Introduction: 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 Ed Funston with K-I-L-R Radio in Estherville and Sara Sedlacek with the West Liberty Index in West Liberty. The first question will be from Ed Funston.
QUESTION: Hi, Senator.
GRASSLEY: Hi.
QUESTION: Hi. There's been a lot of outrage expressed this week
by you and many others, members of Congress about the bonuses paid to
AIG employees. But isn't the bigger problem the lack of
accountability for the $180 billion in taxpayer money that has been
pumped into AIG?
GRASSLEY: It'd be difficult for me not to say complete agreement
with you, because that's the way grassroots Iowa sees it, and I often
reflect upon that, as -- as well.
If -- if I could give just a little explanation -- but I'm
embarrassed to give it -- it was based upon the fact that -- that
there were several calls to our secretary of treasury last fall that,
if AIG were allowed to go under, it would bring the whole financial
system around the world -- that would probably mean Europe, and Japan,
and China, and, you know, India, and Brazil, not every country,
obviously, but the advanced countries, that it would bring down the
world financial system, because AIG had their -- what we call swaps in
-- involved with almost every banking institution around the world.
And that's how we got into this. And whether that's accurate or
not, I -- I can't say. And -- and if you -- unless you're an expert
on the world financial system and unless you're dealing with bankers
on a daily basis and the central banks of the various countries, I
don't know how you'd know for sure that that's the case.
But that was the judgment of the secretary of treasury last
October. And now I find myself, first of all, voting against the
second tranche in January, voting against the bailout of G.M. in
December, voting against a stimulus bill later on, and voting against
a bloated appropriation bill since then, because I'm not sure that I
see an end to it.
And I'm reluctant to get any deeper. And I'm also trying to
represent the views of my constituents, who are very cynical about all
of this.
QUESTION: I'm sure you've been following what's going on in
Atalissa with Henry's Turkey Service.
GRASSLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: That's very close to our community. The governor --
Governor Culver said that bureaucracy failed them in Atalissa. Do you
agree with that statement? And if so, do you feel that our system is
past its prime and needs to be looked at all levels of government, not
just at the state level?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think that bureaucracy generally gets inbred
and insular. And some shaking up of the bureaucracy needs to be done
on a regular basis, and that's why I use my constitutional
responsibilities of oversight to do that at the federal level.
I don't want to speak for sure about state government because I
don't follow state government every day like I have a responsibility
to follow federal government. But I will accept what Governor Culver
says about bureaucracy at the state level.
But I can say that Senator Harkin's hearing on this a week ago
Monday shows me that there needs to be more concern on the part of the
federal bureaucracy, meaning the Department of Labor, in regard to
this.
And then I would say that, within the -- the oversight that we
give these employment agencies to market people who have mental
handicaps out for industry, that there's got to be more oversight on
the part of that by two agencies, the Treasury Department and the --
and the Social Security.
And those ladders don't have so much to do with the living
conditions and whether people are being abused and in safe housing,
whether -- whether their labor is being taken advantage of, only from
the standpoint of how much money do they retain and whether or not
people that manage their money are fair to them.
I think you have the labor situation, the housing situation, as
well as the -- you know, I can't -- I can think of a word. I'll use a
word "overseer," the overseer of their finances, that's all -- a lot
of that's at the federal level. And we need to -- to beef up that, as
well. So I compliment Governor Culver, but I wouldn't blame just the
state government.
QUESTION: Senator, a follow-up on my first question. Do you
think that the AIG controversy has killed any chance of a second
stimulus package or any more -- any more bailouts?
GRASSLEY: The answer to that is yes. And I would measure it
that it was very intense before the bonus situation with AIG, because
that's just been within the last week, but that's probably put a nail
in the coffin.
But when you start hearing reluctance on the part of Democrats,
because they're the party in power now, to do more stimulus, then I
think for sure another stimulus is in trouble.
QUESTION: Would -- this is also a follow-up to my first
question. Would you support legislation eliminating the minimum wage
exemption for companies employing the disabled?
GRASSLEY: No, for this reason. There isn't -- there isn't an
elimination. There's just a lower minimum wage. And the reason I --
I want to make sure that we don't ruin opportunities for employment by
these people is because these people can enhance their quality of life
by working instead of being in an institution.
See, I come from the era -- growing up in the era of when, by the
thousands, people in Iowa were institutionalized in mental health
institutions and mental retardation institutions. We're trying to
mainstream these people.
We're waking up to the fact, over the last 30 years, that people
can enhance their quality of life, they can be taxpaying contributors,
but they -- but in -- in -- in exercising my concern for employment by
them and not having a -- a flat-out minimum wage that maybe people
can't earn, not be an impediment -- I'm not implying that they can be
abused and these people in Atalissa were abused.
When you only end up with 44 cents an hour and you're living in
the conditions that they were living in, and their overseers were
supposed to be taking care of all that, I see some overseers getting
rich, not necessarily the corporation that they were working for
getting rich, because they were getting 44 cents an hour, because that
was what was left over after living, and their living conditions
weren't very good.
So I want to maintain opportunity for employment, as -- as they
desire to work and can work. But they should not be taken advantage
of the way they were taken advantage of, ending up with only 44 cents
an hour.
QUESTION: Senator, you've come out against the Obama
administration's change in policy regarding medical marijuana. Can
you explain why you think that's a bad idea?
GRASSLEY: Yes, I made that statement before an hour-long press
conference I had on health care reform this year. But I could have
made the statement in a different environment. But if you see the
context where I made it, it would mean more to you.
We're talking about preventive medicine as a very major portion
of health care reform that we're going to be working on in the next
several months. Preventive medicine is to make sure that people try
to stay healthy. By this attorney general not enforcing marijuana
laws, marijuana is a gateway to more hard drugs. And we know in Iowa
what methamphetamine and other drugs do to -- to drug cost.
So it's counterproductive to our -- our goal and the president's
goal of preventive medicine to not enforce the laws and encourage more
drug use and -- and drive up health care costs that are a natural
outcome of people who become drug-addicted.
STAFF: Thank you for participating in today's public affairs
program. This has been Senator Chuck Grassley reporting to the people
of Iowa.
GRASSLEY: Yes, if you -- you started with another question. Why
don't I do that, even though...
QUESTION: Oh, no. I wasn't sure if I had time. I actually -- I
think you covered all of my questions in just those two.
GRASSLEY: OK. Well, thank you very much, all of you.
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
GRASSLEY: You bet. Goodbye.
QUESTION: Thank you, Senator.