For Immediate Release
January 21, 2009

  

     GRASSLEY:  Before your questions this morning, I want to comment

on yesterday's inaugural speech which was equally divided between

domestic policy on the one hand, and foreign policy on the other. 

 

     I appreciate President Obama's focus on responsibility and

accountability, meaning, individual responsibility and individual

accountability as opposed to our collective efforts.  In this time of

great anxiety, it was an important message for all of America to hear.

It will take a commitment of these two ideals to turn the country

around. 

 

     It also seemed to me that he indicated that he will finish what

President Bush started in Iraq, which is promising for the fragile

democracy for this country of Iraq and quite a departure from the two

years he was running for president when you'd get the impression that,

on January 21st, our last troop would be leaving Iraq.  So I'm glad

that that's going to be finished. 

 

     And he assured the rest of the world, in addition, on foreign

policy issues, that the United States stands ready to lead the world

through these tough times, tough times that are economic and tough

times that exist because of the war on terrorism. 

 

     Tom, of Register? 

 

     QUESTION:  Senator, do you expect to vote for confirmation...

 

     GRASSLEY:  Let's go to...

 

     QUESTION:  Actually...

 

     GRASSLEY:  Mike Glover? 

 

     QUESTION:  Actually, Senator, I was on.  This is Tom Beaumont.

 

     GRASSLEY:  Yes.  Go ahead.  I'm sorry. 

 

     QUESTION:  No, that's OK. 

 

     Do you expect to vote for confirmation of Tim Geithner?  And if

you're still undecided, what factors do you need him to address before

you know how you're going to vote? 

 

     GRASSLEY:  Well, it isn't a case of being undecided, to answer

your question right now.  Maybe 24 hours, I can answer your question

or maybe 72 hours.  I don't know.  It depends on what comes out today.

 

     But I never take a position on nominees before their hearing is

over.  There's no point in having a hearing.  Now, you might ask me,

well, why the nice things I said about Governor Vilsack.  I did put a

caveat in there that you'll understand that if I said I thought he'd

sail thoroughly, which would imply that I would support him -- and he

did sail through.  But I said, as a caveat, that, you know, if

something surprising didn't come out in the hearing.  And so I've got

reserve the same judgment for Geithner. 

 

     I can expand on what's going to play a factor.  It isn't just

taxes, which is probably what's on your mind.  That's one. 

 

     Number two is he did play a role in the distribution of TARP

money.  And so he's going to be questioned by me and other people on

that issue because some of that hasn't produced, for my Iowa

constituents, enough results that they thought we ought to move

forward with a second $350 billion. 

 

     And then the third thing is he had a role as president of the

Federal Reserve in the issue of Bear Sterns back in March and AIG this

summer.  And we need to explore those things because it seems to me

that the public is going to want somebody that's the secretary of

treasury that's going to produce better results than Paulson has done

at this point. 

 

     QUESTION:  From your conversation with him, have you gotten the

idea that he does represent a departure from Secretary Paulson on some

of those issues? 

 

     GRASSLEY:  Listen -- well, I shouldn't say -- I did have a

private meeting with him back in December where I don't think we got

very deep those things.  But the two meetings I've had with him since

the first of the year have been devoted entirely to the tax issue.  So

I can't answer your question. 

 

     QUESTION:  Thank you. 

 

     GRASSLEY:  Mike Glover? 

 

     QUESTION:  Senator, what do you expect your relationship with new

Secretary Vilsack to be?  Are you going to have a special relationship

with him because you're both from Iowa? 

 

 

     GRASSLEY:  Well, I think -- I think we -- all of us from Iowa

think we have a special relationship with each other just because

we're from Iowa and we're proud of our state. 

 

     But I -- I would not declare to have a special relationship with

him except that every connection I've had with him in eight years, I

don't remember the years he was a state senator or mayor, but I do

remember the eight years he was governor.  And I don't know that I

ever had one argument or dispute with him.  If it was, it wasn't

anything that ever got personal and we never had any problems

communicating with each other. 

 

     I think he -- I've heard him tell other people about he

appreciates my work on case work -- that I got a good case work

policy.  And he named one or two things that he was personally

involved in on those things. 

 

     And the other thing is that when he would call me as governor, I

would return his calls.  And I think he appreciated that.  And I

didn't meddle in state policy except for his giving me his opinion on

things that affected the state, which I would expect him to.  I didn't

meddle in federal policy. 

 

     And I don't -- when we disagreed, I'm not sure that -- that --

I'm not sure that he ever had any problems with the way I ended up if

it was different than what he asked us to do. 

 

     And then I can say this, that in eight years that he was

governor, four of those eight years, every other year, I always had my

ambassador's tour, which I think you understand what that is.  I won't

explain it.  He and his Department of Economic Development always

supported that tour.  And under the ethics rule of the Senate, I

wouldn't have been able to have the tour without the ability to raise

money for it and have the state be a fiscal agent for it.  And I plan

on doing that again this August.  And he cooperated very well with

that and appeared at some of the meetings of ambassadors I had around

the state. 

 

     And I remember he was -- I don't know whether it was enthusiastic

-- but he was -- seemed to be a supporter of something that has now

not happened.  But I was a lead in the area of what's famously known

as a rainforest, which I hate to bring up anymore now that the money

has been spent.  But it seemed to me that he was -- for economic

development purposes, he was behind that effort.  He was not a leader

in that area.  I mean, he'd come to me begging for money.  But in

supporting the local efforts that were going on at that time in

Coralville, and later on in Pella, it seemed to me that he was

supportive. 

 

     QUESTION:  OK. 

 

     GRASSLEY:  Can I go on to Joe Morton?

 

     Jim Boyd?

 

     Jane Norman? 

 

     QUESTION:  Yes.  Hi, Senator. 

 

     GRASSLEY:  Yes, hi. 

 

     QUESTION:  We're just past this rather extraordinary day here in

Washington with all the people gathered on the Mall, the inaugural,

all the euphoria and celebration going on yesterday.  And a lot of

talk during this about Republican and Democrats working together,

reaching across the divide.  I mean, not just from the president but

from members of Congress as well. 

 

     How -- do you think -- and there's going to be a honeymoon, of

course, for the new president.  Do you think this is going to happen?

And how is this sort of euphoria over his election going to affect

legislation here in the next -- in the next few weeks or months? 

 

     GRASSLEY:  Well, without a doubt, he's got a period of time here

where the public is really behind him.  And from the standpoint of the

public being behind him, you're going to see a different attitude in

Congress than if the public wasn't behind him. 

 

     And, also, you've got remember that the public is sick and tired

of partisanship anyway regardless of whoever is president.  And so

that's a factor that plays in and ought to play in.  And we

Republicans have to be cognizant of that and, I think, are cognizant

of that. 

 

     So let me see if I can answer your question a little more

specifically.  First of all, just as one example -- and he's probably

done this to many senators and more senators more often than to me.

But he's reached out on at least two occasions to talk to me about

issues, one, very generic and the other one very specific.  And so

that shows he's trying to do things. 

 

     He's had Larry Summers and Rahm Emanuel come up and talk to the

Republican caucus last week on the TARP legislation.  He's invited

every Republican member of Congress to give him our -- our things that

we'd like to see done.  And so I've informed by staff, and I assume

they have because I think there's a deadline on it, to submit some

things that we were interested in. 

 

     Then -- so I think he's getting off, not only publicly speaking

about it but also doing some things that show bipartisanship.  And

he's -- as long as he's keeps that spirit, you're going to find

Republicans supporting that effort and trying to work for bipartisan

solutions.  And I think we would do that until, number one, there

would be two nexuses or departures from that. 

     Number one, if we find out that the president really isn't

pursuing that course that he's publicly stated, or number two, which

could be to the chagrin of President Obama, if people in his own party

in Congress tend to be partisans in a way that the president doesn't

want to be partisan, that could force some partisanship here. 

 

     But if there is a departure from bipartisanship, then I think

it's -- it's our responsibility to have a -- I'd consider ourselves

loyal opposition with emphasis on loyal to have a constructive

alternative.  And my emphasis upon constructive so that the public

knows that we are not just opposing for the sake of opposing but

because we think we've got a better idea and be probably own a better

idea because the efforts towards bipartisanship just didn't turn out. 

 

     So that's it.  Now, give you one example and then I'll stop

talking where I think this got off to a bad start, and that's on the

Children's Health Insurance Program because we were going to work in a

bipartisan way as we did two years ago, and we were working towards

that.  And Senator Baucus, I think, was working in that direction.

And all of a sudden, coming from the transition team or from Democrats

in Congress, we need to get this CHIP bill passed and have an early

victory for the President Obama so that he can kind of show the world

that he's thinking a lot differently than Bush did because Bush vetoed

it twice. 

 

 

     GRASSLEY:  So, you know, we were forced into the position of

having a reasonable alternative.  And that was evidenced in the seven

or eight or nine amendments that were offered last week.  But I feel

bad about that because I took on my president and my -- and a majority

of my caucus to make a bipartisan proposal -- or, I mean, to make a

bipartisan product and just hours and hours, not only hours and hours

in the Senate to get that, but hours and hours talking to House

Republicans to get 12 more votes to override in the second veto. 

 

     And all of a sudden, you know, that posture, for political

reasons, is dumped over.  It's not really for policy reasons because

they want to get it done right now.  And who knows?  It may not be

done much sooner than otherwise not because we're going to drag our

feet but they've got a lot of things on their agenda because these

nominations and these -- these nominations and these stimulus package

issues are more important than probably SCHIP because it doesn't have

to be passed until March 31st. 

 

     QUESTION:  Do you think that's a sign for health care reform?  Is

that a bad sign for Republican participation in this much broader goal

of achieving health care reform? 

 

     GRASSLEY:  I raised the question in the -- in my opening

statement last week on SCHIP.  And I was assured by Chairman Baucus it

was not the direction that health care reform was going to go. 

 

     Mary Rae Bragg?

 

     QUESTION:  Senator, do you see any real opposition to Hillary

Clinton's nomination? 

 

     GRASSLEY:  No.  I think it'll probably be a love fest. 

 

     QUESTION:  OK. 

 

     GRASSLEY:  Tim Rohwer? 

 

     QUESTION:  Yes, Senator.  Is there any one issue concerning

Secretary Vilsack that may be he should concentrate first?  Like

renewable energy or rural economic opportunity or conservation?  Is

there any -- I mean, I know they're all important, but would you

recommend that he...

 

     GRASSLEY:  You didn't name this, but let me tell you what I think

his major job is.  All the regulations of the 2008 Farm Bill aren't

written yet.  And I think he needs to get that done.  But that

includes conservation, too. 

 

     And then I don't know whether this administration is going to

pick up on trade issues, the Doha Round and those sort of things.  But

if they do -- and let me say to you and the others listening I just

mentioned stimulus package.  This issue of trade has as much to do

with stimulating our economy than anything. 

 

     And there's some bad clouds on the horizon there not only for the

United States but for the world.  The world trade, I think, had a

downturn of 12 percent last month.  The first downturn since 1982 or

3, I think.  And that downturn is not good news when you're going into

the worst recession since World War II.  And it reminds you of --

there's different reasons for the start of it because in the 1930s, we

had protectionism because of the Smoot-Holly Act that we passed. 

 

     But trade just shut down.  And that worsened the Great Depression

of the '30s.  And I sure hope that doesn't happen here.  And remember

that trade creates job. 

 

     Anyway, getting back to answer your question.  If the Doha Round

is resumed again by this administration, Governor Vilsack needs to

play and will play a very important role in speaking for agriculture

even though he's not a negotiator.  The negotiator is just the special

trade representative who will be the Dallas mayor, Mr. Kirk.  And I

think he will be approved. 

 

     Anyway, that's very important he speak out on international trade

because we've got to export 25 to 40 percent of our grain depending on

which grain you are talking about. 

 

     OK.  I've gone through the entire list.  Anybody else want to

jump in? 

 

     QUESTION:  Senator, you said that President Obama, then

President-elect Obama, reached out to you on two specific things.

What two things did the president want to talk to you about? 

 

     GRASSLEY:  Without saying what he said, I think it's fair for me

without disclosing the conversation, the first one was just a desire

to work with me on issues because there's so much things coming before

the Senate Finance Committee.  And he pointed out specifically about

my working relationship on a bipartisan way with Chairman Baucus.  So

that was just kind of breaking the ice, let's say, sort of

conversation. 

 

     And then the second one was on one of his nominees for the

Cabinet.  But I don't want to say which nominee. 

 

     QUESTION:  Were these two separate meetings? 

 

     GRASSLEY:  Two separate phone calls. 

 

     QUESTION:  OK. 

 

     GRASSLEY:  Yes.  One of them last week and the other one within

two weeks after his election. 

     QUESTION:  Thank you.  

 

     GRASSLEY:  OK.  Is that everybody?  OK.  Thank you all very much.