUT THE PROBLEMS OF RURAL HEALTH CARE? Latham: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THERE ARE SOME VERY POSITIVE THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED WITH THE MEDICARE MODERNIZATION ACT. WE FINALLY GOT THE RESULTS THAT WE'VE BEEN AFTER FOR YEARS AS FAR AS THE REIMBURSEMENT ISSUE, TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR LOCAL HOSPITALS, OUR DOCTORS, OUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS HAVE AN EQUITABLE REIMBURSEMENT. THERE'S MORE TO DO THERE BUT WE HAVE COME MILES. AND THAT'S WHY THE HOSPITALS, THE DOCTORS, THE HOME HEALTH CARE FOLKS ALL STRONGLY SUPPORTED WHAT WE DID. AND THAT REALLY PUTS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GOOD QUALITY HEALTH CARE IN OUR LOCAL COMMUNITIES. THAT ACCESS IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. WHAT WE NEED TO DO -- AND I'M NOT GOING TO SOCIALIZE MEDICINE BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE SEEN WHAT A DISASTER THAT CAN BE, BUT WE ARE GOING TO PUT INCENTIVES IN PLACE SO THAT SMALL BUSINESSES CAN JOIN TOGETHER AND POOL THEIR COMPANIES AND THEIR ASSOCIATIONS SO THAT THEY CAN PURCHASE MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE HEALTH CARE. A LOT OF THE UNINSURED FOLKS TODAY ARE EMPLOYEES OF SMALL BUSINESSES WHO SIMPLY CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH CARE. ALSO, THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE PART OF IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, NOT ONLY AS FAR AS HOLDING DOWN COSTS BUT, LIKE I MENTIONED BEFORE, JUST SIMPLE ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR YOUNG FAMILIES. AND HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS ARE A VERY, VERY POSITIVE STEP FORWARD SO PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY GET IN CONTROL OF THEIR OWN COSTS. Glover: CONGRESSMAN LATHAM, YOU SUPPORTED THE MEDICARE REFORM BILL. ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT INCLUDED IN THAT BILL? Latham: CERTAINLY IT IS -- AND THE WHOLE BILL, WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT IN ITS ENTIRETY, IS EXTRAORDINARILY POSITIVE FOR SENIORS. NUMBER ONE, THE REIMBURSEMENT ISSUE FOR IOWA WAS -- Glover: REGARDING PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. Latham: WELL, BUT THAT IS A MATTER OF ACCESS AND MAINTAINING QUALITY HEALTH CARE, AND THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF IT. AND ALSO, THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT TARGETS THE PEOPLE WHO NEED THE HELP THE MOST, THE LOWEST INCOME PEOPLE WHO ARE DUAL ELIGIBLE IN MEDICARE. AND 73 PERCENT OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE WOMEN LIVING IN THEIR HOMES, OFTENTIMES WIDOWS. AND THAT PEACE OF MIND THAT THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN PAYING RENT OR FOOD TO GET THEIR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND, ALSO, THE PEACE OF MIND FOR PEOPLE KNOWING THEY HAVE CATASTROPHIC COVERAGE SO THAT THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO LOSE THEIR LIFE SAVINGS IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. Glover: MR. JOHNSON, -- MR. JOHNSON, I SEE YOU BRISTLING OVER THERE DURING THIS DISCUSSION. Johnson: YES, I AM. FIRST OF ALL, THIS IDEA OF SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. COME ON, I TALKED TO A FELLOW THE OTHER DAY WHO SAID THE SAME SORT OF THING, "WE DON'T WANT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE." I ASKED HIM ABOUT MEDICARE AND HE SAID HE LIKED IT, IT WAS A GREAT PROGRAM. THAT'S ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IF THAT'S SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, THEN YOU OUGHT TO GO OUT AND ASK SENIORS IN THEY'D LIKE TO DUMP THAT AND BE PUT OUT INTO THE MARKETPLACE LIKE ALL THE REST OF US HAVE TO BE IN THIS COUNTRY. SECONDLY, THE REIMBURSEMENT RATES, MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE'RE STILL DEAD LAST BEHIND PUERTO RICA EVEN. SO TO SAY THAT WE'RE THERE NOW I THINK IS JUST DEAD WRONG. THIRD, HE TALKS ABOUT THE WONDERS OF THIS NEW PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM. AT THE SAME TIME, I HAVEN'T FOUND A SENIOR YET WHO THINKS IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO NOT LET MEDICARE NEGOTIATE PRICES WITH PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES. IT JUST -- IT BAFFLES MY MIND. Yepsen: GENTLEMEN, WE'VE ONLY GOT A COUPLE MINUTES LEFT. I WANT TO TURN THE ATTENTION TO IRAQ. MR. JOHNSON, WHAT SHOULD WE DO NOW? REGARDLESS OF HOW WE GOT HERE, WHAT DO WE DO NOW? Johnson: WE DO ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING WE CAN TO INTERNATIONALIZE IT. I THINK THAT WE SHOULD PLAN TO BE OUT OF THERE WITHIN A YEAR OR TWO, AT THE VERY LEAST, TAKE OUR PLACE AMONGST ALL OUR PARTNERS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD IN HELPING IRAQ AND NOT BE THE PERSON -- OR THE COUNTRY THAT IS DOING EVERYTHING. JIM LEACH SAYS THAT WE OUGHT TO BE OUT OF THERE BY CHRISTMAS. I THINK THAT THAT'S PROBABLY NOT COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE, BUT I THINK THAT WE SHOULD SET SOME DEADLINES. AND I THINK THE BEST WAY TO GET US OUT OF THERE IS TO ELECT A NEW PRESIDENT. Yepsen: MR. LATHAM, WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IRAQ NOW? Latham: WE'VE GOT TO WIN. IT IS ALL ABOUT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. IT IS ALL ABOUT OUR HOMELAND SECURITY. IT IS ALL ABOUT FREEDOM IN THE UNITED STATES. FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. AND I'VE TALKED TO FAMILIES WHO HAVE LOST LOVED ONES WHO HAVE SERVED OVER THERE, AND THEY TELL ME DO NOT LET OUR SACRIFICE BE IN VAIN. Glover: CONGRESSMAN LATHAM -- Latham: THIS IS ALL ABOUT SAVING FREEDOM IN THIS COUNTRY SO THAT PEOPLE CAN FEEL SECURE AT THAT -- Glover: THAT'S A NICE PLATITUDE, WE'VE GOT TO WIN. Latham: NO, IT'S NOT A PLATITUDE. Glover: YEAH, IT IS. WE'VE GOT TO WIN; IT'S A NICE PLATITUDE. HOW DO YOU WIN? THAT'S THE QUESTION. WHAT DO YOU DO SPECIFICALLY? Latham: WELL, WE DON'T DO IT BY TELLING THEM BEFOREHAND THAT WE ARE GOING TO WITHDRAW AT A CERTAIN DATE, WHEN THEY JUST HAVE TO SIT BACK AND WAIT. WE'VE GOT TO CHANGE THE WHOLE ATTITUDE IN THAT PART OF THE COUNTRY -- OR OF THE WORLD. AND TO DO THAT, WE MUST BE SUCCESSFUL. WE MUST INSTITUTE, LIKE WE HAVE, PROGRESSED TOWARD DEMOCRACY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE SUPPORT TO BE SUCCESSFUL. Borg: MR. JOHNSON, WE HAVE JUST A SHORT TIME, AND I WANT TO GIVE EACH ONE OF YOU A CLOSING STATEMENT. WHAT DO YOU WANT VOTERS TO REMEMBER WHEN THEY GO INTO THE VOTING BOOTH? WE'VE SEEN SOME CONTRAST TODAY. Johnson: CERTAINLY. I THINK THAT VOTERS NEED TO KNOW THAT THEY HAVE A CHOICE AND THAT WE CAN BE A NATION THAT'S BETTER THAN WE ARE RIGHT NOW. WE'RE CERTAINLY BETTER THAN OUR LEADERS ARE RIGHT NOW. THIS ISSUE OF IRAQ AND WE MUST NOT ACCEPT DEFEAT, WE'VE GONE FROM 9/11, WHEN THE WHOLE WORLD EXTENDED US A HAND, TO A POINT WHERE WE'VE GIVEN THEM A FIST. AND THE WHOLE WORLD TODAY IS REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT OUR RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORLD. Borg: MR. LATHAM, YOU HAVE THIRTY SECONDS. Latham: WELL, -- Borg: WHAT DO YOU WANT VOTERS TO REMEMBER? Latham: TO KNOW THAT I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK EXTREMELY HARD FOR THE DISTRICT, FOR THE STATE OF IOWA; THAT WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE SECURITY, WHETHER IT BE NATIONAL SECURITY, HOMELAND SECURITY, ECONOMIC SECURITY; THAT WE HAVE POLICIES IN PLACE SO THAT WE CAN GROW AND PROSPER HERE IN A SAFE AND SECURE WORLD. AND I THINK THAT IS THE DEFINING ISSUE IN THIS WHOLE CAMPAIGN. Borg: THANK YOU BOTH FOR TAKING TIME TO BE WITH US TODAY. CONTINUING OUR REVIEW OF THE CAMPAIGNS LEADING TO NOVEMBER 2'S GENERAL ELECTION, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT NEXT WEEK. WE'LL BE TALKING WITH THE INCUMBENT CONGRESSMAN, DEMOCRAT LEONARD BOSWELL, AND HIS REPUBLICAN CHALLENGER, STAN THOMPSON. BOSWELL AND THOMPSON NEXT FRIDAY AT 7:30, SUNDAY AT NOON. AND THAT'S THIS WEEKEND'S EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS." I'M DEAN BORG. THANKS FOR JOINING US TODAY. CAPTIONS BY: MIDWEST CAPTIONING DES MOINES, IOWA FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM WAS PROVIDED BY "FRIENDS," THE IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION FOUNDATION... GENERATIONS OF FAMILIES AND FRIENDS WHO FEEL PASSIONATE ABOUT THE PROGRAMS THEY WATCH ON IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION; AND BY THE IOWA BANKERS ASSOCIATION... FOR PERSONAL, BUSINESS, AND COMMERCIAL NEEDS, IOWA BANKS HELP IOWANS REACH THEIR FINANCIAL |
|
