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 Darin Svenson with KDEC Radio in Decorah and Nancy Hohbach with the Cherokee Chronicle Times in Cherokee.
The first question will be from Darin Svenson.
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator. Health insurance getting back into the news this week. President Obama giving something maybe short of an ultimatum, wanting really an up or down vote on health care. How important is it to get something done regarding health care, especially related to the fact that the state's biggest insurer is raising their premiums by an average of 18 percent come next month?
GRASSLEY: Yes. First of all, I apologize to both of you for my 10 minutes being late.
Well, first of all, in regard to the premium aspect of your question, probably premiums are going up because unemployment is so high and the first people to drop health insurance are the ones who are healthiest. And probably if there's a lot of young people being unemployed, that may be one of the reasons. So the pool is smaller.
Now, I'm not trying to justify a 22 percent increase that Iowans are getting, because I have recently written a letter to Blue Cross for justification for that. And I haven't finished my investigation yet on that point.
In regard to the first part of your question, I can only say that it's what kind of health care reform? You know, I was involved last summer, was trying to get a bipartisan agreement, then the White House thought we were moving so slow, so they decided to go ahead partisan.
So we have a very partisan document in front of us that probably one that can't pass. If it does pass, it will probably have to use extraordinary rules to get it passed. And if they're talking about a majority vote, well, the House can pass the Senate bill right today and send it to the president. And they can do that by a majority vote.
I think the president has a perfect right under the Constitution to push for what he wants. He has suggested some changes, but I'd say they're like frosting on a cake, crumbs added to a cake, let's say, for instance. Because he wants to add some things that might get some Republican support, but he's adding them to a 2700 page bill that the public, 55 percent of the public in polls do not want us to pass. And 70 percent of the people in the polls who want something done, want to start over.
So, I don't think it can be done, and shouldn't be done the way the president wants to do it. But, he has a perfect right to push for Congress to do that.
But I believe that people that vote for it are really not voting the will of the people based upon what people tell me at my town meeting and what people tell us through these polls.
Nancy.
QUESTION: Following up on that a little bit, couple of details that's made plain to me anyway, they said of course, they were cutting out what Nebraska was going to get, what Florida was going to get on their special deals, what about Dodd's hospital in Connecticut, has that been axed out?
GRASSLEY: I don't think so, but I...
QUESTION: And what about the Louisiana?
GRASSLEY: I believe the Louisiana one, for sure, hasn't been. I can't tell you about Dodd, but I doubt it.
So you're emphasizing what has irritated a lot of people about this approach. That buying votes to get just to 60 so that they can get it passed hasn't been received by the people very well. And so the process, as much as the substance of the legislation, has probably turned the public against it.
You know, one year ago right now is when I started working on this in a bipartisan way, probably 55 percent of the people thought we ought to pass something, 35 percent thought we shouldn't. Now that's completely reversed: 35 percent think we should and 55 percent think we shouldn't.
Do you have a follow-up, Nancy?
QUESTION: Yes, I do.
GRASSLEY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Now, if they go ahead with this up and down vote, and this legislation does get passed, come Fall many of us are hoping for a Republican landslide back in office. If something like that would happen where Republicans would be back in the majority in the Senate, is it possible if this bill does get passed on an up and down vote, can you go back at it and repeal some of the things that are in it?
GRASSLEY: You could repeal some of the things or all of the things, because there is an admonition - not an admonition, it's a Constitutional principle that one Congress can't bind a succeeding Congress. So anything that's in this law can be changed.
Now I would say that if this - if they pass it, and they think they want to pass it to get it behind them, really what their doing is to get it in front of them, because it is going to be an issue up to the next election. And if there's a national mandate, kind of like what we had in the Massachusetts election in January, I think without a doubt it would be repealed and ought to be repealed.
QUESTION: I hope so.
I just wonder how many people actually have read all 2700 pages of that bill?
GRASSLEY: Well, maybe - well I have. I don't know whether your question is about the people or about Congress, but in regard to the people, more people are reading this piece of legislation that probably paid much attention to any other piece of legislation. And they're finding out what's in it. And that's one of the reasons they don't like it.
QUESTION: One other that's kind of tied to this is the military - so many of them are having problems - mental health problems. And I'm wondering if this government is preparing to take care of them.
GRASSLEY: It won't affect that at all. Anything with veterans programs, with TriCare and with Department of Defense health programs are not affected by this bill.
Go back to Darin.
QUESTION: You colleague, Senator Bunning getting a little headlines this week for pretty much putting a stop a bill that would extend unemployment benefits, standing on the principle that it's adding too much to the deficit. While many people can respect that deficit principle, do you understand why some people that would get a little frustrated that have been out of work for a long amount of time having some U.S. Senator stand in the way of them getting some money for their day to day life?
GRASSLEY: Yes. Let me tell you why - I don't disagree with your question, so don't interpret my answer to be in disagreement on the premise why people would be mad. But I can say this: that I think he was unfairly treated by the press and by the majority party.
And the reason I say that is number one, Senator Baucus and I developed a bipartisan bill the first half of February, and we did it with the - in conjunction with the leaders of the two parties saying that we should put something together. And we have unemployment compensation extended in that bill.
And then Reid decided to go ahead in a partisan way and scale it back. And one of the things he took out was unemployment compensation, otherwise we could have had it extended about February 15th. So then, you know, that's one reason why they play a part in why it wasn't extended on time.
Now, then Senator Bunning does what you accurately said, but he did it not because he didn't want unemployment extended, but because he thought he ought to - it ought to be paid for. And the reason why he thought it ought to be paid for is the Democrats passed pay as you go, in other words Pay-Go. You got to have an offset. If you spend a dollar here, you got to get a dollar someplace else.
So then - and then they wouldn't let him vote on it for a couple of days. And if the Democrats just wouldn't let him voted last Friday, he wouldn't have had it. And so finally they let him have a vote. I voted to off-set it. It didn't pass. But I think I'm on record saying it should have been off-set. So then I voted or unemployment compensation to move forward after wards.
Back to Nancy.
QUESTION: I was wondering, the other day I - and I haven't heard it since, but are we building a new embassy in London that's going to cost this government billions of dollars?
GRASSLEY: I assume - I don't know the cost, but we are building a new embassy, because the one that was downtown just was not - there was no place to expand downtown. So they decided it was cheaper to abandon the one downtown - or I suppose sell it to commercial interests and then go ahead and build a new one.
But I can't give you a price, but it would be - whatever it's going to cost would be public record. And I can get that for you, if you're really interested.
QUESTION: Well, I heard it was billions. And I heard it was being built with a moat. I don't know if that was in jest or whatever, but I'm - when we're having such a hard time, we're basically broke, I'm just wondering if we need to truly build a new embassy there.
GRASSLEY: Well, I can agree with you on one thing, we need to be financially responsible when we do things like that.
Thank you Darin and Nancy for participating in today's public affairs program. This has been Senator Chuck Grassley.
Thanks to both of you.
END