STAFF: The following is an unrehearsed interview with Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley speaking to you live from Washington. Participating in today's public affairs program are Michael Earl with KDSN Radio in Denison and Ken Black with the Marshalltown Times Republican in Marshalltown.
The first question will be from Michael Earl.
Michael, you can go ahead.
GRASSLEY: Are we disconnected?
STAFF: Ken and Michael, are you guys still there?
QUESTION: I'm here from Marshalltown.
STAFF: OK. Ken, you want to go ahead with your first question then?
QUESTION: Sure.
Senator, there's been a lot of talk about the comments you made on Twitter. I just was kind of wondering when you got started on that and what's your take on the recent reporting regarding that event?
GRASSLEY: Well, it's accurate reporting except for maybe the fact that when you have to use 140 characters, you don't actually express or maybe it's misinterpreted. But did I have anything against the president being in Paris? No. In fact, yesterday, when I was at the White House with the president, he kind of smiled at me and he says, "You know, Chuck, I thought I had a good reason to be in Normandy." And he did have.
But, you know, the president works with us pretty closely on this health care stuff, and he knows that we, at the first of the year, decided to get something to the floor in July. And we're on schedule to do that. And he -- and we're working Saturdays and Sundays, particularly staff's working Saturdays and Sundays to do that. And he knows it.
And I thought it was a cheap shot, and I didn't appreciate it. And my Twitter more or less said that.
Now, why -- what about Twittering itself, it's just another way of communicating with constituents. You know, I can do it through your newspaper, through your radio station. I can, you know, you do it by mail. I do it by my town meetings face-to-face. I do it by my webcast.
I've got my -- I've got my -- let's see -- webcast, my monthly television call-in program that goes back to cable in Iowa. I just recently instituted, maybe five months ago, a telephone town meeting where you robo 3,000 people and -- or 30,000 people and about 3,000 participate. About 800 do it for the whole hour. And we get about 18 or 20 questions, and so my webcast, my Web site, Facebook, MySpace. Twitter is just one more way.
And if you were a 15-year-old kid, you'd probably tell me I'm four generations behind on communications.
So -- but I'm doing the best I can to keep up. And that's all there is to it. Representative government is a two-way street. I'm one of half of it and you, my constituents, the other half. And Twittering is one way of doing it.
Follow up or anything else? You're the only one on here, so whatever questions you have, Ken, go ahead.
QUESTION: Sure. Speaking of the health care issue that made me refer to the whole Twitter debate, I notice that you've been quoted elsewhere saying you wouldn't be for a government plan, but you're interested in, perhaps, using the government as a vehicle to start or help start private co-ops.
Expound on that and why that's an attractive option for you.
GRASSLEY: Well, number one, it's a private sector option. That's pretty important to the people on my side of the aisle, and I'm speaking for them and representing them in these negotiations.
Secondly, we have a history of cooperatives in America for 150 years. You're acquainted with a lot of them right there in Marshall County. And so we've got a format for it. And I think it responds to things that Republicans even favor -- more competition, it keeps prices lower.
And we don't have as much competition as we ought to have in health care insurance. We've got two or three prominent ones in Iowa; 85 percent of the business. We've got 350 nationwide. What can we do to enhance competition? And this is one way of doing it.
The other thing is if we're going to get a bipartisan agreement, we've got to respond to the Democrats that felt government is the own one that can provide the competition. Well, government can't compete. Government runs things. They dictate. And when you can dictate prices and you've got the taxing power the federal government, it's a power to destroy. It's a back door to single-payer system like Canada has, which leads to denial and delay of care or rationing, whatever you want to call it.
And we don't need that in America. We don't want it. And we're not going to let the Democrats take us down that road.
QUESTION: Sure. Moving on to another issue. There's been some reporting that POWs and others in Afghanistan are now being read Miranda Rights. What is your understanding of what's going on over there? And is it a change from the Bush administration policy?
GRASSLEY: It is. And the extent to which it is, it's not necessary, and it could be harmful. And it's this plain and simple. Our Constitution protects American citizens. There are international treaties that protect prisoners of war, but the people we're dealing with are neither American citizens or in combat. In other words, they aren't prisoners of war. They're enemy combatants.
And so they don't have a lot of protection. And they surely don't have the protections of the American Constitution. And they should not be read their Miranda Rights.
We should, in every legal way we can, try to get all the information out of them we can to prevent -- to help us win the war.
QUESTION: Do you believe it further jeopardizes national security?
GRASSLEY: Yes, I do because we get a lot of information. You know, that's something we don't know, and ought to be put out the same way as other information has been put out from the CIA -- the tactics that were used to get the information, we ought to know what information we got and then the public can decide for themselves is this -- should we continue to get this information and the value of it. And the value of it is, you know, to stop other terrorist activities against Americans.
And I think you'd find out that it -- that it did.
QUESTION: Another issue that's been getting a lot of attention is the nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor.
What are your impressions of her? And where do you think that process is going to go?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think good impressions of her, but those good impressions should not be interpreted that I've made up my mind how I would vote because, quite frankly, the meeting I had with her was a courtesy session, a get-acquainted session. We didn't go into the detailed legal issues that I'm going to take up with her before the hearing.
At that hearing, I will ask tough questions, and then I'll wait until the hearing is over and also after we've had a review of her 3,000 court cases, make up my mind how to vote. I don't -- it would be wrong for me to worry about even having a hearing. If I'd already made up my mind, there wouldn't be any purpose of the hearing. You know?
But what I would classify her as kind of much friendlier. Now, when I say "much friendlier, more reserved, less aggressive," then I'm using those adjectives that they were surprising to me to find her that way because, quite frankly, what little bit I've seen of her on television or other people's opinions of her, I thought she would not be reserved. I thought she would be aggressive and maybe even a little obnoxious.
And I didn't find her in any way that sort of a person.
QUESTION: Sure. As far as the chances of her confirmation, what do you see there?
GRASSLEY: Oh, I don't -- unless she really stumbled or unless we find out something that we don't know yet, I think she's got a good chance of being confirmed. And that would be true even if I were to vote against her.
QUESTION: Sure.
GRASSLEY: And there's a chance I could vote against her, but I just am not going to make up my mind. I did vote against her 10 years ago when she went on the circuit court, but that doesn't mean I'd voted against her this time because I've got more to judge her on than I did at that time.
QUESTION: In your mind, what do you think are the qualifications a justice needs on the Supreme Court?
GRASSLEY: Well, her basic qualifications, I think, are unquestionable. You know, is she qualified? Is she a good lawyer? Has she been a good judge in the past? The answer is yes.
But what I don't know yet that I need to know how to vote about her: Is she going to leave her own bias out of it? There's been indications that maybe she -- she inserts those into her opinion. I expect her to be like Lady Justice statue over the Supreme Court holding the scales of justice. That Lady Justice is blindfolded. That means that justice in the United States should be based upon everything but -- you consider everything within the law and the points of the case, but you leave your personal bias out of it.
Thank you, Ken, for participating in today's public affairs program. This has been Senator Chuck Grassley reporting to the people of Iowa.