OPERATOR: The following is an unrehearsed interview with Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley speaking to you live from Des Moines.
Participating in today's public affairs program are Joel Herman with KAYL Radio in Storm Lake and Ken Black with the Marshalltown Times-Republican in Marshalltown.
The first question will be from Joel Herman.
QUESTION: Senator, since the House passed the health care bill last week, there have been a number of senators and others who have raised some questions about it, including the question of whether it's constitutional or not.
Do you see that any of these questions will have any effect on its chances in the Senate?
GRASSLEY: Well, of course, whether it's constitutional or not ought to have the -- most debate. And it's such a new issue, on the constitutionality of it, because I think it's based upon what we call the individual mandate. In other words, for the first time in a 225-year history of the country, the federal government says you have to buy something, and if you don't buy it, you're going to be paying $1,500 as a family to the IRS each time you file your income tax until you get at least a minimum insurance.
And the questions raised about that -- and, of course, I'm not a constitutional lawyer and I don't -- haven't studied the law. In fact, I doubt if there's any cases that would apply to it right now that you could call precedent, you know.
But I'm willing to listen to constitutional lawyers that have raised that issue. But I'm afraid the way this thing is going that there's not enough questions raised about the individual mandate, that maybe there aren't enough people concerned about it.
I intend to ponder that, as I should.
But, to answer your question specifically, you know, whether a proposed law is constitutional or not, you want to assume that -- Congress would not pass an unconstitutional law if they knew it was unconstitutional.
Now, a lot of laws we pass are later on declared unconstitutional, but at least Congress starts out with a premise that they're doing the right thing.
So I don't know where it's going to take us to, but it is a major issue.
Even -- let me comment one more thing on the individual mandate. Even if it is constitutional, you've still got the philosophical argument that's legitimate, is it the right thing to do, particularly because it's going to really increase taxes -- or, I shouldn't say taxes -- it's going to increase insurance costs on young people.
QUESTION: Senator, going back to that individual mandate a little bit, you said that it's the first time in the 225-year history of the federal government is making you buy something. But the state governments have done that for quite a while now with things like if you're driving a car having automobile insurance.
Where are you -- where do you see the major difference there, between the...
(CROSSTALK)
GRASSLEY: Yeah. I think the major difference would be the 10th Amendment and what the 10th Amendment says about our federal system of government. It says something like anything that's not specifically delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people thereof -- all those rights and powers.
And so, the federal government is a -- is a government of limited power, whereas states can do anything that's not prohibited in the federal government (sic). So states, if they want to mandate you buy something, they can do it. But that doesn't give the federal government the right to do it.
And then maybe states don't get into -- even if somebody tried to argue, "Well, it could be a violation of the federal Constitution some other way," you know -- I'm not sure how they would argue that. But then, you -- when it comes to driving, driving under law in -- in every state and under court decisions in those states is a privilege, so you don't have to drive. But if you want to exercise that privilege, it's got a condition. And that condition is has -- have insurance.
QUESTION: Senator, the USDA recently announced an additional $50 million pork purchase to help farmers. Is this enough to help our pork producers?
GRASSLEY: Well, I'm afraid there's a lot of independent pork producers that are going out of business. And there might even be some big people, really big people, that are being hurt and might go out of business.
But every little bit's going to help.
And, of course, it isn't just to help the pork producers. Don't forget, you're also considering the taxpayers. Because, when the price of a commodity that the federal government has to buy is low, it's probably a good investment for the federal government to buy low instead of buying high.
And so I see it being a two-prong benefit.
But pork producers are really being hurt.
QUESTION: Senator, I wanted to go back to the health care issue for one more question.
Some in the Senate have -- I think it was Lindsey Graham, in particular -- said the bill that passed the House was -- was dead on arrival. Just wanted to get your prediction as to -- as to what's going to happen with that bill...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... you expect the...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... to be.
GRASSLEY: Well, really, what they're saying is, it's dead on arrival because they think that there's not enough votes to pass it in the House or in the Senate. And that could be.
But it's -- it's probably, as a practical matter, won't be taken up in the -- in the Senate because the Senate's going to work on its own bill.
And then, if we pass a bill -- and it's not certain we will pass a bill, but if we did pass a bill, it would go to conference with the House bill. So, technically, the Senate -- the House bill may not come up.
Now, two days ago, my staff -- that tries to keep on top of things of just what the majority party might do, and it's always a crap shoot when you do that -- but there was some speculation Monday that the House bill might be brought up because the Senate bill's not ready to come up.
But if it is, I'll bet you, eventually, we end up working on a Senate bill.
QUESTION: Senator, you recently sent a letter to President Obama concerning the economy and unemployment. Have you received a response?
GRASSLEY: Oh, I didn't hear the question about what the subject was.
QUESTION: There was...
GRASSLEY: A letter to the president?
QUESTION: Yes, about the economic situation, unemployment. And I wondered if he had responded.
GRASSLEY: No, he has not responded. But I can tell you what we're after.
We're trying to be after things that will bring some certainty to the economy. And some of those things are to have a freeze in the budget across the board; also, make an announcement that this tax policy where taxes will automatically go up next year -- because, if they do when we're in a recession, that's going to make the recovery worse.
And then, also, it had a motivation behind it of making sure that we had enough resources for job retraining and things of that nature, making sure that...
QUESTION: Senator, cap-and-trade -- I know that you've gone on record as saying that such a proposal is particularly bad for Iowa. I'm wondering what you see that makes it so bad for Iowa and the Midwest in general, specifically.
GRASSLEY: Well, in one way, it's bad for the whole country, and then I'll get to why it's bad for Iowa.
It's bad for the whole country because, if we pass something that's stringent like it is, and China doesn't do it, and China puts more CO2 into the air than the United States does right now, and they don't clean up their air, we won't be able to compete and we'll lose all of our manufacturing to China.
Now, even if that problem is taken care of and China is in -- which I don't think they're going to be, and so that's kind of the governing statement -- but even if China were in, we've still got the problem when you start applying this law within the United States, you've got a very unlevel playing field between the detriment that cap-and-trade does to the Midwest and the South compared to California and New York, particularly California where they get so much of their electricity from hydroelectric. We burn coal, which is dirty. You know, we all admit that. But -- but we would lose jobs in the Midwest and to -- the Southeast, to the coasts, I would say, or places where they have cleaner energy.
And that brings me back, then, to what ought to be the solution to all this. We need to do this by international agreement, and not by just one law passed by the United States, which even our own EPA director says won't do any good if China doesn't get involved -- I better say China and India together to get involved.
But anyway, we need that and there's a meeting in Copenhagen in December that might come up with such an agreement. But I shouldn't be for a treaty -- for approving a treaty if China's not included.
OPERATOR: Thank you, Joel and Ken, for participating in today's public affairs program.
This has been Senator Chuck Grassley reporting to the people of Iowa.