GRASSLEY: I apologize for being late because I had some students from school for the deaf in Iowa, and interpreting takes longer than just my speaking and their speaking to me. This week, we're debating next year's budget. You probably know that March or at least the last half of March is pretty much devoted every year to the budget. Last summer, then Senator Obama said, quote, "We need a president who can face the threats of the future, not grasping the ideas of the past," end of quote. Well, today, the budget before the Senate poses real threats to America's fiscal future. I'm not going to go into detail, but I can put this on a 50-year basis if you want me to so you've got history and the projection for the future to prove what I just said. But, basically, it taxes too much, spends too much, borrows too much. Budgets are typically partisan documents, and this one sure is. By typically partisan documents, they're a blueprint for the administration that's in power and, of course, the new administration has put its imprint upon the spending which is a blueprint for the future of what it wants government to be involved in and the country to look like at the end of -- or into the future I should say. Now, going forward, Congress and the new president, in my judgment, would be better serving the public by working together on bipartisan initiatives that create jobs, reform health care, and address the fiscal insolvency facing issues like Medicare and Medicaid in a way that doesn't bankrupt the next generation. And if I could just kind of quantify bankrupting the next generation, if you take a 50-year history of the national debt as a percentage of gross national product that, over a long period of time, would be about 40 percent. Now, if that sounds like a lot, well, Japan, traditionally, has had 110, 120 percent as an example. I can't -- I think we're below what the situation would be for most of Europe. But at the end of this budget by this president, the debt will be 67 percent of gross national product. So put 27 over 40 and you can see more than a 50 percent increase in the deficit as a percentage of gross national product. And in real dollars, you can see a tripling of that debt.
Now, we're going to Kerry for the first question.
QUESTION: Thank you. Senator, will you comment on how the auto company bailouts are being handled and, particularly, what are your thoughts on the ousting of the General Motors CEO?
GRASSLEY: Well, I have mixed emotions about the ousting. For instance, I think he should go, but it gives me some qualms that the government has decided they could go. And then I have to balance that with the fact, well, yes, there's a lot of taxpayer's money in there, but don't forget I voted against that last December. Then I think the answer to your question beyond the CEO is that they have to get their house in order and just a few weeks, and if they aren't, they're going to be forced into bankruptcy. I'm glad to hear the president say that. I wish President Bush had said that. I think we should have been better off in December to let them go into what we call structured bankruptcy. And under those circumstances, I would not have been opposed to the taxpayers being involved because, by a structured bankruptcy, you don't have one judge deciding it; you have the government as a parts pant because of the tax money, you would have the stockholders, you would have the management for the stockholders, you would have bonds people, you would have the union at the table and maybe other participants as well and you decide what everybody's going to do and give in order to get this thing on a sound basis. And you'd assume that it's going to be on a sound basis because of government involvement, but it would also force that. And then you would have a bankruptcy judge just kind of certify that as opposed to having a one-person judge making a determination of what General Motors ought to look like. That would be a structured bankruptcy, and I think that's what needs to be done. And I think we would have been better off if that had been done in December, but I think that's where we're going to be in a few weeks if the new leadership at General Motors doesn't get the job done on its own.
GRASSLEY: And, obviously, Wagoner went because he didn't make enough movement from the unions as far as I can tell because, presumably, Ford has done a better job of that. Of course, Ford is not in the trouble that they're in.
Tom Beaumont?
QUESTION: Senator, you've been critical of Obama's vetting in considering Sebelius as the latest nominee with tax violations. Are we talking about, in your opinion, a question of competence on the part of the administration?
GRASSLEY: No. I think -- well, you know, I suppose there's four or five different answers to your question because we're talking about four or five different people. I think it was overpromising back in November, and the vetting process didn't square with the -- with the promising. So, from that standpoint then, I would fault the vetting process. But I think since Daschle, they've got that vetting process in a little better shape. Now, that's what my and Senator Baucus' staff are telling Senator Baucus and me; that we feel that it's a lot better. Now, you've still got a case -- I know what you're talking about -- the one we're taking up tomorrow owed $7,000. Now, in the case of -- in the case of Sebelius and before that Kirk for special trade representative, we actually feel that between their tax accountant and the taxpayer that, in both of those instances, there was good-faith effort on the part of the accountant or the lawyer that the tax that wasn't paid didn't need to be paid. But, obviously, you have a third party look at it and look at it differently and said, yes, you should have paid taxes on that. Whereas, we have a feeling in the case of Geithner and in the case of Daschle that it was just -- just not very good -- maybe the way to say it would be not very good legal advice. And so I think you'd see a difference between the last two and previous ones. Maybe in the last two, I don't think that we found them. I think the vetting process found them. Now, the vetting process found some in the case of Geithner and Daschle, but our staff also found some problems that had to go over. All that said, I still reserve judgment on her until hearings occur because that's why we have hearings. But let me say that I voted for Kirk, as you probably know. And I think the tax policy would have less with how I'm going to vote on her than the other things that might come out in the hearing. Although, who knows? There still may be some tax things come out. But I think we wouldn't be having this hearing if we didn't think the tax things were pretty well taken care of.
Mike Myers?
QUESTION: Senator Grassley, it may sound inside baseball to a lot of people, including me and some readers, but we have this matter of the budget that you raised and budget reconciliation which lends itself to the idea of what the Republicans have been saying to cut off your right to filibuster and use your minority rights. Is that going to happen? What is the -- if you can hear me, I don't know what...
GRASSLEY: Yes, I can hear you. The adoption of the budget itself is a foregone conclusion.
QUESTION: Yes.
GRASSLEY: That can't be filibustered. Now then does the budget provide for reconciliation or not? The Senate will not provide for it, but the House will. And there's a feeling that the Senate Democrats really want reconciliation, so in a sense, the House Democrats including reconciliation in there, they're really a stocking horse for the Democrat leadership of the Senate that wants reconciliation but they've got some differences of opinion within their own caucus so that gives them an out. But you know that on health care reform last week, Reid was really pushing for reconciliation. So, obviously, that is not going to be an opportunity for minority rights.
QUESTION: So looking down the line, are you going to have a voice in this? I mean, Max Baucus seemed to be -- one day he's on your side on this, but then he's being quoted as saying, well, I haven't taken it off the table. Who is he allied with? His Democratic leadership? Or the Senate Finance Committee?
GRASSLEY: Well, first of all, if there is...
QUESTION: I cannot hear you, Senator.
GRASSLEY: OK. If there is a reconciliation, neither Max Baucus or I will be at that table that makes that decision. That's going to be made by the conference the budget committees, and Baucus isn't on it. I'm on that committee, but you know that it's going to be a partisan conference, so I'm not going to be invited to the conference.
Mike Glover? Jim Boyd? Mary Rae Bragg?
QUESTION: Nothing this morning. Thank you, sir.
GRASSLEY: Ed Tibbets?
QUESTION: Senator, I just wanted to clarify. Is it fair to say that from what you know now about the Sebelius tax matter that that wouldn't disqualify her from the job as far as you're concerned?
GRASSLEY: No. No, you're right when you said that.
QUESTION: OK. Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Yes. Unless something else would come up, I could vote against her on policy, but we -- I've had -- I met with her in the office but it was more of a get acquainted session. So, really, policy is going to come out in the Q&A that we have with her.
Tim Rohwer? Bret Hayworth?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator. As -- a little bit more follow-up with Sebelius.
GRASSLEY: Yes?
QUESTION: As Obama goes about filling his Cabinet, for the most part, do you think he's offering up people with moderate views that a host of senators from both sides can agree on? Or do you think they're skewing too much to the left?
GRASSLEY: Skewing very much to the left.
QUESTION: OK.
GRASSLEY: Let's see if I can go through them a little bit. Obviously, I throw Gates out because he's defense, and he's served both presidents. But Clinton is, obviously, very liberal but maybe kind of practical on foreign policy. In the attorney general's office and all the assistant attorney generals, very, very far to the left. And in the case of Sebelius, I don't know where she is on, you know, the spending policies of Medicare and Medicaid so much, but there's no doubt that she's very liberal on social issues and, to some extent, they're going to have -- she's going to have some impact on some things like abortion with the decisions she makes. In the case of Solis, there's no doubt that when you want to repeal right-to-work laws and have card check, that on labor issues, she's very, very liberal.
GRASSLEY: I think the special trade representatives, deep down in his heart, is very much a free trader. And as long as he's not a protectionist, you know, although his party is protectionist and the president tends to be protectionist right now, I think he's going to -- he at least has his heart in the right place. Lisa Jackson heading EPA, very, very liberal. You know, I mean, I've always talked about the bureaucrats in EPA that don't know anything about farming, what planet do they come from when they issue all these regulations, fugitive dust, et cetera. And Lisa Jackson backing up that radical bureaucracy may be the most harmful thing to recovery and to the growth of our economy in the future as an example of how extreme they are. And I don't know whether -- maybe I better ask you what appointees would you like to have me comment on...
QUESTION: No, no.
GRASSLEY: ... that I haven't.
QUESTION: That's a good synopsis. I appreciate that. I guess, as a follow-up, you know, that's certainly the prerequisite for the current administration to put up whoever they want, but do you have -- are you hearing much from Iowans that they feel like these Cabinet appointees are out of touch or do you hear much from your constituents on that?
GRASSLEY: Yes. I think -- but I think most of it's limited to the people that have been appointed to the top and lesser positions within the Justice Department than any other agency as far as I know. I don't even think in the case of Solis with labor or in the case of Lisa Jackson, EPA, that we've gotten a lot of calls. But for people going into the Justice Department, just a tremendous outpouring of opposition. Now, I don't want to mislead you when I say "tremendous." You know, the people that called, it doesn't hold a candle to the people that called in against the stimulus bill. We had 5,000 calls.
QUESTION: OK.
GRASSLEY: So we're not talking about thousands, but we're talking about a few hundred that would could in against some of these people to be attorney general...
QUESTION: OK.
GRASSLEY: ... and in that department.
QUESTION: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Let's see. Now, that's the list. I've called off everybody that we think we had on. Anybody else? Or anybody have follow-ups?
QUESTION: This is Christinia from the Hawkeye.
GRASSLEY: Sorry we missed you.
QUESTION: Sorry, I got on a couple seconds late. I actually was just curious to get your thoughts on yesterday's six-month update on TARP and then, as a follow-up, just when and if we'll see any policy to ensure something like this doesn't happen again, that we don't have to go through this again.
GRASSLEY: Well, I'm glad to give it and I wish I had more questions like that because I think that this TARP money, you know, you're talking about trillions of dollars between what we appropriate and what the Fed has thrown into this. And I don't mean that awful that's thrown away, so I hope you don't write that it's gone forever because a lot of it is into the banks and what the Federal Reserve does loaning money, a lot of it will be paid back. But there's, obviously, going to be some leakage and maybe a lot of leakage, we just don't know yet. But I would say that the three people that we had at the table are all very qualified to do all the oversight that needs to be done to make sure that the taxpayer's money is spent in a legal way and, also, in a well-managed way. But what came out of our hearing yesterday was each of them are having a tremendous problem getting the executive branch of government to cooperate with them in getting the information that they want. And I'll just give you one example of the special inspector general for TARP. When he was -- he wasn't sworn in until just before Christmas and then it took him forever to get staffed up and he's probably not completely staffed up. But he just wanted to send a letter to all the banks that had gotten TARP money. And that would be not just the nine big banks that got half the money; it would be all the banks. You know, 300 or 400 banks that got some help. And the executive branch, even after the president promised that he was going to make sure that this money was well guarded and well protected and well spent, they said, well, you know, we can't approve that letter going out. He was writing a letter to the banks; what did you do with the money? And they were going to impose a Paperwork Reduction Act procedure you'd have to go through. He still wouldn't have that letter out. I had to intervene for him to get that letter out. And so that's just one example. Now, by the way, once the letter got out, after a period of time, he got most of the responses back, maybe all the responses. And it seems like -- and it seems like they're really telling him what he needs to know. But that sort of situation... So bottom line, what I'm leading -- what I was trying to say with that example is that all three of our witnesses told us how difficult it is to get answers to their questions and get the cooperation of the agencies involved. And so why isn't the president weighing in and saying, you stupid people that are in my Cabinet, give them the information they want. I ran on a campaign of transparency, and by golly, we're going to make sure that we're transparent. But I don't hear that from the president. You do hear him say that he's going to make sure that the money is well spent. Well, then why -- why are our overseers, inspectors generals, et cetera, having trouble getting the money? Or I mean, getting the information.
OK. Now, that was Christinia. Anybody else?
QUESTION: Senator, what hopes that will president will accomplish over at the G-20 summit?
GRASSLEY: Well, I hope he understands that the United States isn't going bail out the whole world; that we're going to do our share but not more than our share. And I hope he doesn't get us into a point of the regulation that Europe wants to impose on the United States. I don't think he will. But you might as well have the government running everything the way they -- they're proposing that we have worldwide regulation of financial institutions. I'm for total transparency, and I think transparency takes care of everything. If we know what's out there, I think it goes a long ways towards solving our problems and making sure that -- that the mistakes of the last four or five years aren't repeated.
OK. Anybody else?
QUESTION: Senator, Tom Beaumont.
GRASSLEY: Sure.
QUESTION: Can you explain what seem to be the media's fascination with the words that you use?
GRASSLEY: Oh, my gosh. I guess there's three examples out there. Which one are you interested in me commenting on?
QUESTION: Well, they've kind of collected now, and so I'm interested in you talking about them in general but, you know, I'll take whatever you've got.
GRASSLEY: Well, let's take the one about Senator Conrad's wife. Three hours before I made that statement, I was -- she invited me to talk about health care reform to a conference that she was chairman of. And she give a glowing introduction of me. And I -- you know, when you get those glowing introductions from a Democrat's wife, you wish you'd tape recorded them and run them as a commercial in my 2010 reelection. I didn't record it. But anyway, they were glowing. So I -- I'm offering this amendment that Conrad, over the last three years, always hoped I wouldn't offer. In fact, I reminded him that I wanted his support now because he praised me two years ago for being such a statesman because I didn't force a vote on my amendment at that time and he -- and he pleaded with me not to do it because he said that if I did do it, his budget would go down. And so I didn't -- I didn't do -- I didn't ask for a vote. And so his Democrat caucus was not split, so he had enough votes to pass his budget. And I think a Congress with a budget is better than a Congress without a budget even if it's not the budget I would have written. So I go ahead and offer this same amendment and I reminded him how he said I was such a statesman for doing it and wouldn't he -- wouldn't he please support my amendment. In other words, the inference was he owed it to me. And then he says -- didn't he say something on television like, oh, you are good? You know what I mean? Like I'm cute making a nice remark about reminding him about the nice things he said about me two years ago. And I said your wife said the same thing about me just a few hours ago. And then that's all you ever hear. He goes on to explain that his wife had introduced me and all that, but I guess you didn't see that on television. So, as the guy on the radio would so, so you've heard the rest of the story. Who was that guy? He just died?
QUESTION: Paul Harvey.
GRASSLEY: Paul Harvey. So you've heard the rest of the story.
Is there any follow-ups you need?
QUESTION: No. It just seems like your quotes are showing up in lots of different contexts, and I was wondering what your opinion was of the fascination with your comments.
GRASSLEY: The opinion is that it's much to do about nothing. I mean, what do people think? Chuck Grassley is different in 2009 than I was December 30, 2008? I got bit by a bug or something? You know, this is -- you know what, Tom? You need to come out here and work for the Register out here because you'll find out that this place is not the real world. I mean, this is Disneyland on the Potomac.
(LAUGHTER)
This place thinks that Washington, D.C. takes up the map of the United States from the Atlantic Ocean all the way over to the Mississippi River; that that's D.C. The rest of the 50 states are crammed into the one half of the country. That's how important they think they are out here. And, you know, that business about suicide, I think you understand that, so I don't have to explain that, but do you realize that I said that in a news conference or at least in some environment way back on October 1, 2008. And I...
QUESTION: You said it on your weekly press call with us.
GRASSLEY: Oh, was that where it was?
QUESTION: Yes.
GRASSLEY: Well, anyway, I said a news conference. I guess we're having a news conference. October 1, 2008 -- well, it didn't -- it didn't -- you guys didn't -- well, you know, you -- you reacted normally to it. You knew what I was trying to do. And I repeated it on the floor of the United States Senate in some debate during October or November. And I've said it several times since, and I'll bet I've said it to you a few times since. And then I'm interviewed by WMT and it goes all over the world. You know, I'm not a stockholder in WMT, so I didn't say it then to, you know, to enhance my retirement. So, you know, I can't explain Washington, D.C. to you. Come out here and learn for yourself.
QUESTION: Thanks.
GRASSLEY: OK.
QUESTION: Follow-up?
GRASSLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: You talk about reactions, what did -- what was the reaction of Barbara Grassley with the matter of Conrad and...
GRASSLEY: Well, my grandson and I was talking about it last night because he has this capability on some little thing he carries around in his pocket getting YouTube. I could probably get it, too, but I don't know how to get it. Anyway, he and I were talking about it and Barbara was sitting there on the couch. We were watching the basketball game last night. And I said don't you know about the exchange that Conrad and I had, and she said no. So I -- well, he -- my grandson let Barbara listen to it on his little iPhone.
QUESTION: And the reaction?
GRASSLEY: So it didn't bother her. You know, what do you expect out of somebody that's been married to me for 55 years, you know? Don't you think they'd kind of know who Chuck Grassley is?
QUESTION: What was the name of the grandson, please?
GRASSLEY: I think I better leave my grandson have some anonymity. Thank you all very much. Goodbye.