GRASSLEY: If the Senate votes allow, meaning if we don't have
votes tomorrow afternoon from 1:00 to 5:00, I plan to participate in
the White House health care forum. I'm going, of course, to represent
the views of Middle America. I want reform to be bipartisan, to make
things better not worse, to be affordable for the taxpayers, and to
drive down costs and drive up value and quality for every health care
consumer.
Right now, our health care system spends more per person than any
other country yet quality is inconsistent and quality may be lacking
in many areas. I also want to make sure that rural America isn't
shortchanged and left out benefits that people in Florida have. We
don't want to shut off innovation and have government rationing health
care.
We need to increase access to care and coverage for everyone.
Any reform that's signed into law needs to be developed from the
ground up, not the top down like the speaker of the House did with the
economic stimulus package.
The health care sector is a full 17 percent of the economy. The
Medicare Trust Fund faces insolvency, and there are unsustainable
rates of growth in the Medicaid problem. I'd like to achieve reform
that fixes aspects of the current system that works across purposes
and don't take advantage of new ways to save money.
I hope, by making the right changes and addressing problems in a
responsible way, we end up with a package that has no more involvement
in health care by the federal government than we have today. Health
care is personal, and the decision should be between a patient and
doctor.
Kerry Cathcart?
QUESTION: Senator, what are some changes that you see that will
be reasonable and fairly easy to implement in health care when all the
baby boomers start aging, which is coming up really soon?
GRASSLEY: Yes. Well, of course, the question that you bring up
refers just to Medicare and maybe, in some cases, Medicaid for lower
income seniors. But when we deal with the whole health care reform
issue, we're dealing with a hundred percent, not just the 40 percent
that is Medicare.
And from the standpoint of what we do with a hundred percent is
going impact very much the 40 percent. So I would say things like --
things like reimbursing on quality as opposed to quantity not only
will help rural America where we tend to be healthier and not to waste
money and to do it right the first time -- that's one way of saving
money and making the system better. Because if you do it right the
first time, it's less expensive than doing a second or third time.
Another issue where there's a little controversy about is medical
-- computerized medical records for the reason that it's got something
to do with not doing things two or three times because if you -- a
doctor at two or three different hospitals and doctors they all know
what the other one did and what the problems are and what medication
and tests you've taken so you don't have to take those tests again, et
cetera.
There's the issue of medical malpractice reform. In other words,
the compunction so sue. But I don't know that we're going to be able
to deal with that because of the makeup of the new Congress. The
legal profession in that area has a lot more power now than they ever
did before, and we weren't able to get that done even when we had a
Republican member of Congress.
But if we were to do those things, that latter one would probably
affect the downward cost of medicine by, I think, it's 5 percent.
Then another area is anything we do in preventive medicine. You know,
to keep people healthy in the first place is a lot better than getting
them well. And things of that nature are pretty common, but
everything we do in that area is going to have less cost to Medicare
and then less concern about adequate care for baby boomers.
Tom Beaumont?
QUESTION: Senator, you've got the amendment to the omnibus on
the private debt collection. Two questions here.
How likely is it, do you think, that you can get that passed?
And if it isn't adopted, does that effectively end the funding for
those jobs? Do those jobs then go away? Or is there another way to
support those jobs?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think, as a practical matter, they do. But my
staff is looking at other ways that may be it could be funding within
the department. But I'm not sure that the department would be
inclined to do it if Congress won't sit down. But there might be
other ways, but I'm not sure that I can answer that question more
specifically off of top of my head.
But we could get you together with Theresa on my staff and
she could tell you that.
I don't think it will be adopted, but I'm going try real hard
because there's a lot of jobs in Waterloo, Iowa, as an example,
involved with that. The irony of this is that we use this approach to
collect unpaid education -- college education debt. We do it with
another program even within the Department of Treasury and, of course,
this IRS program is in the Department of Treasury.
So why we decide that it's not OK here but it's OK for another
department -- for another program within the Treasury Department I
don't understand except for the power of the Treasury Employee's
Union.
GRASSLEY: Here's where I think it's intellectually dishonest for
anybody to oppose this program. And that is that there's an unwritten
rule -- and we've been told this by IRS so I don't know why it's not
written but, of course, you don't publicize this stuff. But they're
not going to go after any debt under $25,000. And the average
examiner brings in about $700,000 per person. And that's because they
go after the bigger debt being owed.
So you can hire a whole bunch more tax collectors, and they're
still not going to go after the ones under $25,000. So with all the
talk from both Republicans and Democrats -- but I'm speaking to the
Democrats on this issue -- about the tax gap, why would you write off
hundreds of -- or maybe I better say tens of thousands of people that
owe $25,000 or less, why not go after it?
And that's what we're doing here with this program. And we ought
to be -- when you're crying about the tax gap, you don't want to leave
any stone unturned.
Mike Myers?
WHO, Brad?
QUESTION: Yes, sir. A quick question for you. This weekend, on
a local TV program, Democratic Senator Matt McCoy says that he thinks
that you will not seek another term in Washington, D.C. for the Senate
but, instead, will run for the governor.
Why don't we quell that right now?
GRASSLEY: I need to inform Senator McCoy -- and he's a friend so
I don't say this in a denigrating way, he ought to keep track of the
number of fund-raisers I've had for reelection to the United States
Senate. And since the November election, I've had 12 fund-raisers.
So I wouldn't be raising money for the Senate because, under Iowa law,
you can't spend it in the race for governor.
Mary Rae Bragg?
QUESTION: Nothing this morning. Thank you, sir.
GRASSLEY: Tim Rohwer?
QUESTION: Yes, Senator. I understand that there's a bill in the
House concerning opening up trade, you know, with Cuba or lifting some
of the restrictions.
GRASSLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: What's your thoughts on that? And couldn't that help,
like, Iowa farmers?
GRASSLEY: Well, it might help Iowa farmers to some extent, but
don't forget, under existing law, we can get agricultural products in
and medical products. So -- and I've supported that aspect of it.
But I wouldn't go any further until we get political freedom in Cuba.
And I think it's ironic that this administration would be talking
about the lack of civil rights and constitutional rights for
terrorists at Guantanamo and just across the fence of the rest of
Cuba, they're willing to be unconcerned about political freedoms and
moving in the direction of getting those political freedoms and using
the economic pressure to do it.
And so that's where I stand, and I think there's an inconsistency
on the part of the administration.
Jane Norman? And thank you, Jane, very much for the nice article
you wrote about me in Iowa Politics.
QUESTION: Senator, Chairman Bernanke was before the Budget
Committee, I believe, it was the Senate Budget Committee. Is that
right?
GRASSLEY: Yes. And I was there for probably -- well, for my
round of questioning, I was there.
QUESTION: And what -- did you have a chance to digest much of
what he had to say? I guess he did defend running deficits for the
next couple of years while, at the same time, saying deficits do have
to be reined in over the long term.
Have you got any opinion about that?
GRASSLEY: Well, I would -- I would agree with him. But I'd say
it this way and I would go beyond the two years to say what Congress
needs to do and what he needs to do.
Right now, there's a big vacuum in spending because people are
saving more and because every consumer is tightening up. So for a
short period of time, two years, Congress is going to fill that
through the stimulus package.
A lot of the stimulus package, as you know, went beyond 2010, and
that's why I voted against it.
But for that two-year period of time, you know, it might do some
good. But -- and -- and we won't know until the end of the time
whether it's done any good or not. But at least we're filling a
vacuum that's not being filled by consumers generally or, you could
say, investors as well. Particularly, if you invest in business, it's
going to create jobs.
And so the question isn't about is it OK for the government to do
this now without any economic harm and maybe some economic good. But
what we have to worry about today is, in 2011, 2012, 2013, whenever
the economy gets going, then at that point, Congress, through fiscal
policy, has to cut back and the Federal Reserve, through monetary
policy -- in other words, raising interest rates to be a sponge to
suck up the excess money that's in the economy, all that has to be
done by both Congress and the Federal Reserve to make sure we don't
have rampant inflation like we had in '79, '80, and '81.
And that's a very serious concern, and it's a very tough
balancing act. But that's where we are ought to be focusing our
attention.
QUESTION: There's a lot of anxiety, of course, across the
country. The stock market was down again yesterday. The
administration is talking about quelling the cycle of fear among people that causes them to say to not spend money and be very
anxious about what's going on. So there's a psychological element to
it.
What, if anything, more do you think can be done to deal with
that?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think, you know, it sounds like a direct
relationship. And I'm not sure I can prove a direct relationship.
But three weeks ago, you have the president having his news
conference, building up prospects of what Geithner's going to say the
next day. Geithner bombs. The stock market goes down 400 percent --
400 points.
And then a week later, you know, somebody else says something.
And a week later, somebody else says something. Sometimes, it's
things that are in statistics that are put out.
But I think that every president's secretary of treasury, to some
extent, a senator like a senator a head of the one of the banking
committees said something one day about nationalization of banks and
the stock market went down.
I think we all have got to think twice before we talk. And I
haven't thought twice before I answered your question, but Chuck
Grassley probably ought to think in terms of what I say, maybe not to
you folks so much as when I'm on CNBC or something because words have
consequences.
And I think we've seen words in the last month that have had very
serious consequences, probably adding them up accounting for a
thousand point drop in the stock market.
I'm through the list. Anybody else?
QUESTION: Senator, did you have any thoughts or what are your
thoughts on the Obama letter to the Russian president regarding
missile defense systems and whether Russia will put pressure on Iran?
GRASSLEY: Well, it sounds to me like there was a sort of
unilateral disarmament -- disarming on the part of what we would
normally call a diplomatic approach and what you do through diplomacy
and through negotiation. And I don't think you should do that. I
think you want to go to the -- with the -- to the bargaining table
with your gun fully loaded.
And so it seemed to me to be probably a statement by a president
that doesn't have a lot of experience right that I think he's smart
enough to have a smart -- fast learning curve -- not making those
mistakes too often, hopefully, in the future.
OK. I'm going to take one more question and then I've got to go
to the floor.
QUESTION: Mike Myers.
GRASSLEY: Yes. Go ahead, Mike.
QUESTION: What is your sense of Max Baucus. Has he got pretty
much the ability to write this bill on health care reform from the
leadership from the White House? Compared to what happened under him on other bills when Tom Daschle was leader?
GRASSLEY: No. I don't think he's got it from any place except
just being chairman of the Finance Committee and his very dominant
role in health care. And so he gets it from the authority of being
chairman of the committee.
QUESTION: He doesn't answer to Harry Reid on this?
GRASSLEY: I don't think so. I don't think Harry Reid is going
to object himself into it. I haven't had any evidence of that at this
point. And, of course, you know I'm very concerned about it, so I'm
going to be looking for what you're asking for because the extent to
which he would interfere, it might be the extent to which we're --
we'd have a -- we'd not have a bipartisan bill.
And just with our meeting yesterday, the kind of the board of
directors, which is a Republican and Democrat on the Health Committee,
the Budget Committee, and Baucus and me, we meet every other week.
And Baucus told us what he said in a speech downtown yesterday morning
that he wants this bill to get 80 votes. That's pretty much a
bipartisan bill.
And so I take him at his word. If he's trying to get a bill with
80 votes, you know, and if it does -- and it's a good product, I don't
see any need for Reid to interfere.
And I was also -- oh, my gosh. Nancy -- there's a Nancy -- I
didn't think of -- Nancy Perle in the White House. She's going to be
the health czar since Daschle's not going to be. Oh, I remember now,
Nancy-Ann DeParle.
I think that her being in that position -- and I don't know much
about Sebelius -- but her being in that position and what I know when
she was in HICVA during the Clinton administration, very reasonable
woman, somebody I can work be, somebody I have worked with back in the
days when I was chairman of the Aging Committee.
So I look at that as a very positive step.
Say, to all of you, I've got to go now because I've got to run to
the floor to speak on this issue that Tom Beaumont asked me about.
Bye-bye.