GRASSLEY: Thank you, everybody. Sorry I'm late.
I wrote to the secretary of state and the U.S. trade
representative this week to get a clear statement of President Obama's
position on ethanol tariff. I was -- I want an answer before the
Senate votes on the nomination of Thomas Shannon as ambassador to
Brazil.
During this -- his hearing, the president's nominee created this
problem for himself by saying removal of the tariff would be
quote/unquote, "beneficial." Well, this contradicts the person's
position that appointed him because President Obama had a different
opinion what he was senator and candidate. I fight for tariff because
Brazil is another major ethanol producer in addition to the United
States.
Brazil already, can you belief it, can import ethanol tariff free
in the United States. And that possibility is subject to a cap, and
Brazil has never come close to meeting that cap. And until Brazil
takes advantage of the existing ability to send ethanol to the U.S.
market duty free, it doesn't make sense to me that they need more
access to -- to Brazilian ethanol.
The tariff plays an important role in reducing U.S. dependence
upon foreign energy sources. Before he moved into the White House,
President Obama said that we need the tariff to build domestic energy
security through biofuels. He also recognized that U.S. trade
incentives should not support ethanol production in other countries.
I haven't yet heard back from the administration this week.
Unless something's changed, my question shouldn't be hard to answer
given President Obama's record for ethanol and energy independence.
And I complement him on those position. So far. So I hope to hear
back very quickly and without equivocation that the president does
not support lifting the tariff.
Kerry?
QUESTION: Thank you, Senator.
On the issue of health care, with all the factions involved, I
just heard this morning that the Blue Dog Democrats now have an
agreement that there won't be a vote in the House until after the
fall. And with the other issues there, what is your overall
assessment of where we will end up on a health care bill?
Do you think that by the end of the year that we'll have
something that you in Congress as well as just the regular citizens
will be fairly happy with? Or do you have any worry that we might --
it might end up like the Clinton health care initiative of the '90s?
GRASSLEY: Well, first of all, let me give some caution to any
citizen of Iowa or any place in the country that has some doubt about
what we're doing. And, by the way, we're going to have another five
or six weeks for people to take a look at it and maybe even longer
than that because nothing's going to pass the House or Senate before
September.
So let me -- but let me give this caution. Whenever it passes,
there's so much that is going to be phased in over a long period of
time that if there's things about this that there's great public
reaction to, there will be plenty of opportunity for Congress to
change it.
Now, I'm not an advocate for doing something and then letting the
public look at it and then say, well, boy, we did the wrong thing.
Our goal is to do the right thing first. And we ought to do the right
thing first. But just in case there's something that is overlooked,
turns out to be different than what Congress intended or public
reaction even to good things we might be doing, there's going to be
some opportunity for change even before anybody's life is affected by
it.
Tom Beaumont?
QUESTION: Senator, Senator Baucus said today that the CBO report
on the Finance Committee draft was good news. How does that affect
the negotiations that are going on right now? And to what extent does
it encourage what you guys are doing?
GRASSLEY: Well, first of all, you know, most of the talk when we
originally had policy came back $1.6 trillion. And then, of course,
we had to go back and we write policy. We've rewritten policy now,
not with the intention of being under a trillion -- that's where we
were starting -- but we ended up, I think, at $800 billion. And that
figure is a ten-year figure, don't forget.
And don't forget that that's not $800 billion of all new money in
health care because a lot of that will be redistribution of money
within health care. And a lot of long-term savings as a result of
some delivery system changes that we're making.
So the extent to which that report was a good report, then it's
going to make our job of filling that hole that came as a result of
not capping the exclusion a little easier.
James Lynch?
QUESTION: Senator, hi.
I wanted to ask you about your decision to oppose the nomination
of Sotomayor.
GRASSLEY: Yes?
QUESTION: First, is there any chance you'll change your mind
before the full Senate votes? And then I wanted to ask, also, whether
this is sort of a move to appease conservatives who have been
attacking you for your work on health care? Sort of appeasing them or
throwing them a bone?
GRASSLEY: Well, you know, the fact that the two come up
together, I suppose, is quite legitimate for you to ask the questions,
but there's no relationship. I view each item separately, and I
always say the best policy is the best politics.
GRASSLEY: So my policy on judicial appointment is to be for
people for judicial restraint, to be for people that don't legislate
from the bench, to be for people that have what we call judicial
temperament leaving bias out of it. And you connect a lot of her
activities on court cases, the fact she's been overruled eight out of
10 times when her cases have gone to the Supreme Court and then
consider all of the extreme speech statements she's made in statements
-- statements and writing and speeches and even on television since
she's been on the court, and you easily come to the conclusion that
she -- that she has real potential to letting personal, political
views interfere with her decision-making as an impartial judge and
then to some extent, legislating from the bench.
So I say that even though, during the hearing, she made a big
attempt, starting with her first statement the first day about having
fidelity to the law, she tried to discount everything that was -- made
her suspect to be a judicial activist.
But I think it's kind of a case of confirmation conversion. And
so I didn't buy into it even though I'd have to confess she -- two
things -- confess two things. One, she did a good job of trying to
dispute it. And, secondly, there's no question about her
qualifications to be a judge.
And, of course, you know this is the first time in 29 years that
I voted against a presidential appointment, including voting for two
people on the Supreme Court that were appointed by a Republican -- or
I mean, by a Democratic president.
And one of the things that I was hoping that she might dispute to
a great extent is something that upset me about Souter when he was
before our committee -- she's replacing him -- and that was that he
was always talking about vacuums in the law that may be the Supreme
Court would have to fill. Well, that's a legislative function, and
they shouldn't be filling vacuums.
I bring this up with Alito and Roberts and Thomas and other
people that have been appointed to the courts. And you most often get
discussion that that's not the proper role. And I thought I might get
her to say that she's not for filling vacuums, and she didn't say she
was for filling vacuums, but she talked around it to such a great
extent that I had visions or the pit in my stomach that I had of why
did I vote for Souter. He's the only one that I -- that I made a
misjudgment out of. He turned out differently than I anticipated.
And he's the only one of the judges, Republican or Democrat, that I
voted for that I'm sorry I voted for. And so I wasn't going to make
the same mistake twice.
Mike Glover?
Jim Boyd?
Ed Tibbets?
Tim Rohwer?
QUESTION: Senator, it's Ed Tibbets, sorry. I got my phone
unmuted a little slowly. If you don't mind, I've got a couple of
questions for you.
GRASSLEY: Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: On health care. I heard you say on NPR this morning
that we're on the edge, apparently, referring to a Finance package.
But there was a memo from the majority staff director, I think, today
who disputed a Washington Post headline who said a deal was imminent.
There's substantive issues to deal with.
I guess I just wanted to find out from there, is there a deal
imminent?
GRASSLEY: Well, even Senator Baucus was upset with the headline
in the Post. And it's -- and that's very inaccurate. The story might
not be so wrong, but the headline is wrong.
Now, here's what I was trying to say, and if I didn't say --
would you tell me if you heard this on radio this morning?
QUESTION: Yes, it was on the radio.
GRASSLEY: Yes, but I mean, about the edge. But did I quantify
it by saying I didn't -- I probably didn't quantify it, but this is
what I've said similar thing that I say fully on public radio.
You could have a hundred or 200 or 300 subsets of Medicare
reform, and we've probably got 95 percent of them decided. So I say
we're on the edge of having an agreement. But I mean, I'm saying out
of the total number of things you've got to make decisions on, but the
5 percent that are left are very difficult, and I can't say that we're
on the edge of getting them decided, but we're making some progress by
inches.
And if I could tell you why being in the weeds and making
progress by inches is a very important, quantifiable thing is because
if you would take a look at the bills that are floating around the
House of Representatives and read where -- how many times they've said
that we're delegating such and such power to the secretary of HHS to
write rules, they don't know what they're talking about. They don't
know how to do what they want to do. So they're just -- just booting
the ball -- or booting it to the secretary of HHS.
We're trying to work through these things. And it takes time.
And, you know, I don't want the press in on our meetings, but I'll
tell you, my job would be a lot easier if we had press reporting on
how much detail we're going into and how many sides to an argument and
how many points brought up and how many counterpoints are brought up
and how even members thinking things through change their mind before
the debate is over.
Tom Rohwer?
QUESTION: Yes, Senator.
Getting back to Sotomayor. You mentioned -- I was reading
yesterday you commented that you had some concerns about the Second
Amendment right to bear arms. Do you think she would favor reducing
the rights of gun owners or oppose gun-related issues?
GRASSLEY: Yes, I've got reason to believe that because she was
not -- she's already ruled that way in the Second Circuit. Now,
there's two -- there's two levels of government that you've got to
consider here. The Second Amendment, within the last year, has been
ruled on by the Supreme Court to say that the individual right to own
arms is protected by the Second Amendment.
But the issue out there is could the state of Iowa outlaw arms,
outlaw guns and still not violate the Second Amendment. We say that
the Supreme Court decision carries over to the states and means that
states can't ban guns.
I'm going it take a drink of water.
And she's not willing to say that, and her Second Circuit said
that it was not a fundamental right, so consequently, the Second
Amendment didn't carry over to the states. You know, that's a
principle of lawyers of incorporation. And for more than a hundred
years, certain parts of the Bill of Rights that were originally
written only to restrict the federal government have, through the 14th
Amendment, been incorporated into restrictions on the states as well.
There's about three parts or whole Bill of Rights that are not
incorporated at this point, not considered a quote, unquote,
fundamental right. The Second Amendment is one of them. The
guarantee of a jury in civil cases, unlike criminal cases, has not
carried over to a requirement on the states. And then I think the
Eighth Amendment has not.
But everything else in the Bill of Rights, not only restricts the
federal government, but it also restricts state governments. And so
she's not willing to say that the Second Amendment right is a
fundamental right that applies to restrictions on states like it's a
restriction on the federal government.
Did I answer your question, Tim?
QUESTION: Yes.
GRASSLEY: Christinia?
QUESTION: Hi, Senator. How are you?
GRASSLEY: Very good.
QUESTION: I was just wondering if you'd heard back from FEMA yet
on the miscommunication about the buyouts and, if not, what you would
like to see them do.
GRASSLEY: Well, right now, I'd like to have them help the cities
of Iowa that need help and help them very quickly. But I think at the
50,000-foot level, we need to have the Banking Committee -- which has
jurisdiction over housing -- or Homeland Security that might do it
because of disaster -- to -- or maybe the both of them together --
look at all the red tape that's involved with the federal government
helping the people hurt by a natural disaster and see if we can't do
something to get help to the people and to the local communities
sooner than we have.
Now, I'm not on either one of those committees, so I can't be in
the middle of that. But I can sure prod them to do it.
QUESTION: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: I want you to know, though, that they have contacted
my staff to let us know that they're trying to use the data they
already have. And if they can use that data they already have, I
presume we're going to be able to get to the bottom of it sooner.
QUESTION: Thanks.
GRASSLEY: OK. I've gone through the list. Anybody have follow-
up or anybody I missed?
QUESTION: Senator, I have a couple of quick questions back on
the health care. Number one, when you're changing it around, would
you like to now allow Medicare to negotiate prices on prescription
drugs? And, two, would like to see prescription drugs, I guess, it's
patent protection, go down to seven years? In other words,
prescription drugs could go generic at seven years?
GRASSLEY: No to both, but let me give you a reason for both.
And then let me tell you what we are doing for prescription drugs.
The doughnut hole is going to be not completely filled but
considerably filled. So the doughnut hole, when we're done, will be
less of a problem, a lot less of a problem. And particularly, people
that need brand-name drugs will be able to afford brand-name drugs to
a greater extent.
So if they got brand-name drugs until they get to the doughnut
hole, then they want to go generic because they've got it pay for
everything in the doughnut hole, they'll be able to continue to take
the brand-name drugs if they want to.
And the two reasons for the other is if you go to what the VA
does, you eliminate about two-thirds of the drugs that are now in
formularies for seniors that people in the VA don't have. And then
the reason for the other going to seven years -- now, I don't want
whether anybody really proposed seven years. I think it was nine
years was the latest, and they ended up, I think, with 12 or 13 years.
But we've got to make sure that we give ample incentive for
research and development in bio in order to -- if we're going to have
new products. And because, you know, people aren't going invest in
they're going to be protected for seven years. And if that seven
years is -- includes the time they have to get approval by the FDA,
then it might be hardly anything.
Anybody else? Somebody else wanted to jump in.
QUESTION: Yes, Senator. It's Tom Beaumont.
How late did you guys go last night? And how far did you get?
GRASSLEY: I wish I had my papers in front of me. We got to the
point where Med PAC's recommendations on reducing expenditures is just
about complete. We -- let's see. Let me get back to you on that.
And I can either talk to you or have my staff get -- talk to you.
QUESTION: Can you tell me how late you went?
GRASSLEY: Oh, yes. We only went until 6:30. We went until 6:15
because we had a vote. So by the time you run over and vote and come
back -- and I guess Senator Enzi had some obligations last night. So
we were meeting at 10:00 today until noon, and then we're going back
in at 3:00 or 3:30 this afternoon.
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: Senator, it's Ed Tibbets.
I just wanted to follow up for a second. On what I was referring
to with respect to NPR earlier is you had said that we'll get it done
so we can get a bill -- you were asked will we get it done so we can
get a bill to other members by this weekend so they'll have time to
study it. And you said we're on the edge and almost there.
I guess -- do you think there will be a package by this weekend?
GRASSLEY: I think it's kind of difficult to get it there. It
isn't so much maybe getting some agreements on these things, but
getting them scored and -- and Senator Snowe and Senator Enzi are
particularly intent upon making sure that it's all in statutory
language and it's scored, and I'm going to back them up on that.
And then there is -- well, that would be -- that would be most --
oh, one other thing that Senator Baucus and I have to do before it's
made public, we have to discuss it with our caucus. So it's going to
be difficult.
QUESTION: That answers my question, thanks.
GRASSLEY: OK. Goodbye, everybody.