For Immediate Release
January 7, 2009

  

GRASSLEY:  Before you ask questions, I want to say happy new year to all of you. Secondly, I just told you where I am because we're having what is referred to as a Republican retreat. It's not much of a retreat from Washington, D.C., but it is a quiet place to meet and discuss things for year ahead.

Yesterday, the new Congress started. And we're already starting work, I guess you'd say, more behind the scenes than in a visible wayon an economic stimulus bill. It seems to be a first priority and ought to be. And then we, of course, have confirmation hearings on all the Cabinet positions that have been filled so far. And I think all but one are filled.

 

    I want to see tax relief. Now, I'm talking about the stimulus package. Think of it in terms of, probably, two parts. One, the spending part from the Appropriations Committee. And the other one tax part from the Finance Committee that I serve on. 

 

So the tax relief that would help spur the economy ought to be substantial enough to create jobs and help family budgets as part of any economic recovery bill. On the spending side, I'm concerned about commitments that might be made that don't have much to do with job creation and would, in effect, dig us into a deeper hole. 

 

I don't have any problems with spending for job creation and infrastructure, but I have some concerns about other commitments that might be made that can't be continued long term. And, of course, infrastructure, once something is built, a mile of highway is laid, you don't lay it again -- the same mile next year. So there is some difference there. 

 

I also intend to work in this new Congress, I guess you'd call it continuing work, on a wide range of initiatives to create opportunities for Iowa's workers and employers. Some of these would be renewable energy, competitive environment for family farmers and livestock producers, now market opportunities for opportunities for agriculture manufacturing, and services through expanded international trade. 

 

And I didn't mention that, but it does remind me that international trade is a great stimulus, too, and there ought to be an international trade part of the stimulus bill. I'm not sure there will be, but I met yesterday with the new director -- or I guess you'd call him special trade representative -- the guy that does our negotiations for us. And I think he's got his heart in the right direction to continue to expand trade. But he knows that protectionism has kind of taken over here in our country and it's going to take some ground work to get us back to a point where we can do more in the area of international trade. So I mention that as a sideline of a point that I'm going to make during the stimulus debate.

 

Now, in addition to what I've just said about things I want to work on, I want to continue to see that Iowa gets federal assistance and relief for the full recovery from tornadoes and the floods of 2008. But I'm not saying that because -- just doing something special for Iowa. We are an insurer of last resort as a federal government and so, you know, three years later, we're still doing things for New Orleans. So it's going to take a while to get Iowa back, and can it's going to take some more money in the process. 

 

But probably more important than just the money is to make sure that Iowa gets a fair share of what's appropriated. 

 

GRASSLEY: Then you know about my oversight responsibilities. I want to hold these bureaucracies accountability by strengthening the hand of the whistleblowers and the False Claims Act, making Medicaid-dependent nursing homes more transparent and higher quality.

(Inaudible) on CMS, disclosing financial relationships between drug companies and doctors. That's my transparency bill. And insuring that charities aren't abusing their tax shelters and non-profit organizations, including hospitals, are doing the charitable things that non-properties are set up to do. And then something new -- it's not new for me because I introduced a bill in 2007 -- but it's surely new to a lot of people finally waking up to the fact that we need the registration of hedge funds.

 

I'd like to also establish an inspector general's office for the federal judiciary. And then, of course, I'm involved in all the things involved with rural health care, equity reform for health care providers, and low cost, high quality states like Iowa. That's an ongoing program that we have to work on every year.

 

And I'm going work for changes to drive down health care costs and empower individuals that don't have health insurance to get it and use the marketplace principles involved in that.

 

I'm ready for questions. 

 

OPERATOR: Kerry Cathcart?

 

QUESTION: Thank you. Senator, what do you think of the suggestion for Leon Panetta as head of CIA? Would you support that? Or do you have any problems with it without having heard -- without having had hearings on him?

 

GRASSLEY: Well, first of all, a caveat for me to comment on that is that I usually don't make a point of saying I'm going support or not support somebody until after their hearings, particularly, if they aren't in the committees I'm on. And, you know, you might say I made an exception for Governor Vilsack earlier this week when I met with him. I said, though, if something unforeseen doesn't come up, I think he's going to get approved. And so I can -- I can say that, as an individual and serving in the Congress with Leon Panetta, I know him to be a qualified person. But you could be a qualified neurosurgeon and you might not be a very good farmer. And I suppose you could be a qualified manager, as Leon Panetta was in OMB or as a congressman, but that doesn't necessarily put him in -- in a good position to be director of the CIA. So I don't serve on the Intelligence Committee. So I'm going to have to listen to what my colleagues are saying. But there's a former congressman by the name of Goss that went in there in the first Bush administration. So that, you know, it's -- his bad management of that tended to make me think in terms of what Senator Feinstein has said that only professional intelligence officers ought to be running the CIA. That's a little bit contrary to positions I take in a lot of other bureaucracies -- like with the FDA now, I'm not sure we should have somebody -- in fact, I've publicly said we shouldn't have somebody from inside the FDA running the FDA. So I'm ambivalent on that point. I'll have to sum it up for you

 

QUESTION: What do you think about the controversy over seating the appointed senator from Illinois?

 

GRASSLEY: Well, you know, believing until rule of law, all of us in Congress have to because we make law and we expect it to be respected, the Supreme Court made a decision in roughly 1970 in the Adam Clayton Powell case that said that as long as a member meets age, residence, and citizenship qualifications, he can't be -- the House of Representatives, in that case, couldn't deny him a seat -- Adam Clayton Powell. And so based on that court case, I don't think there's any -- he's got a perfect right to have that seat -- be seated. The only exception to that I would make is to remind you that we Republicans were advocating a special election. But that can't be done only by the Illinois legislature setting it up. If that isn't going to be done, I don't see how you select a senator except by governor appointment. And that's the way the 17th amendments reads as well.

 

QUESTION: Thank you. 

 

OPERATOR: Tom Beaumont?

 

QUESTION: Senator, you had signaled some reservations about Eric Holder over the past couple of weeks. With Senator Specter's recent criticism of the appointment, does that signal trouble for the nomination in the Judiciary Committee? 

 

GRASSLEY: It signals that it's not going to be a smooth confirmation. It doesn't signal that he may not be confirmed. I think you've got to get into the hearing and maybe ask me in a week or two about your question again. But for instance, I'll tell you where I'm involved, he was a counsel or at least Governor Blagojevich had sought to have him involved with something with race tracks in Illinois and casinos, I think. And so we're trying to get freedom of information on that because we need to know what the relationship is with Governor Blagojevich. And I don't say that in denigrating in any way except Governor Blagojevich's recent troubles raises questions with anybody that's had a relationship with him. And there is -- there was that potential work that he was going to do or did do for Blagojevich that ought to be made public. And now we have to use freedom of information to get that. So I joined Senator Cornyn yesterday and seeking that information. So the only answer to your question is it's not going to be smooth sailing. He still may end up being attorney general. And I wouldn't say that I wouldn't vote for him because you can't say he's not qualified for it. He is qualified. But there's a lot of people that are qualified. They have other reasons that maybe they shouldn't be in that position. And, you know, Secretary Richardson -- or Governor Richardson -- is a perfect example. When it was first announced that he was going to be selected, it was rave reviews. A probably even spoke highly of that me. But he's not in -- going to be in the Cabinet, at least not for a while. 

 

QUESTION: I've got to follow up on the stimulus. Based on your conversations with Senator Baucus, do you think that there is an imbalance in the tax cut provisions in the stimulus bill and the spending for capital projects?

 

GRASSLEY: Well, if you -- if you figure 50-50 as a balance, there is an imbalance. But with 40 percent being the goal, it's a heck of a lot better than we were hearing back in December and November might be in it. It tends to give us opportunities to do what a lot of us think need to be done is to give incentives for investments which is, in turn, incentives for job creation and incentives not just for any job but jobs that tend to last a long time as opposed to stimulus package spending where they tend to be very temporary jobs. And so that has helped us move along much more quickly on possible bipartisanship in this package than what was first talked about. 

 

QUESTION: Thank you. 

 

OPERATOR: Mike Myers?

 

QUESTION: Senator, you said earlier in opening comments that you had concern about other commitments being -- that are being made that are really not for the long-term benefit. What do you mean by that phrase? You used the example of laying a mile of highway is as permanent...

 

GRASSLEY: Well, let's put it this way. For instance, if we give more money through the formula for building highways and states -- and it's mostly because people haven't been driving their cars as much  so there hasn't been as much gas tax paid -- so there's less jobs in highway building than there would otherwise be. And if we put money into highways, then that money is going to be spent on top of what otherwise would be spent. But if we put, let's say, money -- just give money to states to supplement their state treasury without any specific purpose for it, that -- that could just replace federal dollars for state dollars. Or other way to look at it is there could be some inequity because maybe a lot of states don't have financial trouble because -- because they manage their budgets well. And others have been not very good managers and are very much in deficit. 

 

And so there's an inequity there as well. But that would be an example of where money would be going out that would not be job creation. 

 

QUESTION: On money going out, your Democrat colleagues from Iowa yesterday were highly critical of the distribution formula of the block grants to Iowa regarding the -- they said it was basically a paltry $11 million. Are you satisfied with that distribution formula which takes into account population of states? And does it recognize that the -- the damage that some states may have suffered (inaudible) than others? 

 

GRASSLEY: I'll tell you why I'm not satisfied with it. And -- because both in Iowa and in Washington here, when I was trying to explain what we did in October with this latest money that went out, it was $24 billion because Gustav and Ike had hit. It wasn't just floods. It was going to, I think, 19 states as opposed to a dozen states. And I said that there's a bill or there's language or presumption that money would go out in proportion to how each state was damaged in relationship to other states. Now, to me, I was under the assumption that money would go out based just upon the relative disaster in Iowa compared to the relative disaster in Missouri or any other state.

 

GRASSLEY: And now with this population factor, the only thing I can say we've got learn from our mistakes, and if we weren't very clear in that bill that this money ought to be disbursed on disaster basis only, we'll have to spell that out in the bill in the next one. And if some of this money is not spent -- although I suppose it's all out now, the $600 million is probably all out -- but if any of it's not spent, make sure that that's recouped and put out on a basis of disaster only.

 

OPERATOR: Joe...

 

QUESTION: Sir, just one brief follow-up. Is Congress, in some way, culpable here that you did not put out specific guidelines to say don't do this on population? 

 

GRASSLEY: I guess -- you know, I'm not on the Appropriations Committee, so I don't know what was discussed. But I just -- it's just a rule of thumb that if Congress isn't specific in the law, it gives bureaucrats a certain amount of leeway. And I don't know whether the leeway that they used in this bill for the SSBG is just there only imagination or are they going to something in the law that population needs to be fact? I don't know how you get population being a factor. You've got it in a disaster relief bill because it's supposed to help people who are hurt. And then based upon the presumption which I assumed was part of the language that it would be disbursed proportionality based on disaster. 

 

QUESTION: Thank you. 

 

OPERATOR: Joe Morton?

 

QUESTION: Nothing today. Thank you. 

 

OPERATOR: Mike Glover? Jim Boyd?

 

QUESTION: I'm good today. Thanks, Jill. 

 

OPERATOR: Mary Rae?

 

QUESTION: Asked and answered. Thank you. 

 

OPERATOR: Jane Norman?

 

QUESTION: Yes. Hi, Senator. 

 

GRASSLEY: Hi, Jane. Welcome back. 

 

QUESTION: Thank you, Senator. Hey, I was thinking about your role in the Congress and with the administration sort of in a historical context. You're in an adversarial role kind of analogous to where you were about 14 years ago where Clinton was president and Democrats controlled the Senate for a while. And I'm just curious. You had a long laundry list here at the outset of initiatives you want to accomplish and things you want to work on and you're always very busy with your oversight and everything. In the big picture, how do you see your role vis-a-vis the majority party now controlling both the Senate and the presidency and specifically in your relationship with Mr. Baucus on the Finance Committee? How do you get things done? 

 

GRASSLEY: I think you kind of bifurcated the question the same way I would. One, generally for me as a Republican in the minority and then secondly in my relationship with Senator Baucus. I would -- if I were describing for you what 41 or 42 Republicans ought to be up to, it is to work -- seek in every way possible bipartisan compromises. And the only way -- and if -- if 41 Republicans stick together, I'm talking about just on procedural things not on substantive things, we can have enough power to force consideration of Republican amendments.

 

GRASSLEY: And those Republican amendments have to be a responsible alternative for what the Democrats might be doing. But, hopefully, before you ever get there, you know, Harry Reid and the Democratic chairmans (sic) understand that to get things done quickly you've got to have bipartisan cooperation and that they would work with us before you'd ever get to the point of worrying about you had 41 votes. In other words, they've be doing everything they could ahead of time to make sure they had more than 60 votes. In other words, along statements like what I've heard from Democrats is they're hoping to get a stimulus bill that gets 75, 80 votes. Well, that's a good attitude on their part. And as long as we aren't impediments to that, then it ought to happen. But we ought to have a right, too, in the Senate because the Senate is the Senate and it's not the House. We don't have a Rules Committee and things are meant to be debated to a great extent, we get opportunities for consideration as Republicans in the House never have an opportunity under the Constitution to do. OK. Now, then, when you can't work things out in a bipartisan way, then we have a responsibility, as a loyal opposition -- with emphasis upon the word "loyal" -- to have an alternative. And then have to, you know, try to sell our point of view. And if we don't sell it, then, you know, the Democrats get their way. But I don't think that will happen very often. On my relationship with Baucus, it's almost a certainty that we're starting out the proposition that we're going to have a bipartisan proposal. And I mean -- I met with him yesterday -- usual Tuesday meeting -- for one hour. Yesterday, it was an hour and 45 minutes to discuss the work of the committee. So all I can tell you is that -- that we tend to have a reputation, the Finance Committee, of working together regardless of worth it's a Republican majority or Democrat majority. And I think it's going to continue. And when it -- and then when it doesn't work out, then I have a responsibility, as a Republican leader of the Republicans on the Finance Committee, to have us as well as we can reunified minority with a responsible alternative. 

 

QUESTION: Is your approach toward bipartisanship shared, do you believe, by those that you're meeting in retreat with there at the Library of Congress? 

 

GRASSLEY: I would say with -- with a good -- a good 50 percent. But I'd have to say that that is a -- is a -- how would you say it? Not the same 50 percent all the time. You know, on one issue, it would be a different 50 percent than on another issue. But overall, every Republican senator, if he wants to get anyone done, has to work out agreements. You know? 

 

OPERATOR: Christiania at the Hawkeye?

 

QUESTION: I'm good today. Thank you. 

 

OPERATOR: OK. That's the list. Does anybody have a follow-up? 

 

QUESTION: This is Tim Rohwer. 

 

GRASSLEY: Hi, Tim. 

 

QUESTION: Hi. Yes, I was just kind of -- I noticed that you had met with Governor Vilsack the other day and one of the issues that was discussed was the Ag Department's handling of civil rights issues. 

 

QUESTION: Do you know what some of those issues are and...

 

GRASSLEY: The biggest one is the black farmer issue. Going back to the Clinton administration, you might think how did I get involved in black farmer issues. We probably don't have more than a half a dozen African-American farmers in Iowa. But there will a White House leg person for Clinton -- a legislative affairs person for Clinton that knew that I was a farmer and had followed me quite a bit. And she was also African-American. And she came to me in the Clinton administration talking about the problems of the Department of Agriculture not treating African-American farmers right compared to their equal opportunities under the law. And that's mostly for loans, I think. And she asked would you -- would you help on this because you're one of the few people in the Senate that understand agriculture. So that's how I got involved in it including -- so we've been fighting this for 10, 12 years. And we finally got $100 million in the Farm Bill to help settle some of these cases. Now, that's not the only civil rights issue that's involved, but that's the biggest one. And my staff can give you some more background on the case involving thousands of African-American farmers. 

 

QUESTION: OK. 

 

QUESTION: Senator? 

 

GRASSLEY: Go ahead. 

 

QUESTION:  On these Tuesday lunches with Senator Baucus, is that one on one or do you have staff in the room?

 

GRASSLEY: Yes. We do have staff. 

 

QUESTION: The entire time? 

 

GRASSLEY: No, sometimes we -- we meet privately or sometimes we might meet, like yesterday, with one or two staff people and Senator Baucus and me. But most of the time, there would be, between his staff and my staff, maybe 20 people in the room because you need that sort of expertise around when you're trying to get down into details.

 

QUESTION: Do other Finance Committee members attend those meetings? 

 

GRASSLEY: No. 

 

QUESTION: Thank you. 

 

OPERATOR: Anybody else? 

 

QUESTION: Senator, again -- I'm sorry. This is Tim Rowher again.  

 

GRASSLEY: Yes? 

 

QUESTION: Anyway, Mike Johanns is now the new senator from Nebraska. Have you had a chance to talk with him? And how do you see him in the Senate? 

 

GRASSLEY: Well, he's going to be, first of all, I think, without a doubt, as a governor and now as senator, very much in tune with the grass roots of Nebraska. I see him as being a strong spokesman for agriculture whether he's on the Agriculture Committee or not. And he probably doesn't know that yet. Well, none of us know it because we're still negotiating between Reid and McConnell on committee ratios. And I've only -- I went to his reception yesterday. He introduced me to a friend saying this is the first guy that endorsed me for senator. He endorsed me for senator before I even resigned from secretary of agriculture because I was very enthusiastic for him. And the only other thing I said to him is let me know how I can help you. In other words, let me know how I can help you get oriented. 

 

OPERATOR: OK. Anybody else? Thank you very much. 

 

QUESTION: One...

 

GRASSLEY: Go ahead. 

 

QUESTION: I apologize to Tim. I didn't know I was jumping in there before he finished.

 

QUESTION: Are you also -- have an opinion regarding the matter in Minnesota? Do you think that's closed?

 

GRASSLEY: No, I don't think -- I don't think you can say anything is done until it's done. And that will be when they -- when he -- when a winner is certified under Minnesota law. And that's when all appeals are done. 

 

QUESTION: OK. Thank you. 

 

GRASSLEY: Goodbye, everybody.