GRASSLEY: I just came from the Judiciary Committee, where we're questioning the FBI director and leaders of the Department of State and Homeland Security. This hearing was scheduled following the December 25th bombing, to get to the bottom of how the Christmas Day bomber was allowed on a plane headed for Detroit.
As a precursor to the hearing last week, I began asking questions about visa security program and our embassies around the world. It turns out that only 14 of more than 220 foreign posts had Department of Homeland Security personnel to help assist State Department in screening visa applicants for security concerns.
Several applications have been pending for months for these people to be in place there, including one application for (inaudible) I received word from the Department of Homeland Security (inaudible) moving several units, and those applications are now being sent to the State Department for further approval.
So it's clear that the department decided to approve these applications between -- because of the scrutiny of our letters and impending congressional testimony has brought upon this process.
But the response raises more questions about why there was a delay in processing these applications to get Homeland Security people into the embassies to make sure that there was an ongoing process to make sure that terrorists or suspected terrorists don't get visas.
So, as we work to strengthen our visa issuances procedures in the wake of an attempted Christmas Day bombing, I'm introducing legislation that would close the loophole in the U.S. visa policy that allows foreigners to remain in the United States after they've had their visa revoked.
As the administration takes a thorough review of terrorist screening database, they may determine that a visa must be revoked for somebody already on U.S. soil.
Under current law, that individual could be allowed to block deportation using our court system. A change in law is needed so that people who wish to do America harm are deported and our nation's intelligence protected.
In other words, on the bill, presently, you might miss somebody at the embassy. If we'd had adequate personnel, adequate check, they probably wouldn't have got the visa in the first place. So somebody screwed up; they get a visa; they came here; then you find out, after they get the visa, that they shouldn't have been here in the first place, you're going to be able to get them out of the country right away.
Let's start with Tom Beaumont.
QUESTION: Senator, how do you see the election results from last night affecting the health -- health bill reform and your role in it?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think it's almost an indication that there ought to be some pause -- and I don't have a length to the pause -- and to step back and review what's been going on for the last year. And then, after that pause, I think it's -- if there's a decision to go ahead, obviously that decision's going to be on a bipartisan basis, or at least it's quite obvious it ought to be on a bipartisan basis.
Then I think it's necessary for the two leaders, or leaderships of both political parties -- and that's above my level as a ranking member -- to get together and encourage this bipartisanship, as opposed to duplicating a process we had in place in two committees last year, one in which it never did materialize, and in my committee, it -- it started to materialize, and then the White House pulled the rug out.
But in that process, we were trying to work to get an agreement among a few of us that would be embraced by a broad bipartisan group of people -- 75 to 80 is what we started out trying to do -- because, you know, it's such a sweeping thing, that we know that we are having -- that we are technical people, trying to develop a product that the leadership of both political parties would move, as opposed to working in the group of six, you know, where we wanted to then get something that would bring in lots of other Republicans and lots of other Democrats.
And so that's what I think.
Now, my role would be, if they do get to trying to move something, and probably something that's less sweeping than what they have, and without the big taxes and the big premium increases and not doing anything about insurance -- I mean, about inflation and all that stuff -- then, I just indicated to you, we would be the people that would be putting it together. That's the way I see it.
QUESTION: You mean, Finance Committee?
GRASSLEY: Well, Finance and Health.
QUESTION: Then, in other words, does this development return you to the table, for lack of a better term?
GRASSLEY: No. Right now it seems to me that with the results of the election and the thwarting of partisanship in health care reform it's up to the Democrats to decide what the next step is.
I'm telling you what ought to evolve based upon what I've learned from the last year.
QUESTION: Thanks.
GRASSLEY: Mike Glover?
Ed Tibbetts?
QUESTION: How long a pause do you think that there needs to be?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think I got to go back to an answer I just gave. You know, the Democrats are the ones that made this partisan, and I think that they -- that's going to have to be a decision they make.
QUESTION: Yes, but you said that there ought to be a pause. I mean...
GRASSLEY: Well...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... time frame in mind?
GRASSLEY: No, I did not have a time frame in mind. In fact, I thought I made that clear when I stated it. I don't know how long of a pause.
QUESTION: OK.
Another question I had. I guess, how do you think that, given the Massachusetts results, that the public would react to the House moving forward and simply passing what the Senate did?
GRASSLEY: I think that's too cute of a game that they wouldn't get away with, and particularly why would do it?
Well, you could do it, even though one thing that's in here, I think you all know that Senator Webb had said as a Democrat he's not going to vote for a bill. So you could do what you just asked about, Ed, but I think that there'd be outrage about that.
And more importantly, as perfect as statutory -- statute writers try to make a bill, and the care that goes into six months in the -- or six weeks in the -- in the -- in the secretary of Reid's office, and then the three or four months that two separate committees were working on it, you put a 2,400-page document together and it's not going to be perfect, and even if you went through conference there'd still be some things.
But the longer the process goes on, the more people find things that are technically wrong. So I think it would be just one vast mistake with a lot of things that weren't right in this bill, and I don't mean from a policy standpoint, I mean from a technical standpoint, that would just not be the right way to do it.
QUESTION: And if I may, just one other thing. What sort of, aside from health care, what sort of lessons should people draw from Massachusetts?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think that Congress clearly needs to listen to the people because what came out at my 21 county meetings last week was kind of, How come they aren't listening to the people? How come they aren't listening to the people? Now, that's Iowans. The people voted that issue, for one.
I think another thing is that, even though health care was probably the most talked-about issue, and has been in Congress, the public's reaction -- and you're going to hear me say something I've said over the last four or five months, but it's, kind of, the straw that broke the camel's back, as far as issues after General Motors being nationalized, nationalizing credit, the stimulus bill not keeping employment under -- unemployment under 8 percent.
And then you've got the budget, and then you have cap-and-trade passing the House. Health care is just the frosting on the cake for a lot of people -- things that Congress did last year that people don't agree with.
And I think that was, even though health care was the issue in Massachusetts, I think that's where the Massachusetts people were coming from.
Bret Hayworth?
QUESTION: Yes, good morning, Senator. As you look ahead to November, with the win last night by Brown, you guys moved from -- Republicans moved from 40 to 41. What do you see would be the top number of Republicans that would be in the Senate in January of next year?
GRASSLEY: I don't have the slightest idea, but if you were asking me 12 months ago, I would have said we'd probably come back with 35.
QUESTION: You're saying a loss?
GRASSLEY: Yes. But today, I think it's very positive for us picking up a few seats, but I don't know how many.
QUESTION: A handful, two or three?
GRASSLEY: I would say at a minimum.
QUESTION: OK. Fifty?
GRASSLEY: No, no, that's not feasible.
QUESTION: What do you know -- what have you heard about the -- the Morrell plant closing in Sioux City and any federal discussions on -- on help?
GRASSLEY: OK, well, here's -- thank you for asking that, because I think, when 1,500 people got notice yesterday that they're not going to have a job at least at that plant -- there may be opportunities for them at other plants within a three-state area with the same company.
But I had a chance to visit with the leadership of the company yesterday, and, you know, they pointed out to me, losing money on raising hogs, maybe not doing so bad -- well, let's put it this way: tremendous losses for the company as a whole. I got the impression most of it was from raising pigs, as opposed to slaughtering pigs or processing meat. I don't have figures on that.
I think they gave us some figures that -- that just amount to money that I don't know how any person can stand it. So my question was, since this plant's being closed down and they don't -- and they're not doing as bad in processing as they are at raising pigs, why don't you quit raising pigs?
Well, the answer I got was that this plant is inefficient, anyway. And I guess it goes back to what they told us a couple years ago, that they were going to possibly build a new plant in that area. And, of course, now that's out.
(inaudible) there's going -- presumably -- so interaction on, or questions on my part don't seem to make an impact; they're going to go ahead and do it, then you've got to look at what you're going to do to help 1,500 people.
And what we -- there's -- there's things that the company and Siouxland area are going to do together, and some of it is that there's a great big turnover, always, in meat-packing, and so some of these people can get jobs in other places in the three-state area.
But that's not -- a lot of people, maybe, can't move, if they wanted to, (inaudible) a certain distance.
So then there's several things, several programs at the federal level that kick in when you have massive layoffs like this. And I'll just work with the company, with the union and with the Siouxland leaders there to see what we can do to help trigger in those programs. Some of them would be job retraining. Some of them would be support as well.
And of course we have the COBRA legislation, at least for a period of time here now, almost a year, going into more than a year, has a 65 percent subsidy. So maybe some of these people be able to keep health insurance for a while. And it's just an entire package.
But I did sense from the company that they are going to do whatever they can for the workers.
QUESTION: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Let's see, that was Bret, so Jim Boyd? Tim Rohwer?
QUESTION: Yes, Senator. Just curious your thoughts on Terry Branstad officially putting his name in the -- in the race now for governor. Think that will add any new dimension to the -- to the race?
GRASSLEY: Probably not, since he's been talking about it for the last four months. The dimensions are already there.
But I've always been one that had felt that a strong primary brings out the best candidate. And all I can say is, as Terry Branstad goes into it, he left the governorship with a very, very good reputation and record, and so he brings a lot of expertise and record to it that I think's going to be well received.
But, you know, it's going to be a very competitive race. You got two state legislators that are -- that are very good state legislators. You got Bob Vander Plaats that has run well in the past.
And so I think it's going to be a very contentious race. And probably, if we want the strongest candidate we can get to bring the governorship back to Republicans after eight years -- no, it'll be -- it'll be 12 years -- you know, you just kind of need that sort of a primary.
Courtney Blanchard?
QUESTION: Hi. I'm just wondering, getting back to health care, you talked about how it just needs to move in a bipartisan direction, but given the history of the process of the bill and how it's now kind of a national politically divisive issue, do you think there's any hope for bipartisanship?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think the answer is nothing -- until you get 60 and they stay together, before that, and you got to go back almost three decades that there's been that many Democrat senators or majority party members, nothing gets done in the Senate if it isn't somewhat bipartisan. And the extent to which there's more closer divisions between the parties, the more bipartisan it's probably going to be.
So you start out with that premise, that the Senate's different than the House, where the majority can always rule and get anything done that they want to get done. Not so in the Senate, as long as no -- some group of people, Republican or Democrat or bipartisan, have 41 votes.
So I think you get back to it.
And then, at least for my committee, and I don't want to speak for the other committee because I've never served on that committee, or at least I haven't served on it for 25 years, we -- Senator Baucus and I have quite a record of bipartisanship.
And all but three, four, five bills -- let's say just five bills, including this health bill -- have been
reported out of committee in a partisan way, gone to the president, signed by the president, except one was vetoed.
So we can work together. We do work together. But I think this -- getting back to what I told Tom Beaumont and Ed Tibbetts, this is something that has to be set, I think, at this point, because it's become so partisan, if it's going to be bipartisan, that tone has to be set by the leaders of both parties. And that's going to have to be the lead of the -- of the Democrats, because the ball's in their court.
But don't forget that Senator Baucus and I was working together for four or five months, just on this issue, and the gang of six -- group of six, I should say, probably for three months, and there was never one harsh word; nobody ever walked away from the table.
The reason it ended was because the White House and Reid decided they've had enough; they didn't want to wait any longer. And so, it became partisan.
Kathie Obradovich?
OK. Now I've gone through the entire list, anybody else want to -- or did I leave anybody out? Anybody have followups?
QUESTION: Hey, Senator, it's Ed Tibbetts. You had mentioned that Governor Branstad has a record that's -- that would be very well received. Some of his Republican challengers haven't talked so fondly of his record. They've talked about tax increases, budget practices that were questionable, that sort of thing.
Does any part of his record give you any pause? Or do you think it might be a -- a drag on his chances in the fall?
GRASSLEY: Oh, I guess I better wait, and maybe ask me in a month or two, after getting in the campaign. Because I -- I think I have some reflection upon -- on all those things, as you mentioned, and also to see how my constituents are reacting to him. I might have an opinion for you later.
QUESTION: All right.
QUESTION: Senator, this is Tim Rohwer again. Getting back to your opening comments, I mean, did they indicate, like roughly, how many people are here in the United States right now that, you know, have overextended their visa or?
GRASSLEY: Uh...
QUESTION: Are we talking like in the millions or hundreds?
GRASSLEY: Maybe a year ago, when I was working on this issue, we might -- I'll ask Cathy (ph), and if Cathy's (ph) got a figure, we'll get back to you. She's not here with me in the room. In fact, she's still over at the hearing I came from.
And we did learn this morning from undersecretary -- well, I don't have the exact language, probable and possible terrorists or something, that there were seven visas issued to -- to people that were on a list of probable or possible terrorists, which is what the State Department refers to as a P, as in Peter, number 3, B, as in Bob -- P-3-B groups of people.
And that -- that's what my question was trying to get at, you know, are we going to get these people that are P-3-Bs investigated by the FBI and -- and find out whether they're possible terrorists and get them on the watch list.
Because I guess the -- the Christmas Day bomber has that P-3-B designation.
OK, anybody else?
OK, thank you all very much.
END