GRASSLEY: Last week, I urged President Obama to get behind three initiatives to help create jobs. So at 11 o'clock this morning I'm going to the White House for a bipartisan meeting with the president about job creation.
I'll be with a group of senators as well as House members -- bicameral, bipartisan.
And, of course, as according to my announcement last week, I'm focusing on small business. They create 70 percent of the new jobs. They're a key element of economic development and recovery. Yet, as you know, small business has been left out of every recovery effort so far, whether it's the bank bailout or the auto bailout or the stimulus bill.
The National Federation of Independent Businesses says the health care fails -- that's their words -- fails small business with higher taxes and new unaffordable mandates.
The comprehensive small-business tax relief bill that I introduced in June would leave more money in the hands of small-business owners so that they can hire more workers, keep salaries up, and make additional investments that leads to new jobs.
Small business also isn't getting enough access to credit, so in addition to making tax relief for small business a priority, everything possible needs to be done to see recovery efforts through TARP or elsewhere go to mainstream -- Main Street -- pardon me -- instead of Wall Street.
I hope the president also starts working to create jobs with new world markets for goods and services made in the United States. Trade agreements have proven very valuable in that effort. And pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea have been sidelined, and they ought to be passed.
The president could help American workers by taking a very aggressive effort to expand world markets, to have access for farmers, manufacturing and services.
Finally, jobs can be created with a continued push to develop renewable, clean-burning energy, creating what we call green jobs. I filed legislation last week to extend the tax credit for the production of electricity from wind and -- and give investors more certainty when -- when -- that the tax credits will be available in the future.
As you know, I was the original author of the Wind Energy Tax Credit 1992. My bill also increases clean renewable energy bonds, and extends (inaudible) depreciation for a year. I've also been urging the EPA to act on the biodiesel regulations under what we call RFS2.
The EPA's failure to do that has resulted in tens of thousands of job losses that could easily have been saved. EPA can start to reverse this very negative economic impact by implementing what we call an enforceable biodiesel mandate.
Courtney Blanchard, Dubuque Telegraph-Herald?
Tom Beaumont?
QUESTION: Senator, with the change that's coming out of the Democratic Caucus on the health care bill, does this -- how does this affect your position on it? Does it move you closer to supporting it? I know it's -- it's early to say that. But does it affect the way you look at it? Would you now be a little more open to considering supporting it?
GRASSLEY: Well, of course -- of course, we don't have details. And one of the reasons we don't have details is because Senator Reid said that the CBO said you give out details and we've got to give out our research before we -- before you've had a chance reconsider and resubmit if it doesn't add up.
So you get back -- and I'll be answering your question more definitively. But you got to get back to what is the overriding concern that I have with this bill. That any tinkering at the edges that they might be doing to get enough Democrat votes to pass it probably is not going to deal with -- with things that affect my vote and a lot of other votes against this bill.
It increases taxes. It takes $464 billion out of Medicare. It raises premiums. And -- and, you know, it doesn't do anything about inflation of health care.
So we ought to do everything possible right now to create jobs. And these taxes going up detract from that. In fact, isn't kind of an anomaly that the president's having a jobs bill -- I mean, a jobs meeting at the White House today that's bipartisan, bicameral at the very same time we're debating a bill that the NFIB says is going to kill jobs because of the tax increases and the mandates that go with it.
So now let me look at what might be in what Reid is proposing, because I've got to speculate. And in anticipating some of this -- I gave a speech last night that you can get -- my staff can get for you, and you might use that in writing your article.
But if I look at this from a national standpoint and then from an Iowa standpoint, why, I might find reason to be against this new approach, because presumably it does away with the public option. So then Jim Beaumont legitimately asked me, well, then, maybe this should satisfy me.
But looking at it nationally, we've got the trustees for the Medicare saying that Social Security -- or Medicare is going to be broke in five years and is running negative income right now. And then you're going to load on it 55- to 64-year-olds, millions more people? That's going to make it get worse.
Then look at it from Iowa's standpoint. You've got already Iowa hospitals and doctors complaining that, "We can't recruit, we might not be able to keep our hospitals open," because Medicare pays 80 percent of what -- is their real cost.
OK, today that's partially offset by people that have private insurance and you pay more for the private insurance to make up for what -- what taxpayers don't pay through Medicare.
So then you're going to load tens of thousands of more people onto Medicare in Iowa that's going to pay 80 percent and cause more negative cash flow for -- for hospitals and make it more difficult to recruit doctors.
I think it's very anti-rural America, and probably impacting Iowa even more so. Because, you know, we have a higher number of seniors and we have more quality health care delivery so we don't get as many Medicare dollars into Iowa.
So I -- I've got to look at it from what little bit I know about it: from a negative standpoint both for Iowa as well as the national program.
QUESTION: Just to follow up real quickly, you were referring to changes the Democrats were making. You were characterizing them as tinkering around the edges. Do you consider dropping the public option tinkering around the edges?
GRASSLEY: I -- I saw tinker around the edges from this standpoint -- and you got to see it in this context or tinkering around the edges doesn't mean anything. I figure that there's three more things. There's the taxes and the -- and the Medicare cuts and the increase in premiums that are core. And the Democrats can't change the core or they're not going to have a bill that can pass, meaning their requirement of having it revenue neutral. And so then they can't change that.
We've been concentrating on the core because everything that's done at the fringes is to get Democrat votes, not to get Republican votes.
QUESTION: I see.
GRASSLEY: That's where I'm coming from...
QUESTION: Yes, I see it.
GRASSLEY: ... when I say around the edges.
And that -- and that's not just Chuck Grassley saying that. That's been kind of the whole approach of the -- of -- and the whole philosophy behind our Republican alternatives.
QUESTION: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Christinia Crippes?
(CROSSTALK)
GRASSLEY: Jim Boyd?
Oh, go ahead, Christinia.
QUESTION: Sorry, I was a little bit slow on muting my phone.
I was just wondering -- overall, you said last week, that the debate has been (inaudible) civil and you've gotten into the meat of the stuff now. Do you still feel that way a week later...
(CROSSTALK)
GRASSLEY: It's a -- you can tell, it's a very civil debate. Probably in the tradition of the Senate that makes us look better than maybe we should look compared to the House. But it's very civil.
And you got to remember, that even the months that I spent one-on-one with Baucus March through May, and then the three months we spent together as a group of six, it was very, very civil. You didn't know much about what was going on in our own discussions except for what we told the press at the end of our meetings.
But you got to remember, never did one person get up and walk away from the table. And never once did -- there a harsh word said among the six of us.
And I think it's the same way at the staff level between the Republican staff and the Democratic staff of the Finance Committee. And as far as I know, it was the same civility in the Health Committee -- that Senator Kennedy would have chaired but he didn't chair, and Dodd chaired it, and now Harkin is chairing it.
And so I think that's carried over here.
So if -- so from a standpoint of civility, it's been very civil.
QUESTION: (inaudible) as well?
(CROSSTALK)
GRASSLEY: And very -- and very philosophical, too.
Go ahead, what was your follow-up question?
QUESTION: I'm sorry. And productive as well?
GRASSLEY: Yes, productive from the standpoint of Republicans having the ability to offer alternatives and civil from the standpoint of Reid not shutting down the debate. Because he has the capability of doing that by a parliamentary process "filling the tree," with amendments and amendments to the amendments so Republicans can't offer our alternatives.
And, well, I guess that's -- that's the point, unless you have a follow-up.
QUESTION: No, thank you very much.
GRASSLEY: Jim Boyd?
Kerry Cathcart?
QUESTION: Thank you.
Senator, what would be your best guess? Will there be a health care bill any time in the next six months, do you think?
GRASSLEY: Yes. If this -- if this -- if Reid gets a good CBO score from -- from CBO, obviously, then I think they're going to pass a bill through the Senate before we go home for Christmas.
If the House would take what the Senate passes -- and I don't know that they'll do it. But a lot of my Republican colleagues think they've got it figured out that what we pass in the Senate is what the president will sign, then -- then you could easily get a bill to the president before Christmas.
If there's going to be a conference -- and, you know, it's going to take January, probably, at least to conference a bill. But you'd still have a bill early next year.
QUESTION: Do you think that the vote will be pretty much split along party lines on that or do you think some Republicans might vote for it?
GRASSLEY: The only question I would have would be about Senator Snowe. And she's -- she's still talking with Democrats. She's going down to the White House today to talk to the president, and that's been going on frequently.
And it's very difficult to predict Senator Snowe. And I don't say that in a denigrating way. She's just very thoughtful, how she approaches things.
And then the only other Republican would be whether her Republican colleague would go along with her, because they tend to vote together a lot. But I know that -- that Senator Collins is very cautious and very skeptical about the bill, more so than Senator Snowe is.
James Lynch?
OK, Ed Tibbetts?
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Senator, is there an element of what's known about the Reid proposal -- dropping the public option, expanding Medicare -- does this at all ease your concern about a government health -- government takeover of health care?
GRASSLEY: No, I think it could probably be even more of a government takeover of health care through the expansion of Medicare than it could be -- than it would be even with the public option.
So -- and then don't forget, we're hearing, but we don't know for sure, that this expands Medicaid to up to 150 percent of poverty. And that's going to put a tremendous burden on the state.
And then you've got to remember about the $2.5 trillion that this thing's going to actually cost, if you figure the years 2014 to 2024, instead of 2010 to 2019. But then -- then that's -- that's a massive transference of money from the private sector to the public sector.
And then you've got the power of the secretary. I -- dozens of times, and I'd like to say hundreds of times, but right now I better say dozens of times, where the bill says, "Well, we're delegating to the secretary of HHS the power to make this decision or that decision."
So you've got it through increased taxes, increased spending, two existing federal programs, Medicare and Medicaid, very dramatically expanded, and the power of the secretary and the mandates. And that adds up to -- I can't say the nationalization of health care, like I could from statements I made about the public option. But if it -- if it's any different than the public option, it's -- it's just a process of slowing getting there.
QUESTION: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Let's see, the next person would be Joe Morton?
QUESTION: Yes, Senator. If Senator Collins and -- and Snowe do come on the bill, I'm sure this will be described by Democrats as a bipartisan bill. Do you think that would be at all valid, or is that just a -- a...
(CROSSTALK)
GRASSLEY: No. No, it's not valid. And let me tell you a -- a conversation I had with the president on August the 5th, the last time I was at the White House on this issue. And the president forthrightly asked me, would I be comfortable being one of three Republicans going along with Democrats to provide the 60 votes.
And I said, that's not bipartisanship. Bipartisanship is not satisfying three Republicans to make it look good for the Democrats. Bipartisanship starts from the ground -- foundation, as you're building a bill with a blank sheet of paper and building in a bipartisan way.
Kind of what Baucus and I were trying to do or the group of six were trying to do with the idea that I wouldn't be three Republicans going along with a mess of Democrats. It would be Chuck Grassley then being able to take something that a lot of other Republicans would go along with and then you'd do what Senator Baucus and I started out doing in January. That we wanted to write a bill that would get 75 to 80 votes.
And so that's my definition of bipartisanship. And that's why the Democrats, in answer to your question, can't legitimately say that Snowe voting with 59 or 60 Democrats would make it a bipartisan bill.
QUESTION: If that process had gone forward and that's kind of the way things had gone, how do you think the bill on the floor would look right now, if the gang of six...
GRASSLEY: Well, you wouldn't have -- I'll give you -- I'm not sure that I can give you every way it'd be different, but there would not be an individual mandate, there would be a reinsurance program to get more people private health insurance.
There would be medical malpractice reform in it.
You would probably have -- you'd probably have fewer taxes, probably a lower figure than the $847 billion, and, let's see, probably have no more than 133 percent of poverty for Medicaid. And maybe -- maybe that would even had to come down to 100 percent.
Let's see. You know, when you think of the hundreds of subsets that are in this bill that are issues, those are the ones that stand out, but I want to -- I don't want that to be a definitive list, just some examples of things that would be different.
And maybe less delegation of power to the secretary of HHS. And maybe actuarial value of -- of what we call the bronze (ph) classification of what employers have to offer -- or, no, that insurance companies have to offer would be lower than the 60 percent where it is right now.
Let's see, that was Joe Morton.
Tim Rohwer?
OK, I've gone through the -- did I -- I forgot somebody? Did I forget James Lynch or...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Senator? Senator, hi. I wanted to ask you about this petition that's calling on you to use your influence as a member of the family to encourage the Ugandan parliament to, I guess, give up on their bill that would criminalize homosexuality there.
Is that an issue that you plan to speak out on with those Ugandan legislators?
GRASSLEY: Oh, I've got a full-time job reading bills in Congress without reading the full -- reading bills in 190 other countries. Surely nobody in Iowa expects me to keep up on issues that are in the parliaments of other congressmen, you know.
QUESTION: Still, it's not -- it's not something you plan to speak out on or speak to the -- the parliamentarians there?
GRASSLEY: Well, how -- you know, you got to get back to something that's very basic. I got a full-time job representing the people of Iowa and keeping on top of issues in the United States Senate. And besides, I don't know anything about it.
QUESTION: OK. Thank you.
GRASSLEY: OK. Anybody else?
QUESTION: Senator, do you have an opinion on Senator Baucus' previous nomination of his girlfriend to be a U.S. attorney in Montana?
GRASSLEY: Well, to the national press I haven't spoken out on it, and I think I said something to the local press; that I have not seen it as something that's being discussed in the Republican Caucus. I know that the national -- was it the national committee that made an issue out of it?
Since I -- you know, everything that goes on in the Ethics Committee legitimately is very secretive. I don't know how they would look at it. If they've gotten a petition, they're going to have to look at it. And I generally wait until the Ethics Committee makes a decision before I comment.
For those of you that are still listening, I didn't have a very definitive figure for you on the number of times that the secretary of HHS has given authority to create and determine and define things in the bill. While I was talking to you, I BlackBerryed staff, and I got this information. That in the Reid bill, 1,697 times the secretary of HHS is given authority to create and determine and define things in the bill.
And I think that's just a carte blanche -- well, a carte blanche delegation of authority that Congress ought to be making a more definitive decision.
Now, you can't write a bill where you don't delegate some authority to fill in details, but it seems to me like we're going to have the secretary of HHS being commissioner of insurance -- at least commissioner of health insurance -- for the entire United States.
And I don't know to what extent that 697 (sic) times obliterates authority that the 50 commissioners of insurance have. And, obviously, I don't -- the 1,697 doesn't deal just with insurance. It deals with a lot of other authority.
But it's -- it's a tremendous delegation of authority. It's almost an abdication of congressional authority to the secretary of HHS.
Anybody else want to jump in?
OK, thank you all very much.