GRASSLEY: Good morning, everybody.
Of course, we're in Washington for a lame duck session of Congress, probably just one week long. I don't know for sure that we won't be back in December, but I'd be very surprised if we were.
The issues are the $25 billion package of Big three automakers and the extension of unemployment insurance funding.
The Senate Finance Committee that I am a member of had a hearing about the new special inspector general, and this is an inspector general for the $700 billion bail-out bill. In other words, a special inspector general just for that program unrelated to the Treasury Department having a regular inspector general.
I worked to establish this special inspector general in the bail- out legislation with a way that taxpayer dollars are treated here in this city, this watch dog needs to be on the job yesterday. I'm also making the case that the Abe Lincoln law that I updated in the 1980's to fight against defense fraud, and today it's the government's best tool against health care fraud that that be used by Treasury to fight fraud against taxpayers and the financial system bail-out program.
My update uses the knowledge and courage of whistleblowers to catch wrongdoing that law enforcement wouldn't other even know about. And so I want respect for those whistleblowers. I want maximum use of it because they're the basis for the -- the false claims act bringing back that 20 and a half billion dollars, I believe it is, that was reported last year or last week by the Justice Department.
The finance committee also had a hearing yesterday about the economics of health care reform. The health care system has problems that need fixing. I'm working through the various proposals to figure out how to pay for the reforms that will make the system more accessible, efficiency, and high-quality.
This afternoon, for instance, along this line, I'm meeting with Senator Bachus, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Enzi, in other words, the four of us are on -- are the principles on the two committees involved in health care reform. Next week, I expect to be in Iowa to see constituents and to celebrate the Thanksgiving at my home in New Hartford with four of our five kids and probably seven out of our nine grandchildren and three out of our three great-grandchildren.
I'll take questions. Let's see. I need to call names, don't I? Let's start with Kerry.
CATHCART: Thank you, Senator.
What are your thoughts on this auto company bail-out? Are you leaning one way or the other? And, also, as a secondary part, will there be string attached to executive compensation whether or not they can fly around on private jets and things when they're getting money from the taxpayers?
GRASSLEY: I think the answer to the latter one tends to be since Democrats are talking about their bill, that there would be such restrictions in there. And I'm in favor of those restrictions. In fact, last year, last week, you know, I hope I will let you know, that we sent a letter to the Big three suggesting they take Lee Iacocca approach 20 or 30 years ago when Chrysler got some help from the federal government. They reduced his salary to one not because he wanted to be a martyr but because he wanted to be able to go up to the unions and say I put some money on the table, I need your help. And he did get their help.
GRASSLEY: And so that would be a good place to start. But I think it also involves -- the legislation ought to involve some renegotiation of contracts as well. And so that answers your part of the question.
Where am I coming from? I think that my party is going to be pursuing taking off restrictions that are holding up -- restrictions on the auto companies that are holding up the release of the $25 billion that was put in a bill that summer for loan to the Big Three. Those are generally associated with their efforts to retool for flex fuel cars.
Now, I know that's very important for energy conservation and for clean air and everything. But right now we have money out there that can't be used, and I think that ought to be used first. And so taking the restrictions off and get that money flowing is the direction because it's already in the pipeline.
CATHCART: You don't favor having them go through bankruptcy reorganization?
GRASSLEY: You didn't -- you didn't ask me about that. But that's not a decision that Congress is going to make because we could give them some money and they could still end up in bankruptcy. In fact, that's one of the things about giving any money to them is will they be back in March or April wanting more money? Because some people have said that GM by itself could use $25 billion.
So -- but bankruptcy just happens and it could happen even if we do put forth the money. There is one other approach that you could have congressional instituted bankruptcy with some commitment on the part of the federal government to help supplement decisions that -- that bankruptcy might make so -- make them do so that you had a combination of some help from the federal government but you had kind of a non-political decision of bankruptcy and let the marketplace work and let management work through some things that are more difficult if they aren't in bankruptcy. And most of those would be renegotiation of contracts.
And I can say it's been very successful in the case of the airlines. So it's not something to be laughed at.
Tom Beaumont?
BEAUMONT: So you would consider supporting a $25 billion package that removes some of those restrictions on fuel efficiency?
GRASSLEY: Well, it's not fuel efficiency because those are -- the CAFE standards are separate. You could go the direction of relaxing CAFE standards, but that's not what this is proposing. This is proposing to take the $25 billion that was presumably going to be loaned to the Big three so they could retool to specifically for flex fuel-type vehicles and probably smaller more fuel efficient vehicles.
And that money is not flowing even though it's been in the pipeline since June. And that's the one that I would consider supporting.
BEAUMONT: I got you. Follow up.
As a member of the judiciary committee, you'd be in a position to vote to Holder as AG. What are your impressions of him given that he served during the Clinton administration?
GRASSLEY: I know it's only been eight years since he was there, and I have vague memories of some of his actions being very, very controversial. And -- and some of them are related to things that Congress were directly involved in, and some more of them were related to things that were the constitutional power of the president, which is to pardon and some of the pardons of some of the terrorists that were pardoned and some of the, I guess, big contributors like Rich to the -- to the Clinton campaign -- how that pardon went through and his role in it.
And I don't remember enough from eight years ago to know exactly how serious that is, whether that prevents him from, you know, for a reason to vote against him or not. So those are things I'm going to have to consider.
Right now, you know, it's speculated, he's going to be nominated. I don't know that he has been nominated. But it's probably strong enough that you've got a right to ask that question. But I think I better reserve all judgment until a get a chance to go through all these old records.
But I believe that it -- it's going to be much more controversial than a new administration ought to try to put forth. On the other hand, you know, if you disregard the things that I've mentioned -- and I'm not sure that those are the only things that I ought to be able to bring up because I just don't have that memory -- there isn't any dispute about his talent as a lawyer or his -- or what he -- his capability as an assistant attorney general or whatever he was in the previous administration.
So I don't want to knock his credentials. And I tend to have deference to a president on who they might want to appoint because I argued that for Democrats, particularly, for a new administration coming in. But if he's done some things that -- that were strictly political, like in the case of Rich, you know, it might question his -- the judgment he uses and, in turn, question the judgment of Obama.
But I'm going to be, generally speaking, as I am with Republicans or Democrat presidents, that they get elected, they have some right to have who they want in those offices. But, you know, if you go back to Clinton's era of '93, there were two attorney generals that were put up that everybody thought were perfect until you started finding out that they didn't -- that they were hiring either illegal aliens to be babysitters or they were not paying the taxes that they out to pay on them. I forget just exactly what it was.
So we went through two that had those problems. So it's taught me that I need to reserve judgment until I look at everything connected with them.
BEAUMONT: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Mike Myers?
MYERS: Senator?
GRASSLEY: Yes. Mike, talk up.
MYERS: Yes. Is that better, sir?
GRASSLEY: Yes. Yes.
MYERS: This -- what you said about the $25 billion that's in the pipeline, separate from that, the proposal for this fresh funding that the automakers are up here pleading for Congress to approve, is that dead? I mean, is that not going to fly with the Republican caucus and the president?
GRASSLEY: I believe -- I believe it will not fly. Now, with the new Congress, it fly. You know, if we've only got 41, 42, and it won't be more than 42 Republican senators. It could fly.
But I'm finding out from my calls, except for dealer calls coming in, that there's -- I'm not getting the number of calls that I did back in October 1st on the $700 billion bill. But I'm getting call that are very much opposed to it. And it seems to me that it doesn't reflect just whether or not you ought to hire -- help automobile companies or not.
It's kind of a lethargy that's set in. There's another word I ought to use. Kind of a -- a resistance to -- to doing any more because people don't see that what we did with the $700 billion has accomplished much. And part of that is because, you know, as the secretary of the treasury was saying yesterday, you know, that he was going to take this toxic paper out of the pipeline, and they found out that that was -- didn't exactly know how to do it and it was going to take too long to do it. So then they go helping the banks. And they're just now getting the money out to the banks while the public back home has had two months of bail-out and they haven't seen any result of it. So we're getting a great deal of resistance, maybe unfairly, against the automobile companies, but it's there.
MYERS: On another subject, in regard to (inaudible) you that you expected Hillary Clinton to be the nominee of the Democratic Party for president. Here's a chance to redeem yourself, perhaps. Do you expect her to be nominated for secretary of state? And would that be a wise choice considering you just used the word toxic conditions up here with the Republican caucus?
GRASSLEY: Well, you know, considering her work as a senator and as a first lady, I think she's very qualified to be secretary of state unless there's something connected with her husband and all the money he takes in from some foreign sources whether there's any conflicts there that would be a problem, which is something we're not going to know about until she's really nominated and then have to wait and see what the paper says -- I mean, what their submission says about that and whether that's a problem.
But I don't think you -- you can say that it's a problem. And -- and so...
MYERS: I'm sorry. You said it is -- it is or is not a problem?
GRASSLEY: Well, that's a...
MYERS: Bill Clinton?
GRASSLEY: Well, it's not a -- that could be a problem for her. I'm saying except for that, you know, I wouldn't see anything keeping her from being secretary of state or any opposition from me. Now, should she leave the Senate, if the -- if he asked me to be, let's say, secretary of agriculture, would I prefer to be secretary of agriculture to, hopefully, eight more years in the Senate? No, I'd rather be a senator.
You know, and that's a choice she's got to make. She can be a senator for life.
MYERS: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Mike Glover?
Jim Boyd?
BOYD: I'm good today, Senator. Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Mary Rae Bragg?
BRAGG: Senator, have you heard any reports of staff within the various departments there in Washington who have a -- a reputation for being whistleblowers, of those people being laid off by the Bush administration?
GRASSLEY: Not being laid off, but there's hardly a whistleblower that I've ever dealt with that isn't punished in some way. And some of them are ruined professionally forever.
GRASSLEY: And I doubt if they're actually laid off, but probably a lot of people get just destitute and -- and moral gets down and they resign and leave. That's particularly true if they probably qualify for their pensions, taking early retirement that they wouldn't.
I'm not telling you something new because you asked the question. And that's kind of a statement I've made over a period of a couple of decades. You know, the way I usually put is the bureaucracy sees whistleblowers just like you'd see a skunk as your picnic on Sunday.
BRAGG: So there hasn't been any talk of any special more recent move to kind of cleanse the place and put in operatives that are going to be especially difficult for a new administration to work with?
GRASSLEY: Well, wouldn't you assume that if Bush administration got rid of whistleblowers that it would make it easier for the administration -- for the new administration? Wouldn't you think so?
BRAGG: Yes, that's true.
GRASSLEY: Yes. So I think I can generalize and answered your question. It probably hasn't happened any more in the Bush administration than any other administration because this is a disease of the bureaucracy unrelated today a specific president.
But I've all said that a president can solve this problem if he'd do just a simple little thing like having a -- a rose garden ceremony for whistleblowers once a year so that everybody in the executive branch of government knew from the highest levels of that administration that whistleblowers -- whistle blowing is a -- is a -- how would you say it -- a politically...
BRAGG: Commendable?
GRASSLEY: I'm thinking of -- patriotic, I think, is the word I'm looking for. A patriotic thing to be doing.
In other words, these people know that the law is not being followed or there's fraudulent use of money or there's mismanagement of money, and they go to their higher ups, which you'd naturally do, because they probably don't even know about whistleblower protection laws. They're just trying to do their job.
And they get brushed off because these agency heads don't want to be bothered by something that's going to hurt their public relations. So then they eventually come to Congress, and that's when they become a whistleblower. And that's why the False Claims Act that brought back 20 and a half billion dollars since I got it passed 20 years ago has been an effective tool because they can get some reward out of that, a percentage of it if there's a winnings -- if they win their case.
But they ruin themselves politically -- or not politically -- professionally. And if they stay around -- if they are fortunate enough to stay around and want to stay around, they probably end up like Ernie Fitzgerald did 20 years up in the attic of the Defense Department. And I use Ernie Fitzgerald as an example because I call him the grandfather of whistleblowers because he's the one in the 1981 and '82, I got acquainted with that sent me on this stage of protecting whistleblowers and changing the False Claims Act because of so much wrongdoing in the Defense Department.
Did I answer your question?
BRAGG: Yes, you did, sir. Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Tim Rohwer?
Dennis Lowe?
I've got everybody on the list, about half of you I've named because you were circled. Is there any else that's been dropped in or does anybody else have a follow-up?
CRIPPES: This is Christiana from the Hawk. I have a couple quick questions. I came in late. I apologize.
GRASSLEY: That's OK.
CRIPPES: First of all, would the auto bail-out give the Senate or give the Congress the opportunity to impose kind of greener standards in what the auto industry does?
GRASSLEY: Yes. We -- we've -- we've already done that in legislation that passed in June with the $25 billion loan. So there's $25 billion in the pipeline. But so far, not of that money has gone out because whatever has got to be done by the Big Three to meet that standard -- most of it relates to flex fuel vehicles. But I suppose it also relates to their retooling for some smaller cars that get better gas mileage outside of being flex fuel vehicles. But both of those would be considered greener approaches.
And that money has not really gone out yet. Now, one of the things I discussed before you got on here was with other questions was that there is a move on the part of my political party to get that $25 billion out before we vote a new $25 billion. In other words, as a substitute for what the Democrats want to do.
And then remove some of those restrictions on that $25 billion, the restrictions I've already referred to. Which then who move you away from the $25 billion being a carrot to get their changes -- the flex fuel vehicles and other vehicles.
They're going to have to do that anyway and get that $25 billion out first. And that's an effort that I would support.
CRIPPES: OK.
Last question and off subject. Have you been inundated with calls for inauguration tickets?
GRASSLEY: Yes. We've had, as of yesterday, I've had a request for 700, and we have, I think it's -- is it 293 or 393 tickets we have? Well, anyway, it's -- it's -- let's just say around 300 tickets that I get. We've had more than 700 requests already.
And the way we did it over the past two or three inaugurals is we took them on a first-come, first-served basis. And we've given them out that way. And where we've had requests, maybe from one person for 20 tickets and have them justified the 20 tickets, but probably limit them to four tickets or something.
CRIPPES: OK.
GRASSLEY: Maybe even three tickets. We -- and then the other things we do, Christiana, is we -- we -- my office manager sits down with the staff of Senator Harkin and the five congressmen, and we want to go over and see if people are requesting for than one member of Congress for tickets so we don't -- there's -- there's nothing wrong with them doing that. But we shouldn't have coming to Grassley to two tickets and going to Senator Harkin for two tickets and then who -- how do we know they're going to be used?
So we'll probably eliminate that duplication.
CRIPPES: OK.
GRASSLEY: But that will be a consensus decision not by Chuck Grassley but by the entire delegation. We've done that in the past, so I think there's good reason for doing that again.
CRIPPES: OK. When do you make the decision?
GRASSLEY: We will make the decisions -- well -- well, listen. If you're number 700 asking Grassley for a ticket, you aren't going to get a ticket.
CRIPPES: OK.
GRASSLEY: Because we give -- we give them out on a first-come, first-served basis.
CRIPPES: OK. All right. Thank you very much.
GRASSLEY: You bet.
Anybody else? OK. Thank you all very much.